Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #2

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #2"

Transcription

1 January 19, Corridor Advisory Group and Task Force Meeting #2 January 19, 2010 January 19, Introductions Where We Are Now? Process Review CAG/TF and Public Meeting #1 Summary Problem Statement Development Technical Analysis Approach Next Steps 1

2 January 19, Where We Are Now? January 19, Community Involvement Data Collection Community Context Audits Transportation Issues/Goals Problem Statement Understand Existing Conditions Identified Deficiencies Purpose & Need We are here Agency Input Concept Alternatives Preferred Alternative 2

3 January 19, Process Review January 19, PROJECT STUDY GROUP IDOT FHWA Consultant CORRIDOR ADVISORY GROUP (CAG) LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Transportation/Engineering Task Force (TF) Agencies Municipalities Transportation Agencies Interest Groups Bellwood Broadview Chicago Forest Park Hillside Maywood Oak Park Westchester Cook County Du Page County Environmental/Land Use Task Force (TF) Agencies Municipalities Business Representatives Land Use/Planning Interest Groups Interest Groups 3

4 January 19, Corridor Advisory Group CORRIDOR ADVISORY GROUP (CAG) LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Bellwood Forest Park Oak Park Cook County Broadview Hillside Westchester Du Page County Chicago Maywood Purpose Provide input on Purpose and Need Statement Provide input on alternatives to be carried forward Responsibilities Commit to attend CAG meetings Collaborate with TF members Provide input and consensus January 19, Task Forces Structure Transportation/ Engineering Environmental/ Land Use Purpose Diverse perspectives Provide external information and input Responsibilities Provide technical input on transportation issues and environmental/land use issues Transportation/Engineering Task Force (TF) Agencies Municipalities Transportation Agencies Interest Groups Environmental/Land Use Task Force (TF) Agencies Municipalities Business Representatives Land Use/Planning Interest Groups Interest Groups 4

5 January 19, Meeting Summaries January 19, Held October 14, 2009 Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP) Identified issues/concerns and goals/objectives 5

6 January 19, Identified Issues and Concerns Issue/Concern Topics Table 1 Congestion/Traffic Deficient Transit Multi-Modal Needs Safety Economic Development Environmental Sustainability Land Use Compatibility Environmental Impacts Funding/Cost Study Process Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 January 19, Identified Goals & Objectives Improve mobility (capacity and efficiency). Improve safety for motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Coordinate with planned land uses and area developments. Facilitate economic growth. Minimize impacts to the surrounding environment. 6

7 January 19, Held November 18, 2009 Over 200 attendees Input via comment forms, post-it notes on aerial map, and website comments. Additional presentation and input gathered on December 4, 2009 at State Rep. Ford s meeting. January 19, Top Issues Lack of transit access and connectivity Roadway congestion Air quality and noise conditions Minimize impacts to surrounding environment Lack of pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle accommodations Poor safety conditions 7

8 January 19, Top Transportation Need Issues Improve congestion and mobility Improve transit and transit access Improve safety Improve pedestrian and non-motorized facilities January 19, Problem Statement 8

9 January 19, A concise narrative Defines a situation or circumstances to be solved Expresses a desired situation not being achieved Factors that contribute to unacceptable performance Does not describe specific solutions January 19, CAG-TF meeting #1 workshop input PM #1 comment period input 9

10 January 19, The I-290 study area is a multimodal corridor with a complex network of roadway, public transit, freight railroad, and nonmotorized facilities and services. Improved mobility, modal options, and integration of transportation and land use are desired to support economic development and enhance the quality of life. Study area roadway related issues include infrastructure condition, traffic congestion on the Eisenhower Expressway and arterial roads, safety, truck traffic, and the resultant noise and air pollution. Public transit related issues include lack of modal choices, connectivity, access, speed of service, and infrastructure condition. Improved connectivity, accessibility, safety, and suitability of pedestrian and bicycle facilities are study area non-motorized transportation related issues. January 19, The existing built environment presents significant challenges in improving the corridor s transportation elements. Sustainable solutions to transportation problems need to be developed, while avoiding and minimizing impacts to the surrounding environment. These solutions need to be cost-effective and may require substantial funding. The solutions also need to be coordinated with all modes, promote economic development, and be integrated with community land use plans. Stakeholder participation in arriving at workable and effective solutions is a fundamental part of the process. 10

11 January 19, Discussion January 19, Technical Analysis Approach 11

12 January 19, Data Collection Community Context Audits Transportation Issues/Goals Problem Statement Understand Existing Conditions Identified Deficiencies Community Involvement Purpose & Need Agency Input Concept Alternatives Preferred Alternative January 19, Travel Demand Model CMAP coordinates planning across region CMAP administers regional travel models Existing Travel Demand Model (2010) 2030 Travel Demand Model Baseline Models refined for I-290 Studies Project Baseline /No Build I-290 Improvements Removed Population and Employment Forecasts Baseline Traffic Forecast Supports NEPA Requirements Purpose and Need Alternatives Development and Evaluation 12

13 January 19, CMAP travel model enhancements - Trip generation - Trip distribution - Mode choice - Trip assignment Studies Performed in Consultation with CMAP I-290 Focus Area Improvements - Detailed zone system - Detailed network coding January 19, Detailed Area Zones 13

14 January 19, Broader Study Area Considers the I-290 corridor as part of a broader transportation network Focused Study Area Detailed evaluation of operations, safety and physical facilities January 19, Roadways Operational, Capacity, Safety, Engineering Standards, Structures and Drainage Public Transportation Engineering Standards, Service and Multi-modal Connectivity Freight Railroads Engineering Standards, Operations and Drainage 14

15 January 19, Non-Motorized Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Socioeconomic and Land Use Population & Employment Minority, Low Income and Zero Car Households Existing Land Uses January 19, Resurfacing and shoulder rehabilitation only Original construction (still in place)

16 January 19, Study Area Public Transit Network January 19, CTA Rail 3 routes and 13 stations in or near study area 20 million riders annually on Forest Park, Lake Street and Pink Line branches CTA Bus 11 routes in or passing through study area 41 million riders annually on these routes Metra Rail 2 routes and 12 stations in or near study area 2.1 million riders annually on BNSF and UP-West lines Pace Bus 23 routes in or passing through study area Weekday ridership of less than 100 to over 3,000 on these routes 16

17 January 19, January 19,

18 January 19, January 19,

19 3/5/10 January 19, January 19,

20 January 19, Next Steps January 19, Data Collection Community Context Audits Transportation Issues/Goals Problem Statement Understand Existing Conditions Identified Deficiencies Community Involvement Purpose & Need Agency Input Concept Alternatives Preferred Alternative 20

21 January 19, CAG-TF Meeting #3 February 17, 2010 (tentative) Initial technical analysis CAG-TF Meeting #4 March 17, 2010 (tentative) Technical analysis follow-up Purpose & Need discussion General toolbox January 19, Technical Analysis Existing Conditions Report Develop 2030 Baseline based on CMAP model and regional plan Purpose & Need Statement Evaluation Criteria Identify Initial Alternatives Evaluate & Screen Initial Alternatives 21

22 January 19, Questions? 22