Working Paper 04-01
Non-Central City Expressway Park-n-Ride Lot Preliminary Site Location Analysis for Northeastern Illinois
By Arthur C. Nicholas, APA Transportation Planner
February, 2004
Chicago Area Transportation Study 300 W. Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606
Working Paper 04-01
Non-Central City Expressway Park-n-Ride Lot Preliminary Site Location Analysis For Northeastern Illinois
By Arthur C. Nicholas, APA Transportation Planner
February, 2004
Chicago Area Transportation Study 300 W. Adams Street Chicago, Illinois 60606
Abstract
The 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identified the need to study the potential to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) traffic through the provision of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) priority systems that support voluntary mode changes from SOV to HOV, such as carpool, vanpool and transit. This paper defines the potential to locate Park-n- Ride/Park-n-Pool (P-n-R) lots along the major expressway corridors outside the central section of the region. This is an area where suburb-to-suburb and reverse commuting to jobs is prevalent. This report builds on two previous efforts. CATS Working Paper 02-02 (WP 02-02), Non Central City Expressway Park-n-Ride Lot Demand Estimation for Northeastern Illinois, describes phase 1 of the P-n-R lot study, which determined the demand for P-n-R lot spaces at expressway interchanges. This paper, like WP 02-02, relies on the demand analysis and location studies utilized in CATS Working Paper 01-14 (WP 01-14), Park & Ride Lot Demand and Location Survey for the HOV Ramp South Study Area-Milestone #2 Series.
This study determined that there are 83 locations where P-n-R lot development would be feasible. The demand for P-n-R lots (WP 02-02) was determined to be 4,199 spaces in 2002 and was projected to be 4995 spaces in 2020 — making current demand about 81% of the long-term need.
An analysis of the 83 potential locations determined that:
1. 94% (3,401) of the needed spaces could be accommodated on existing right-of-way (ROW), making land acquisition unnecessary.
Two other options for developing P-n-R lots were evaluated. These were: Compatible Use locations, wherein zero- or very-low-cost usage agreements would be negotiated with existing parking lots; and Joint Development, where the implementing agency would purchase the land and lease it back at a discount in return for private development and maintenance of the P-n-R lot. Both of these approaches assume that the P-n-R lot would be part of a commercial development.
2. 54% (1,970) of the needed spaces could be accommodated on an existing parking lot in a compatible use arrangement with existing commercial development.
3. 23% (847) of the needed spaces could be developed through joint development.
The need for facilities of this type is validated by the changing travel dynamics of the northeastern Illinois area. The suburban portion of the region is anticipated to have 70.3% of the region’s population by 2030, and 72.9% of its employment. The majority of these households and trips cannot be served by conventional fixed route transit (bus or rail). Thus, by implementing a P-n-R lot program, demand for expressway travel can be reduced by encouraging HOV travel through the provision of a facility that demonstrates to the public that carpool, vanpool and possibly bus rapid transit alternates are being supported.
I Table of Contents
Abstract...... I
List of Tables ...... II
List of Figures...... II
Introduction...... 1
Study Background ...... 2
Study Purpose ...... 4
Park-n-Ride Lot Demand...... 4
Study Approach ...... 5
Site Rating...... 10
Alternative Development Strategies...... 10
Maintenance ...... 12
Signage ...... 12
Park-n-Ride Lot Siting Program...... 12
Conclusions and Recommendations...... 13
Next Step...... 13
Appendix A...... i
Appendix B ...... v
Appendix C...... x
Appendix D...... xi
II List of Tables
Table 1. Regional population and employment ...... 1
Table 2. Traffic congestion growth for northeastern Illinois...... 3
Table 3. Travel change by mode, 1990-2000 ...... 4
Table 4. Expressway Park-n-Ride lot demand...... 5
Table 5. Pace Park-n-Ride lots adjacent to expressway interchanges ...... 10
Table 6. Available land-type by corridor...... 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. Potential Park-n-Ride lot expressway location map...... 6
Figure 2. Typical field survey sheet...... 7
Figure 3. Field survey sheet criteria...... 8
Figure 4. Typical aerial survey sheet ...... 9
III Introduction
The 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) directed the study of a coordinated system of Park-n-Ride lots serving suburb-to-suburb and reverse commuters, and encouraged the integration of these facilities into plans for roadway reconstruction and capacity enhancing projects. While P-n-R lots do not directly reduce travel time, they provide a facility viewed as necessary for increasing Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) of light vehicles on the regions’ expressway system.
This working paper is the second of a two-part study to assess the demand for P-n-R lots at non-central expressway interchanges. CATS Working Paper 02-02 initiated the study by determining the demand for P-n-R lots. The objective of these studies is provide evidence of the need for lots to meet suburb-to-suburb and reverse commuting needs by carpool, vanpool and express bus. Therefore, neither the demand analysis nor this site analysis focused on the central portion of the northeastern Illinois region. (See Figure 1.) The forecasts of population and employment that were used to guide the development of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan predict the continued growth of employment opportunities within the suburban area of northeastern Illinois.
The regional forecast of population and employment in Table 1 illustrates employment trends in the suburban areas of the northeastern Illinois region. Projections indicate that 70% of the region’s population and almost 73% of the region’s employment opportunities will be located outside the City of Chicago; this underscores the need to reduce reliance upon single-occupancy vehicle (travel) in the region. While Chicago is well-served by the CTA, and is a destination for all suburban Metra commuter rail service, suburban areas of northeastern Illinois are developed with lower intensity land-use and with a pattern of roadways that does not support bus service on a dense street grid. In addition, the suburbs are defined by a number of large employment centers that attract their labor forces from widely dispersed communities. Park-n-Ride lots are intended to serve just such a workforce. Expressways, as part of this landscape, serve the same function as rail lines. They are the line haul element equivalent of a transit line. P-n-R lots at expressway interchanges are the equivalent of rail commuter parking lots.
Table 1
Preliminary population and employment for 2000 and 2030 Area 2000 %of Total 2030 %of Total Population Chicago 2849512 35.7% 2888738 29.7% Suburban 5133783 64.3% 6824410 70.3% Total Population 7983295 9713148 Employment Chicago 1356131 31.1% 1517912 27.1% Suburban 3001480 68.9% 4076271 72.9% Total Employment 4357611 5594183 Source: Northeastern Illinois Plan Commission Placing P-n-R lots at expressway interchanges is common practice. These lots are intended to encourage individuals to leave their single-occupancy vehicles at common lots and carpool, vanpool or take transit to common destinations, thus increasing the average vehicle occupancy rate of the adjacent expressway. Northeastern Illinois currently has one expressway interchange P-n-R lot; it is located on US Rt. 30 at Interstate 55.
It is hoped that the two regional expressway operators (the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority) will consider both the current demand and the location opportunities presented herein, and initiate a program of P-n-R lot development. This activity would have the additional benefit of creating favorable conditions for Pace Bus to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems in conjunction with expressway operations.
The need to increase AVO rates is especially important where expressway right-of-way is constrained, thus increasing the cost of implementing add-lanes-capacity expressway projects. Benefits of HOV travel include reduced travel time and lower travel costs. Moreover, these facilities contribute to improved expressway area management and air quality when used in combination with on-ramp meters and HOV bypass lanes.
The current ramp HOV study has shown that when P-n-R lots are provided in conjunction with ramp metering and separate HOV bypass lanes on expressway on-ramps, expressway bottleneck conditions are reduced, air quality improves, effective life of capacity increases and safety project investments operate more effectively. (A Survey & Planning Evaluation of Priority HOV Queue Bypass Lanes on Metered Expressway Entrance Ramps: Milestone Report #3 Draft Summary Recommendations for the South Study Area: Dan Ryan (South of the 71st Bottleneck) to the Bishop Ford/IL 394 and I-57. Chicago: CATS.)
Study Background
The northeastern Illinois expressway system tends to have severe traffic congestion along many of its segments during the AM and PM peak periods. Furthermore, traffic on expressway on- ramps backs up at major arterial interchanges where vehicles enter the expressways. The impact of these phenomena was examined in the regional expressway screening for the ramp HOV study under both current and projected future conditions. (See Milestone Report #2, Regional Expressway Screening.)
These factors led to lower vehicle operating speed and reduced person throughput on the entire system. Vehicle operating speeds were found to drop below 30 mph for periods in excess of 30 minutes during the peak driving period. This clearly indicates that transportation system and demand management approaches should be given serious consideration — particularly those involving strategies for increasing AVO, such as P-n-R lots.
Ramp HOV Milestone Report #1, State of the Practice notes that ramp metering facilities and other TSM/TDM strategies should not be planned and developed as freestanding improvements because the performance of individual improvements is enhanced when planned and implemented in conjunction with other strategies — for example, creating P-n-R lots as part of an overall effort to encourage HOV travel by carpool, vanpool and transit commuters. Facilities that support a mode change from driving alone to HOV are critical because the operating conditions of the region’s roadways and expressways are likely to decline even with the anticipated level of investment in systems.
Table 2 forecasts the expected increase in traffic congestion during the AM peak travel period between 2000 and 2020. The congestion reflected in the table is anticipated to occur after all capital projects designed to improve the transit and highway systems referenced in the 2020 RTP are developed. During the 7-9 a.m. period in 2003, 82% of all vehicle miles of travel were in congested conditions; that figure is expected to jump to 86% by 2020. As this level of congestion
2 reaches capacity levels, it will spread to the later 9-10 a.m. period. The percentage of congested vehicle miles traveled is expected to grow by 218% in that time slot.
Table 2
Traffic congestion growth in the AM period for the six-county northeastern Illinois region, 2000 to 2020
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Hours of Year Day 2000 2020 Growth in VMT Total VMT 20 to 2020 6 to 7 a.m. 7,144,142 9,125,666 28% 7 to 9 a.m. 26,226,870 33,379,343 27% 9 to 10 a.m. 9,775,302 12,495,025 28% Sum 43,146,314 55,000,034 27%
Growth in Congested VMT Congested VMT 20 to 2020 6 to 7 a.m. 317,464 609,842 92% 7 to 9 a.m. 21,485,002 28,639,090 33% 9 to 10 a.m. 500,668 1,592,708 218% Sum 22,303,134 30,841,640 38%
Congested VMT as a % of Total VMT Change 2000-2020 6 to 7 a.m. 4% 7% 50% 7 to 9 a.m. 82% 86% 5% 9 to 10 a.m. 5% 13% 149% Sum 52% 56% 139%
Prepared By: CATS Transportation Management Division, 7/1/02
Table 3 provides a comparison of ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling) versus other modes of travel during the period from 1990 to 2000. While it is obvious that single-occupancy work trip travel is increasing both absolutely and mode-sharewise, carpooling has been absolutely stable, suffering only a relatively small loss of about 4,600 workday trips.
3 Table 3
Travel change by mode 1990 to 2000
Geographic Area % Work Trip Change is Travel Mode SOV Transit HOV Bike/Walk Work at Home Other
6 County Area +11.4 -7.9 -1.1 -13.2 +47.8 +24.8 Cook Co. +4.0 -11.1 -3.5 -10.9 +39.5 +4.5 DuPage Co. +10.8 -7.0 -1.4 +1.5 +49.9 +21.7 Kane Co. +23.4 +18.8 +11.7 -7.8 +69.5 +80.2 Lake Co. +20.6 +27.1 +6.4 -41.5 +57.7 +123.9 McHenry Co. +43.2 +25.9 +15.0 -6.8 +52.2 +77.6 Will Co. +46.7 +51.4 +3.9 -3.6 +90.3 +52.8 Source: US Census
The majority of the decline in carpooling and vanpooling occurred in Cook County. This decline was almost offset by the growth in ridesharing in four of the five collar counties — Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will. The collar counties, with the exception of DuPage County, comprise the majority of locations examined for P-n-R demand and site review in this study. In 2000, 412,278 of the region’s 3,725,982 daily work trips (11.2%) were rideshare arrangements, compared with 11.9%, or 416,881 daily work trips in 1990. Transit trips constitute only one percent more of work trips than ridesharing. In the five collar counties, carpooling and vanpooling accounted for 8.9% of daily work trips, or 121,342 trips.
Study Purpose The non-central portion of the northeastern Illinois area is being evaluated for the potential placement of expressway P-n-R lots. In addition, the feasibility of combining ramp-metering at expressway on-ramps with high occupancy vehicle by-pass lanes is being studied. These facilities, when combined with an adjacent P-n-R lot, provide both a location for meeting up with ridesharing partners and a time savings over general traffic.
Park-n-Ride Lot Demand The estimation of the demand for P-n-R lots involved both raw traffic volume for design periods 2000, 2007 and 2020, and field evaluation of the feasibility of constructing or locating a lot nearby if demand warranted it. This paper is the second of two working papers that examine the demand for P-n-R lots in the project study area; the first paper on the subject, CATS Working Paper 02-02, Non Central City Expressway Park-n-Ride Lot Demand Estimation for Northeastern Illinois, examined the demand for P-n-R lots in the project study area. Table 4 provides a comparison of 2002 demand and anticipated 2020 demand for spaces in P-n-R lots located along expressways.
4
Table 4
Expressway Park-n-Ride lot demand (in spaces) Demand Location 2002 2020 % Change
I-94, Montrose Ave. to Russell Rd. 690 761 10.2 I-294, Lake Cook Road to IL Rt. 1 538 611 13.6 I-90, Lee Street to IL Rt. 47 349 420 20.3 IL Rt. 53, Lake-Cook Road to IL Rt. 19 267 310 16.1 I-290, IL Rt. 72 to 25th Ave. 337 384 13.9 I-355, US Rt. 20 to Boughton Rd. 374 497 32.9 I-55, US Rt. 6 to IL. Rt. 43 406 503 23.9 I-88, York Rd. to IL Rt. 47 415 485 16.9 I-80, Kedzie Ave. to Houbolt Rd. 240 322 34.2% Sum 3616 4293 18.7% (2007)* Ramp HOV South Study Area 583 702 20.4 Regional Total 4199 4995 19.0%
* 2007 was the design year for the Ramp HOV South Study Area project. It is estimated that the corridor has the potential demand for more than this amount, but there is available land for only about 600 spaces.
The 4,199 spaces needed to meet 2002 demand is considered current need; it equates to about 81% of the 2020 demand of 4,995 spaces. The level of current demand indicates that these facilities, if constructed over the next five years, would likely be capable of meeting the needs of the commuting public.
Study Approach The site study examined arterial/expressway interchanges as potential P-n-R lot locations. Figure 1 delineates expressway interchanges where P-n-R lot field observations were made. At this level of project development, only visually observable site features were considered in identifying potential sites for development. Conducting the observation in the field provides a more accurate, thorough and comprehensive perspective on the characteristics of the surrounding terrain/land-use than can be obtained by reviewing aerial photographs. A field survey sheet (a sample of which is illustrated in Figure 2) and an aerial photo (See Figure 4), were prepared and filled out for each interchange area. Figure 3 summarizes the criteria used by field reviewers in evaluating each interchange area.
5
Figure 1
Potential Park-n-Ride lot expressway location map
6
Potential Park and Ride Lot Location Desired Features Field Sheet
Location:
1. Is there a full interchange? Yes No
2. Is this location oriented to easy on/off peak flow direction? Yes No
3. Is land available? In the state right-of-way On an arterial within ¼ mile of the expressway By a commercial area
4. Is the site visible? In advance from the freeway In advance from the arterial
5. Is the site location on level ground, contoured ground or steep ground?
6. How many spaces will be available? 50 Sp. 51-125 Sp. 126-300 Sp.
7. Is the site transit accessible? From From From Freeway Arterial and Collector Arterial
8. Is the site visible from surrounding areas for security? Yes No
9. Is it easy to get in and out from freeway? From arterial? From collector?
10. Is there any traffic control to the site? Yes or No What type? Traffic Signal Stop sign
Figure 2
Typical field survey sheet
Field observations were made in October 2002. Sites were evaluated using 10 field criteria to determine the level of development opportunity present. Figure 3 explains how the reviewer implemented each criteria.
7
Figure 3
Evaluation criteria
Criteria Number
1. An existing full interchange-- Would provide access to and from the origination and destination points of participating carpoolers. This would eliminate the need to use a different interchange and additional local network roads to return to the Park-n-Ride lot on the return trip, thereby making lot use more desirable.
2. On-ramps oriented to the peak inbound side of the mainline were preferred-- This would produce the highest efficacy in reducing peak-hour mainline congestion by allowing carpooling vehicles to enter from an HOV ramp or, when possible, straight onto the ramp from the lot.
3. Land availability (the size, configuration and the current use of the property)-- This information was used to determine if and where land would be available at a given interchange. The observed land was listed as either being in the state’s right-of-way, private lots (existing) that might be rented or open land that the state would have to purchase.
4. Site visibility from the arterial/freeway-- Would provide an added incentive to use the facility [i.e. "build it and they will come (if they can see it)"].
5. Egress and the lack of traffic constraints on entrance/exit points-- Will enhance the usability of the lot by providing ease of entering and exiting without becoming entrenched in local traffic congestion or contributing to its detriment.
6. Access point arterial, freeway or collector-- Describes points from which the Park-n-Ride lot could be entered.
7. Transit availability-- Describes whether transit to the proposed Park-n-Ride lot exists or is close enough to service the site.
8. Security through public visibility-- Describes the level of passersby traffic (pedestrians, vehicle travelers, workers and visitors to local shops and offices) that could deter crime in a Park-n-Ride lot. Lots could be isolated, visible or highly visible.
9. Adequate space to install the required number of parking spaces-- A determination of whether adequate space is available to install the desired number of spaces.
10. Space analysis for the largest potential lot that could be placed there-- Informs the analyst of how many spaces could possibly be placed by each interchange lot.
Appendix A contains Tables by Expressway listing results of the field criteria.
After the initial field observation and summary rating was developed, a final review of the interchange aerial photo was conducted prior to finalizing each site rating.
8 Figure 4
Typical aerial survey sheet
9 Site Rating
Each of the 10 rating factors was assigned a maximum value of one point. A factor was awarded a point when it was considered favorable to the placement of a P-n-R lot at a particular interchange, with the exception of land availability. No points were given when criteria was found to be unfavorable. The land availability criteria was examined separately due to the land- cost factor, which could range from zero in state ROW to fair market value on privately owned undeveloped land. Under this system, an ideal location would score a “9”, which is the maximum point value that could be obtained. Appendix B contains tables that provide a description of each site evaluated and the number of points each was allocated.
At some interchanges, no state right-of-way, open land or compatible private parking lots that could serve the needs of a P-n-R lot were available. In these cases, P-n-R lot demand would have to be accommodated at the next inbound expressway interchange, or the demand would have to be met at a lot located upstream or downstream from the interchange.
Each location identified as a potential P-n-R lot is illustrated in solid white on aerials in Appendix C. Favorable locations scored an 8 or 9 in the point system previously described.
The locations of existing Pace park-and-ride facilities are identified in order to determine their proximity to any potential P-n-R lot for the purpose of coordinating their usage. Five Pace locations were found to be located in close proximity to favorable potential P-n-R lot sites. These locations are described in Table 5.
Table 5
Pace Park-n-Ride lots adjacent to expressway interchanges
I-55 @ Illinois Route 53 in Bolingbrook, 148 spaces where 41 are needed I-55 @ County Line Road in Burr Ridge, 81 spaces where 32 are needed I-90 @ Arlington Heights Road in Elk Grove 41 spaces where 42 are needed I-290 @ Hillside Mall in Hillside 79 spaces where 40 are needed I-290 @ Illinois Route 72 (on Martingale Road) 122 spaces where 46 are needed
The 201 estimated demand spaces located within existing Pace park-and-ride facilities were deducted from the total demand.
Alternative Development Strategies
Where state right-of-way does not exist, alternative means for developing P-n-R lots were considered. Two such alternative means for developing these facilities were examined and utilized to determine whether locating P-n-R lots at selected sites was feasible.
Existing Compatible Uses
The compatible use approach identifies whether a site already being used for a particular purpose would benefit from accommodating P-n-R users. In the compatible use approach, an existing commercial facility with excess and available parking is approached to be the sponsor of a P-n- R lot. Commercial users located near an expressway entrance might be interested in participating 10 in such an effort because the spillover use effect of vehicles dropping off and picking up riders on their site could lead to an increase in their volume of business. Commercial enterprises likely to benefit most from such an arrangement are those that allow for discretionary shopping, including: Food stores Drug stores Variety stores Home building centers Shopping plazas
The benefit of this strategy is that it provides the potential to reduce the cost to build and maintain a P-n-R lot. Under this scenario, the commercial enterprise maintains the P-n-R lot, thus eliminating the need for public maintenance.
In evaluating potential compatible use arrangements, sites along the crossing arterial with an easy right turn onto the expressway on-ramp are considered prime locations. Businesses that operate on an extended or 24-hour schedule are good candidates for these arrangements because of their convenience, and because they tend to be relatively well lit.
Joint Development
Joint commercial/public development can reduce the costs of building and/or maintaining a P-n- R lot. Using this approach, a private commercial developer would develop and maintain a portion of its business lot for P-n-R purposes in return for a beneficial lease arrangement. Prime locations for joint development of P-n-R facilities are crossing arterial roadways adjacent to an expressway on-ramp. Commercial businesses that would logically benefit from joint development include: Fast food restaurants/doughnut shops Oil-change/car washes Coffee shops/newspaper stands Day-care centers Gas station/mini-marts The ideal scenario would involve a leaseback arrangement with businesses that are open on a 24- hour basis. The convenience and security of such an arrangement would serve as an incentive to ridesharers. The operating agency would purchase the needed property for either resale or lease. Under the lease or sales agreement, either the commercial developer or the agency would build a P-n-R lot to design specifications and provide maintenance and lighting based on agreed upon terms. Simply put, the facility would appear to be like any other commercial establishment, but with extra parking space identified for P-n-R use.
While this would be a new approach for the region’s highway agencies, the concept has been successfully implemented by other transportation agencies in northeastern Illinois. Metra has utilized joint development for a number of station development projects — for example, the Lake-Cook Road and Geneva stations.
This alternative financial strategy has the potential to be economically beneficial to the developing agency, the private sector and the commuting public. Commercial property would be bought by the agency and leased back at a reduced rate to private enterprise. The private partner would provide maintenance, lighting and security. The benefit to the agency budget is that, after
11 the initial purchase, a revenue flow could be established to both retire the purchase price and assist in further development of HOV supportive facilities.
Both the compatible use and joint development approaches allow a P-n-R lot to be developed in areas where no existing right-of-way is available.
Maintenance
Appendix D details the discussions of P-n-R lot maintenance that were part of the South Study Area of the regional ramp HOV study. These examples could be used as guidelines for evaluating maintenance considerations at proposed P-n-R lot sites.
Signage
Signage on the expressway and arterial roads would announce the P-n-R lot at exits. Standard roadway signs could be modified to identify commercial usage areas when P-n-R lots are located.
Park-n-Ride Lot Siting Program
The actual siting of a P-n-R lot requires that site and engineering analysis be performed, and must be coordinated with local government authorities. The sites identified herein are preliminary to this level of design and coordination, which is well beyond the scope of this study. The objective of the study was achieved when it was determined that current and/or future demand could be met in one of three ways — through right-of-way, or through compatible use or joint development arrangements. Table 6 delineates the percentage of current demand that can be met by each of three development approaches.
Table 6
Total possible types of available land space to meet Park-n-Ride lot demand by corridor
Corridor Demand State Right or Way Compatible Use Joint Development Outside the state ROW Interstate-94 690 or 100% 111 or 16% 395 or 57% 255 or 37% Interstate-294 538 or 100% 500 or 93% 495 or 92% 182 or 34% Interstate-90 349 or 100% 300 or 86% 250 or 72% 50 or 14% Illinois Route 53 267 or 100% 400 or over 100% 0 or 0% 0 or 0% Interstate-290 337 or 100% 340 or over 100% 125 0r 37% 0 or 0% Interstate-355 374 or 100% 325 or 87% 100 or 27% 100 or 27% Interstate-55 406 or 100% 700 or over 100% 290 or 71% 50 or 12% Interstate-88 415 or 100% 425 or over 100% 250 0r 60% 50 or 12% Interstate-80 240 or 100% 300 or over 100% 65 or 27% 160 or 67% Totals 3616 or 100% 3401 or 94% 1970 or 54% 847 or 23%
The vast majority (94%) of current demand could likely be met with existing state right-of-way. Over half (54%) of current demand could be met with existing shared use parking lots. An additional 23% of P-n-R lot demand could be met through joint development of facilities located outside of state right-of-way. Forecasts indicate that approximately 6,218 spaces will be needed to meet future Park-n-ride lot demand — this is about 124% of the estimated 2020 demand of 4,995 spaces.
12
Conceptually, a program could be developed as follows:
Phase Objective I Park-n-Ride lots built and maintained by the agencies on right-of-way. II Compatible use locations where parking lots exist and only signage would be needed. III Joint development Park-n-Ride lots on state right-of-way built by private developers to highway engineering specifications.
A program structured in this manner has the capacity to meet current and future demand at the completion of Phases I and II. If funding is available, joint development could be implemented in the program at any time. Alternatively, joint development could proceed simultaneously with right-of-way development to provide a revenue stream.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Park-n-Ride and Park-n-Pool facilities would reduce congestion and improve air quality in the region. They enhance the transportation system by expanding the capacity of the existing system without adding extra lanes to the roadways. The lots also help to secure other capital investments such as HOV metered ramps and lanes by providing places for system users to make travel shifts.
The following recommendations are based on the potential benefits that could be realized by implementing Park-n-Ride/Park-n-Pool lots:
1. Initially, Park-Ride lots were developed primarily on the basis of demand. Any implementation project should consider, through appropriate design and environmental analysis, the feasibility of building the proposed sites.
2. Where Park-n-Ride lots are adjacent to expressway on-ramps, direct access should be provided from the lot to the ramp in advance of metered traffic.
3. Each Park-n-Ride lot should be evaluated by the appropriate transportation agencies for their potential to enhance local and express services along expressway corridors.
4. Alternative financial strategies should be analyzed further.
Next Step
In conclusion, the feasibility of developing regional suburban Park-n-Ride facilities is a subject that merits further exploration. The following steps are recommended:
The final edited version of this report should be submitted to the Work Program Committee for approval.
A working group comprised of representatives from agencies that could potentially be involved in lot development should be formed. The core participants in this group would be Pace, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the Illinois State Toll Highway 13 Authority (ISTHA), the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and the Council of Mayors; CATS personnel would serve as support staff. Members of the Policy Committee and the general public would also be invited to participate.
The working group would be responsible for recommending appropriate means for securing development financing and securing ongoing maintenance. The group would report its findings to the Air Quality and Transportation Management Task Force in spring 2004.
14 Appendix A
Table 1. Interstate-94
Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis
Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking p / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces Montrose Avenue No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/27/33 Wilson Avenue Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/30/34 US Route 14 No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/30/34 Touhy Avenue Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/35/38 Illinois Route 58 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/33/37 Old Orchard Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/35/37 Lake Avenue No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/29/36 Willow Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/33/35 Tower Road No Yes State ROW Fway/Art Yes Arterial No Isolated Yes 50/18/24 Dundee Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/35/38 Illinois Route 43 No Yes Private Lots Arterial No Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/26/35 Deerfield Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/32/38 Illinois Route 22 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/30/35 Illinois Route 60 Yes Yes Private Lots Fway/Art Yes Collector No Visible Yes 125/35/38 Illinois Route 176 No Yes State ROW Fway/Art Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/30/35 Illinois Route 137 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/34/35 Illinois Route 120 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/38/41 Illinois Route 21 No No Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Isolated Yes 50/26/33 Illinois Route 132 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 300/36/40 Illinois Route 173 No Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial No Isolated Yes 50/24/33 US Route 41 No Yes State ROW Arterial No Arterial No Isolated Yes 50/28/33 Russell Road No Yes State ROW Fway/Art No Collector No Visible Yes 50/15/19
Table 2. Interstate-294
Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces Lake-Cook Road Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/40/46 Willow/Palatine Rd. Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/35/37 Illinois Route 58 No No No No No No No Isolated No 0/34/36 US Route 14 No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Art /Fway No Very Visible Yes 125/41/42 Touhy Avenue No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/33/40 Balmoral Avenue No No Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 300/21/24 Illinois Route 19 No Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 300/39/43 Illinois Route 38 No No Private Lots Arterial No Arterial Yes Isolated Yes 50/48/50 Cermak Road No Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 125/30/36 US Route 34 Yes Yes Private Lots Art/Fway Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 125/36/40 Joliet Road Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible No 20/29/32 Willow Springs Rd. Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 200/20/23 US Route 12-20 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Art/Fway Yes Very Visible Yes 125/46/48 Illinois Route 50 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Art/Fway Yes Visible Yes 50/39/42 US Route 6 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 50/26/36 Illinois Route 1 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/29/36
Table 3. Interstate-90 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces Lee Street No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 300/34/41 Elmhurst Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/37/43 Arlington Hts. Rd. Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 50/39/42 Roselle Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/33/44 Barrington Road No Yes State ROWArterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/41/42 Illinois Route 59 Yes Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 300/32/39 Beverly Road No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/24/31 Illinois Route 25 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway Yes Visible Yes 125/35/37 Illinois Route 31 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/33/37 Randall Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/28/36 Illinois Route 47 No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 125/20/28
Table 4. Illinois Rte-53 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces Lake-Cook Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial no Visible Yes 50/40/48 Illinois Route 68 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 50/31/36 US Route 12 No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 50/34/39 Palatine Road Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 50/37/40 US Route 14 No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/32/37 Euclid Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/28/31 Kirchoff Road No Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/28/36
Illinois Route 62 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/37/43
Table 5. Interstate-290 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces Illinois Route 72 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/42/46 Biesterfield Road Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/31/39 Thorndale Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 125/47/51 Illinois Route 83 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/51/54 York Road Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 300/30/36 Illinois Route 64 No No State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Isolated Yes 50/48/49 St. Charles Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 50/26/30 US Route 45 Yes Yes Private Lots Art/Fway Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/34/40 25th Avenue No Yes State ROWArterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 50/28/39
ii Table 6. Interstate-355 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces US Route 20 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/46/49 Army Trail Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/45/47 Illinois Route 64 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 125/51/53 Illinois Route 38 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 125/39/41 Illinois Route 56 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/49/52 US Route 34 Yes Yes ComEd Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/34/40 Maple Avenue Yes Yes No land 0/26/32 63rd Street Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/27/35 75th Street Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/36/40 Boughton Road Yes Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/28/34
Table 7. Interstate-55 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces US Route 6 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Isolated Yes 125/22/29 US Route 52 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/26/38 US Route 30 Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 125/28/33 Illinois Route 126 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Isolated Yes 300/23/35 Weber Road Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/32/40 Illinois Route 53 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/33/41 Joliet Road Yes Yes State ROWArt/Fway Yes Art/Fway Yes Isolated Yes 50/28/36 Lemont Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/32/37 Cass Avenue Yes Yes State ROW Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/29/33 Illinois Route 83 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 125/36/41 County Line Road Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/24/32 US Route 45 Yes Yes No space ------No 0/58/60 Illinois Route 43 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/42/42
Table 8. Interstate-88 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In/Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces York Road No No No 0/27/33 Spring Street No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 300/23/24 Illinois Route 83 No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 300/53/54 Midwest Road No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50//20/23 Highland Avenue No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 50/35/40 Illinois Route 53 No Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/43/49 Naperville Road Yes Yes State ROW Arterial No Arterial No Visible Yes 125/39/41 Winfield Road Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 300/31/36 Illinois Route 59 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 125/38/43 Farnsworth Road Yes Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial No Very Visible Yes 300/28/35 Illinois Route 31 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 125/38/43 Orchard Road Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Very Visible Yes 50/24/31 Illinois Route 56 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Visible Yes 125/18/26
iii Illinois Route 47 No No State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway No Visible Yes 50/19/25 Table 9. Interstate-80 Interchange Full Are the Land Is the Site Easy Access Is the Site Security Adequate Space Interchange Ramps Availability Visible from In / Out from Served by Very Visible Number of Analysis Oriented to State ROW The Arterial Arterial or Nearby Visible or Parking Sp / 00 / 20 Peak Flow Privt. ¼ MI or Freeway Freeway Transit Isolated Spaces Kedzie Avenue No Yes State ROWArt/Fway Yes Art/Fway Yes Visible Yes 50/26/32 Illinois Route 43 Yes Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Visible Yes 125/31/41 US Route 45 Yes Yes Open Land Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 125/37/39 US Route 30 Yes Yes State ROW Art/Fway Yes Art/Fway Yes Visible Yes 50/25/32 Briggs Street Yes Yes State ROWArt/Fway Yes Art/Fway Yes Visible Yes 50/20/29 Richards Street Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial No Visible Yes 50/21/27 Illinois Route 53 Yes Yes No space ------0/21/31 Raynor Street Yes No No space ------0/17/29 Illinois Route 7 Yes Yes Private Lots Arterial Yes Arterial Yes Very Visible Yes 50/28/35 Houbolt Avenue Yes Yes State ROWArt/Fway Yes Art/Fway Yes Visible Yes 125/19/27
iv Appendix B
Table 10. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-94 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development of for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces Montrose Avenue 33 0 33 0 8 Scattered private lots within ¼ mile Wilson Avenue 34 0 34 0 9 Scattered private lots within ¼ mile US Route 14 34 0 34 0 8 NW and SW Office Quads of IL50/US-14 Touhy Avenue 38 0 38 0 9 Office @ Il-50/Touhy n/e quad ¼ mi. east Illinois Route 58 37 0 37 0 9 Strip-mall east and west on IL-58 Old Orchard Road 37 0 37 0 8 Old Orchard Shopping Center Lake Avenue 36 0 36 0 8 Edens Shopping Plaza Willow Road 35 0 0 35 8 Open land west, Willow/Frontage Rds. Tower Road 24 24 0 0 7 State ROW inbound S/W Quadrant Dundee Road 38 0 38 0 8 Commercial lot @Dundee/Skokie Blvd. Illinois Route 43 35 0 35 0 6 Deerbrook Shopping Center N/W quad Deerfield Road 38 0 38 0 8 Office lot west of I-94 south side Illinois Route 22 35 0 35 0 8 Office lots on all 4 corners of interchange Illinois Route 60 38 0 0 38 8 Open land ¼ mi west on IL-60 South side Illinois Route 176 35 35 0 0 7 State ROW inside on-ramp Illinois Route 137 35 0 0 35 8 Open land east & west of I-94 Illinois Route 120 41 0 0 41 8 Open land east & west of I-94 Illinois Route 21 33 0 0 33 5 Open land east of I-94 adjacent to ramp Illinois Route 132 40 0 0 40 9 Gurnee Mills Shopping Center N/W quad Illinois Route 173 33 0 0 33 7 Open land west of I-94 south-side US Route 41 33 33 0 0 6 State ROW Inbound US-41/Inbound I-94 Russell Road 19 19 0 0 6 State ROW across from SB off ramp Corridor Demand 761 State ROW 111 or 15% Adjacent Lots 395 or 52% Joint Development 255 or 33%
v Table 11. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-294 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces Lake-Cook Road 46 0 0 46 9 Commercial lot adjacent to SB on-ramp Willow/Palatine Rd. 37 0 0 50 8 Private lot s at industrial sit N/W Quad Illinois Route 58 36 0 0 0 0 Only On-ramps outbound US Route 14 42 125 0 0 7 State ROW inside on-ramps Touhy Avenue 40 125 0 0 8 State ROW Inside WB, IB On-Ramp Balmoral Avenue 24 0 50 0 7 Private Hotel lots along River Rd. Illinois Route 19 43 0 0 50 8 Open land on SE Quad of IL-19/US-45 Illinois Route 38 50 0 50 0 6 Private Comm lot east of I-294 Cermak Road 36 0 0 36 8 Open Land Ss on Cermak east of I-294 US Route 34 40 0 75 0 9 Private Restaurant Lot in SW Quad Joliet Road 32 0 20 0 7 Private Rest lot ½ mi east Wolf/Joliet Willow Springs Rd. 23 200 0 0 9 State ROW inside SB on-ramp US Route 12-20 48 0 125 0 9 Open Land next to on-ramps NB & SB Illinois Route 50 42 50 0 0 9 State ROW by existing equipment yard US Route 6 36 0 50 0 9 Private lot ¼ mile west on ss of US-6 Illinois Route 1 36 0 125 0 9 Private lot on es of IL-1 ¼ north of I-294 Corridor Demand 611 State ROW 500 or 82% Adjacent Lots 495 or 97% Joint Development 182 or 30%
Table 12 Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-90 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development For Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces Lee Street 41 0 125 0 8 Private lot @ Rosemont Horizon Elmhurst Road 43 0 25 0 8 Private lot ¼ mi north on Oakton Arlington Hts. Rd. 42 0 50 0 9 State ROW inside On-ramps Roselle Road 44 0 50 0 7 Private lot ¼ mi north Medieval Times Barrington Road 42 50 0 0 7 State ROW inside On-ramps Illinois Route 59 39 0 0 50 8 Open land N & S on IL-59 all Quads Beverly Road 31 50 0 0 7 State ROW inside On-ramp Illinois Route 25 37 50 0 0 9 State ROW at on/off ramps/IL-25 Illinois Route 31 37 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside SB IL-31 on-ramp Randall Road 36 50 0 0 8 State ROW along IB On-ramp Illinois Route 47 28 50 0 0 7 State ROW inside On-ramp Corridor Demand 420 State ROW 300 or 71% Adjacent Lots 250 or 60% Joint Development 50 or 12%
vi Table 13. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Illinois Route 53 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces Lake-Cook Road 48 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside WB On-ramp Illinois Route 68 36 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside On-ramps US Route 12 39 50 0 0 8 State ROW along IB On-ramp Palatine Road 40 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside On-ramps US Route 14 37 50 0 0 7 State ROW along IB On-ramp Euclid Road 31 50 0 0 8 State ROW wb to OB & eb to IB Kirchoff Road 36 50 0 0 7 State ROW along IB On-ramp Illinois Route 62 43 50 0 0 8 State ROW next to IB & OB On-ramps Corridor Demand 310 State ROW 400 >100% Adjacent Lots 0 or 0% Joint Development 0 or 0%
Table 14. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-290 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces Illinois Route 72 46 50 0 0 9 State ROW next to IB & OB On-ramps Biesterfield Road 39 50 0 0 8 State ROW along OB On-ramp Thorndale Road 51 50 0 0 8 State ROW ¼ mi east on ns of Thorndale Illinois Route 83 54 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside nb to wb and sb to eb York Road 36 50 0 0 9 State ROW in all Quadrants Illinois Route 64 49 50 0 0 7 State ROW Inside eb IL-64 to IB I-290 St. Charles Road 30 50 0 0 9 State ROW wb to IB and eb to OB US Route 45 40 0 125 0 9 Private lot at the Hillside Shopping mall 25th Avenue 39 40 0 0 7 State ROW inside sb to OB and sb to IB Corridor Demand 384 State ROW 340 or 89% Adjacent Lots 125 or 33% Joint Development 0 or 0%
vii Table 15. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-355 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces US Route 20 49 50 0 0 8 State ROW next to On-ramps Army Trail Road 47 50 0 0 8 State ROW next to On-ramps Illinois Route 64 53 125 0 0 8 State ROW next to On-ramps Illinois Route 38 41 50 0 0 8 State ROW and ComEd by On-ramps Illinois Route 56 52 0 50 0 8 Private lots ¼ mi east and west plazas US Route 34 40 0 0 50 9 Private ComEd land under wires Maple Avenue 32 0 0 0 2 No Space 63rd Street 35 50 0 0 8 State ROW next ot nb and sb On-ramps 75th Street 40 0 50 0 9 Private lots east and west of I-355 Boughton Road 34 0 0 50 8 Privat lot at Meijers Store in SW Quad. Corridor Demand 423 State ROW 325 or 77% Adjacent Lots 100 or 24% Joint Development 100 or 24%
Table 16. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-55 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces US Route 6 29 0 40 0 7 Private lots ¼ mi west of I-55 US Route 52 38 125 0 0 8 State ROW IB On-ramp US Route 30 33 125 0 0 9 State ROW expand existing PnR Lot Illinois Route 126 35 300 0 0 8 State ROW ramps to/from I-55 Weber Road 40 0 0 50 8 Open land ¼ mi north & south of I-55 Illinois Route 53 41 0 45 0 9 Private lots 1/2 mi north and south Joliet Road 36 50 0 0 8 State ROW next to eb On-ramp Lemont Road 37 50 0 0 8 State ROW ¼ mi south of I-55 Cass Avenue 33 50 0 0 8 State ROW ¼ mi south of I-55 Illinois Route 83 41 0 125 0 9 Private lot ¼ mi north or I-55 County Line Road 32 0 50 0 8 Private plaza lot south of I-55 US Route 45 60 0 0 0 2 No land available Illinois Route 43 42 0 30 0 9 Private lot on IL-43 ¼ mi south of I-55 Corridor Demand 497 State ROW 700 >100% Adjacent Lots 290 or 58% Joint Development 50 or 10%
viii Table 17. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-88 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development For Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces York Road 33 0 0 0 0 No on-ramps Spring Street 24 0 50 0 8 Oak Brook Shopping Center Illinois Route 83 54 0 50 0 8 Oak Brook Shopping Center Midwest Road 23 0 50 0 8 Private lot ¼ mi north of I-88 Highland Avenue 40 0 50 0 7 Yorktown Shopping Center Illinois Route 53 49 0 50 0 7 Private lot ¼ mi south of I-88 Naperville Road 41 50 0 0 7 State ROW inside On-ramps Winfield Road 36 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside On-ramps Illinois Route 59 43 125 0 0 8 State ROW inside IB On-ramp Farnsworth Road 35 0 0 50 8 Open land ¼ mile north of I-88 ws Illinois Route 31 43 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside IB On-ramp Orchard Road 31 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside IB On-ramp Illinois Route 56 26 50 0 0 8 State ROW ramps to/from I-88 Illinois Route 47 25 50 0 0 7 State ROW inside OB On-ramp Corridor Demand 503 State ROW 425 or 84% Adjacent Lots 250 or 50% Joint Development 50 or 10%
Table 18. Park-n-Ride Lot Location Analysis Interstate-80 Interchange Space State Existing Joint Level of Description Analysis Right-of-Way Adjacent Development for Year Developed Parking Parking Desirability 2020 Spaces Spaces Spaces Kedzie Avenue 32 50 0 0 8 State ROW inside On-ramp Illinois Route 43 41 0 0 50 9 Open land ¼ mi south of I-80 US Route 45 39 0 0 50 8 Open land 1/2 mi north of I-80 US Route 30 32 50 0 0 9 State ROW inside eb On-ramp Briggs Street 29 50 0 0 9 State ROW inside On-ramps Richards Street 27 0 0 60 8 Open land ¼ mi south of I-80 Illinois Route 53 31 0 0 0 2 No Land available Raynor Street 29 0 0 0 1 No Land available Illinois Route 7 35 0 65 0 9 Private lot ¼ mi north of I-80 Houbolt Avenue 27 100 0 0 9 State ROW inside On-ramps Corridor Demand 322 State ROW 300 or 93% Adjacent Lots 65 or 20% Joint Development 160 or 50%
ix Appendix C
This appendix consists of aerial photographs from each expressway interchange in northeastern Illinois. As such, it’s too large for web posting, but printed copies are available by contacting CATS.
x Appendix D
Development & Maintenance for Park-n-Ride Lot Estimates
Maintenance is a particularly important consideration for potential developers of Park-and-Ride lots in northeastern Illinois. Northeastern Illinois has a major system of P-n-R lots associated with its rail transit systems, and a smaller system associated with suburban bus service. Rail lots are generally operated as fee lots costing an average of about $2 per day, while bus lots usually provide free parking. Both types of lots are operated either under the direct jurisdiction of the operating agency or by a local government on behalf of the operating agency. Maintenance is financed by fees generated from the lots, or it is paid from the operating agency's budget.
General carpool and vanpool P-n-R lots usually offer free parking as an incentive to encourage ridesharing. This is often the case when express bus service operates from the lot. Since these lots do not generate fees, there is no dedicated source of revenue that can be tapped for maintenance. (Federal funds are often used for construction of the lots, but do not provide financial support for their maintenance.)
In order to determine how other states and jurisdictions have addressed this issue, a survey of states with weather conditions similar to northeastern Illinois that operate lots was conducted — information about the survey can be found in CATS Working Paper 01-14, Park & Ride Lot Demand and Location Survey for the HOV Ramp South Study Area-Milestone #2 Series. (Lot snow removal in these states is the major maintenance cost, particularly when plows used on the adjacent highways are not suitable for them.) The following chart describes how some other states handle the matter.
State Park-n-Ride Lot Maintenance Responsibilities in Other States
California Department of Caltrans maintains the lots that are not privately Transportation (Caltrans) owned. The Division of Maintenance is budgeted for the work, but no specific dollar amount can be programmed for maintaining the lots since there is no schedule or designated crew for the lots. Connecticut Department of ConnDOT built and maintains all of the lots. Transportation (ConnDOT) Maintenance is budgeted through the Highway Department. Maryland Department of MTA oversees all lots that service the Baltimore Transportation (MTA) area. Montgomery County oversees all lots that service the Washington area. Michigan Department of MDHT constructed all lots, but only maintains Highways & Transportation two thirds of them. Counties maintain the (MDHT) remaining lots. Funding is provided through the state budget, but no dollar amount is specifically allocated for maintaining the lots. Wisconsin Department of WisDOT owns all lots. Half are maintained by Transportation (WisDOT) WisDOT; counties maintain the other half. No dollar amount is specifically allocated for maintenance of the lots.
xi The following trends were noted with regard to the typical approach to Park-n-Ride lot development and maintenance:
1. The state constructs all new Park-n-Ride lots;
2. State or county agencies maintain the lots as part of their normal operations program;
3. The cost of lot maintenance is incorporated, generally without reference, into state or local highway funding budgets.
This information indicates that any program to develop Park-n-Ride lots at expressway interchanges as part of an expressway management program should incorporate lot development and maintenance as project expenditures without dedicated revenue from daily space fees.
The primary reason stated for this approach is that the maintenance of Park-n-Ride lots is most efficiently and effectively done as an extension of regular roadway maintenance operations.
xii