Regional Transit Coordination Plan (RTCP) Service

Transcription

Regional Transportation Authority
Regional Transit
Coordination Plan (RTCP)
Service Coordination Study
Summary Report, September 2004
of Northeastern Illinois (RTA)
175 W. Jackson, Suite 1550
Chicago, IL 60604
www.rtachicago.org
Prepared by the RTA with
assistance from Booz Allen
Hamilton, Inc.
Summary Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................ES-1
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1-1
CHAPTER 2 : IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS AND QUANTIFICATION
OF ASSOCIATED TRAVEL MARKETS ..............................................................................................2-1
2.1
Definition of Major Concentrations of Activity.................................................... 2-1
2.1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2
Criteria for Activity Center Selection......................................................... 2-1
2.1.3
Data Sources .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.1.4
Development of the List of Major Activity Centers..................................2-5
2.1.5
Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-20
2.2
Analysis of Travel Market Patterns...................................................................... 2-22
2.2.1
Regional Travel Model Data...................................................................... 2-22
2.2.2
Methods Used.............................................................................................. 2-23
2.2.3
Consideration of Minority and Low Income Populations .................... 2-25
2.2.4
Results........................................................................................................... 2-29
CHAPTER 3 : EVALUATION OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE ................................................3-1
3.1
Classification of Travel Markets by Quality of Transit Service.......................... 3-1
3.1.1
Introduction and Methodology .................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2
Resources........................................................................................................ 3-2
3.1.3
Results............................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2
Supplementary Evaluation of Transit Services..................................................... 3-6
CHAPTER 4 : DEFINITION OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FOR SELECTED MARKETS .....4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4-1
Description and Exploration of Service Improvements ...................................... 4-1
Detailed Analysis of Transit Service to Specific Travel Markets ....................... 4-6
CHAPTER 5 :
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF
COST-EFFECTIVE
IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1
Evaluation of Ridership Impacts ............................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1
Identification of Itinerary Characteristics.................................................. 5-1
5.1.2
Selection of Itineraries .................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.3
Application of Service Improvements ....................................................... 5-4
5.1.4
Ridership and Incremental Revenue Estimation...................................... 5-9
5.2
Estimation of Cost Impacts.................................................................................... 5-14
5.2.1
Data Update ................................................................................................. 5-14
5.2.2
Model Recalibration and Adjustments .................................................... 5-15
5.2.3
Model Theory and Structure ..................................................................... 5-17
5.2.4
Cost Impacts of Service Adjustments....................................................... 5-21
Regional Transit Coordination Plan
1
Summary Report
5.3
Identification of Cost Effective Improvements................................................... 5-25
CHAPTER 6 : FINANCING SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................6-1
6.1
Existing Funding System ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2
The Need for Cost Allocation / Shared Funding................................................. 6-2
6.2.1
Examples of Shared Funding Arrangements............................................ 6-3
6.2.2
Potential Benefits of Cost Allocation/Shared Funding Arrangements 6-4
6.3
Desirable Characteristics of a Shared Funding Mechanism ............................... 6-5
6.4
Structure of a Cost Allocation / Shared Funding System................................... 6-6
6.4.1
Duration of Funding..................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.2
Funding Program Type................................................................................ 6-7
6.4.3
Structural Options for Cost Allocation / Shared Funding ................... 6-11
6.5
Parameters for Implementing a Cost Allocation / Shared Funding System . 6-12
6.5.1
Sources of Funding ..................................................................................... 6-12
6.5.2
Basis for Distribution of Funding (for Funding Transfer Programs) .. 6-13
6.5.3
Basis for Funding Disbursement (for Grant Programs) ........................ 6-16
6.6
Summary of Considerations for Shared Funding Programs ............................ 6-19
CHAPTER 7 : MAJOR FINDINGS.......................................................................................................7-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................B-1
This Summary Report has been excerpted from the Regional Transit Coordination Plan: Service
Coordination Study Final Report, prepared for the Regional Transportation Authority by Booz
Allen Hamilton Inc., May 2003.
Regional Transit Coordination Plan
2
Summary Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) has conducted a Service Coordination
Study as part of the Regional Transit Coordination Plan (RTCP). The RTCP is a multiyear program of studies aimed at enhancing regional mobility by facilitating seamless
travel on public transportation between the region’s three service boards – the Chicago
Transit Authority (CTA, operating city buses and rapid transit lines), Metra (commuter
rail), and Pace (suburban bus). Exhibit ES.1 shows the overall structure of the RTCP.
Exhibit ES.1 Regional Transit Coordination Plan Framework
Management
Management Plan
Plan
RTA,
RTA, CTA,
CTA, Metra,
Metra, Pace
Pace
Public
Public Involvement
Involvement &
& Focus
Focus Groups
Groups
Market
Market Identification
Identification &
& Sensitivity
Sensitivity Analysis
Analysis
Physical
Physical
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Service
Service
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Fare
Fare
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Information
Information
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Systems
Systems Analysis
Analysis
Policy
Policy Recommendation
Recommendation
Implementation
Implementation Plan(s)
Plan(s)
Since its inception in December 1999, the RTCP has been addressing the four principal
elements of regional transit coordination – information coordination, physical
coordination, service coordination, and fare coordination (see the Bibliography at the
end of this report for additional reading).
The purpose of the Service Coordination component is to evaluate ways to facilitate
travel on transit between all parts of the region, with a particular focus on trips that
ES-1
Summary Report
may require interagency travel. The analysis began by identifying major regional
activity centers – the “demand” side of the equation. The next step was to document
the total amount of travel that these activity centers generate (not just transit travel).
Transit service to and from these centers was then assessed by evaluating the “supply”
of service in prominent markets. Finally, the study estimated the cost-effectiveness of
possible operating changes that would incrementally improve service coordination,
using the existing transit network.
The primary consideration in selecting activity centers was the number of people
traveling to these centers, but care was taken to ensure a variety of types of locations, so
that the largest city and suburban employment sites were included, along with
important retail, cultural/recreational, educational, medical, and industrial
concentrations. Sites were selected to ensure a geographic distribution throughout
various parts of the region in the city and suburbs alike. The major activity centers
selected for analysis are listed in Exhibit ES.2. These regional destinations represent a
variety of trip purposes, and they are places where people want to go or need to go, by
transit or by other modes, depending on the availability of service.
Exhibit ES.2 Regional Activity Centers
Downtown Chicago (Loop)
North Michigan Avenue
University of Illinois at Chicago / West Loop
Westside Medical Center
Museum Campus / Soldier Field
O’Hare Airport / Rosemont
Hyde Park / University of Chicago
Ford Chicago Assembly Plant
Evanston / Northwestern University
Lake-Cook Road Corridor
Schaumburg / Northwest Corridor
Loyola Medical Center / Maywood
Great Lakes Naval Training Center
Oak Brook / East-West Corridor
Joliet
A 44-zone travel analysis model was used to quantify existing levels of trip-making to
the activity centers listed in Exhibit ES.2. Exhibit ES.3 shows the zones used in this
model. The line separating zones 9 through 17 from zones 18 through 26 distinguishes,
in very general terms, the core service areas of CTA and Pace from one another. (Metra
serves areas both within and beyond this dividing line, and its commuter rail lines are
shown in Exhibit ES.3.)
ES-2
Summary Report
Exhibit ES.3 Map of 44 Travel Zones
ES-3
Summary Report
For each of the fifteen activity centers analyzed, a zone was identified to represent that
activity center, using the 44 zones from the travel analysis model. Four or five travel
markets were identified for each activity center. Two origin zones were chosen on the
basis of having particularly high shares of people traveling to the destination zone
containing the activity center. As expected, those origin zones were usually close to the
destinations. In order to include travel markets involving lengthier commutes, the
remaining origins were chosen from those zones on the other side of the inner/outer
dividing line shown in Exhibit ES.3. This ensured the inclusion of suburban commuting
for urban activity centers, and of reverse commuting from the city to activity centers
located in the suburbs. The resulting process identified 64 travel markets, each
consisting of a different pair of zones (one for the origin, the other for the destination).
Transit service to and from the regional activity centers was then assessed by examining
the “supply” of service in these prominent markets. The transit service for each market
was rated based on frequency and directness of existing routes between a sample of
specific origins and destinations. The transit service ratings range from 1 to 4; with “1”
representing direct and frequent service, “2” representing direct service with a transfer,
“3” representing circuitous service with multiple transfers, and “4” representing a lack
of transit service at the origin or destination. Exhibit ES.4 shows the classifications of
transit service used for this study.
Exhibit ES.4 Classifications of Transit Services
Transit
Service
Condition
1
2
No. of
Transfers
Required
0
1 or 2
3
--
Circuitous or infrequent service with multiple transfers
4
--
No transit service at the origin end and/or the destination end
Description of Services Involved
Direct and frequent service
Direct service with a transfer
In general, the existing transit system is extensive and well-connected, especially for
travel to and from downtown Chicago. However, other major regional activity centers
such as the Schaumburg and Oak Brook areas are not so well served by transit, despite
high demand for total travel. In other words, the “supply” does not match the
“demand” in some cases.
Thirty-one of the 64 travel markets were found to have poor transfers, many transfers,
high travel times, or some combination of these factors indicating that there was
considerable room for improvement. For these travel markets, the study analyzed the
service characteristics of the specific transit links making up representative transit travel
itineraries for the relevant zone combinations. Of these, 23 travel markets were
ES-4
Summary Report
identified as involving interagency travel itineraries, and were further examined for
potential improvement measures that might be taken. (The other eight travel markets
without interagency travel itineraries were not analyzed at the same level of depth.)
For these 23 travel markets involving interagency travel under less than optimum
transit service conditions, the study identified possible operating changes to improve
service using the existing transit network. Such tactical improvements could involve
either adjusting the schedule or frequency of existing services, or adjusting the routing
or stop locations on existing bus routes or rail lines. Limited additions of local
collector/distributor bus routes were also considered where necessary. These potential
service improvements were evaluated for cost-effectiveness by comparing incremental
service costs with additional ridership and revenue that could be expected due to the
change. Exhibit ES.5 shows annual cost and revenue estimates for potential service
improvements related to specific origin-destination pairs, reflecting the range of
adjustments under consideration.
Exhibit ES.5 Cost/Revenue Evaluation of Potential Service Improvements
Origin
Destination
Woodfield Mall
O’Hare
Airport
UIC
Evanston
Lake-Cook
Road
Evergreen Park
Highwood
Evanston
Edgewater
Lake-Cook
Road
Loyola Med.
Center
Soldier Field
Annual
Cost
$247,000
Annual
Revenue
$25,000
$311,000
$19,000
Negligible $9,000
$538,000
$17,000
$25,000
$5,000
$238,000
$3,000
$1,000
$16,000
$91,000
$23,000
Washington
Heights
Garfield Park
Adjust bus
schedule
Increase bus
frequency
Add stop to
schedule
Add bus runs
$168,000
$1,000
$832,000
$2,000
Jefferson Park
Increase rail
frequency
Add bus runs
$247,000
$24,000
Austin
Kensington
Ford Plant
Great Lakes
Type of
Improvement
Increase bus
frequency
Increase bus
frequency
Add stop to
schedule
Extend bus route
Add limited
shuttle
Add bus runs
Cook Co.
Hospital
Oak Brook
Mall
Midway Airport Joliet
Woodfield
Mall
Negligible $106,000
ES-5
Summary Report
Based on the limited analysis conducted for such potential service improvements, it
appears that the only adjustments that clearly exceed the 50% recovery ratio target are
those that entail little or no cost, such as adding a stop or minor schedule changes. The
other targeted improvements all involve adding service in one form or another, and are
unlikely to be cost-effective (at least for the service board adding the service). The
incremental costs of these service additions are all substantially greater than the
anticipated revenue increase from these markets. Some other adjustments that might be
cost-effective, when the entire transit trip is considered, would weigh more heavily on a
single service board. Such service improvements might thus require a cost and/or
revenue sharing arrangement in order for the change to occur. Various cost/revenue
sharing arrangements do exist between the service boards, but with limited application
and scope.
The evaluation of potential service coordination improvements examined only those
trips between certain origin-destination pairs. In practice, service adjustments aimed at
improving service for some trips are likely to impact other trips, some positively and
some negatively. Thus, a demonstration program consisting of these various and
targeted service improvements could be considered in order to better judge which types
of improvements warrant further application throughout the region.
ES-6
Summary Report
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The objective of the Regional Transportation Authority’s Service Coordination Study is
to investigate ways to improve connectivity among transit services operating in the
Northeastern Illinois region of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.
Transit service in the region is operated by three service boards, all overseen by the
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA):

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), operating both bus and rail services, primarily
in and around the City of Chicago
Metra, operating commuter rail services
Pace, operating bus services primarily in the outer areas of Cook County and
within the other suburban counties.
Combined, these services cover more than 3,700 square miles in the six county
metropolitan area, serving more than 590 million trips in 2000.
This study addresses service coordination, which is one of four aspects of interagency
transit coordination being advanced by the Regional Transit Coordination Plan (RTCP).
Parallel efforts, undertaken in other studies, explore physical coordination, information
coordination, and fare coordination. Exhibit 1-1 shows the framework for RTCP
activities.
This study builds on previous work in the market identification phase of the RTCP, as
discussed in the Location Study Final Report.1 The Location Study focused on
describing the transit system and the extent to which the services operated by the three
service boards are connected. The Location Study developed a comprehensive survey
of transfer locations and the demand for transfers at these locations. In addition, the
Location Study summarized statistics for each transfer location identified including the
number of operators, modes, routes, frequency of service, periods of operation of
service, and number of daily transfers between service boards.
1 Regional Transit Coordination Plan: Location Study, July 2001. In Regional Transit Coordination Plan, Interim Progress
Report, Regional Transportation Authority, October 2001.
1-1
Summary Report
Exhibit 1.1 Regional Transit Coordination Plan Framework
Management
Management Plan
Plan
RTA,
CTA,
Metra,
RTA, CTA, Metra, Pace
Pace
Public
Public Involvement
Involvement &
& Focus
Focus Groups
Groups
Market
Market Identification
Identification &
& Sensitivity
Sensitivity Analysis
Analysis
Physical
Physical
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Service
Service
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Fare
Fare
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Information
Information
Coordination
Coordination
Study
Study
Systems
Systems Analysis
Analysis
Policy
Policy Recommendation
Recommendation
Implementation
Implementation Plan(s)
Plan(s)
Building on the background information about the transit system from the Location
Study, the Service Coordination Study focuses on analyzing how well the existing
transit system serves prevailing patterns of travel in the Chicago metropolitan region,
especially where interagency transfers are involved or required. Traditionally, transit
has focused on a core market of travel to the central business district for job-related
trips. The growth of population and employment beyond traditional areas of
concentration has created new needs for service to new markets and for new travel
purposes. The three service boards have gradually adjusted and expanded service to
meet the needs of these new markets within their own respective service areas.
Attempts to support trips that involve more than one service board, however, have
received less focused attention. There is currently no systematic and regular process to
coordinate transit services among the three service boards on a regionwide basis. The
purpose of this study is to quantify service effectiveness in the Northeastern Illinois
region, especially for transit coordination, and to identify and explore options to better
serve important regional travel markets requiring improved connections between
existing transit services.
1-2
Summary Report
The study follows five major steps, each presented in a separate chapter:
•
Chapter 2: Identification of Major Activity Centers and Quantification of
Associated Travel Markets – This chapter describes the initial task of
compiling of a list of high concentrations of activity, based on employment,
government services, and regional retail and cultural attractions. Each major
activity center identified is analyzed to determine a set of zones which have a
high proportion of people making trips to the activity centers in question, and
for which travel to the activity center will likely require a transfer between
different service boards.
•
Chapter 3: Evaluation of Existing Transit Service – Transit services between
the travel markets (zone pairs) identified in Chapter 2 are inventoried and
classified to determine how well transit serves each market.
•
Chapter 4: Definition of Transit Improvements for Selected Markets – General
strategies to improve transit service are described, and these strategies are
associated with specific travel markets for further analysis.
•
Chapter 5: Evaluation and Recommendation of Cost-Effective Improvements
– This chapter analyzes the impacts of specific transit service improvements
on ridership, revenue, and cost. Methods for estimating ridership and cost
for each change are described in detail.
•
Chapter 6: Financial Implications of Service Improvements – This chapter
focuses on developing a lasting process to plan, identify, and fund service
improvements in a cooperative fashion to advance service coordination.
Major findings and conclusions are highlighted in Chapter 7.
1-3
Summary Report
CHAPTER 2: IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS AND
QUANTIFICATION OF ASSOCIATED TRAVEL MARKETS
The first step in the detailed exploration of service coordination improvements was to
identify major activity centers and to quantify the most important travel markets for
these activity centers. This chapter describes the data gathering and analysis associated
with the identification of major activity centers in the Chicago metropolitan area. This
section is divided into two major subsections. Section 2.1 describes how the set of major
concentrations of activity (activity centers) has been defined. Section 2.2 describes the
process by which prominent travel market patterns were associated with the set of
major activity centers established in Section 2.1. These prominent travel market
patterns will be used as the basis for an analysis of transit service in later sections.
2.1
Definition of Major Concentrations of Activity
2.1.1
Introduction
This task involved a systematic analysis of major employment centers, social service
concentrations, and regional attractions in the six-county Chicago metropolitan area in
order to identify a limited number of regional activity centers. These activity centers
served as the basis for evaluating existing and planned transportation services and
facilities. The results of this evaluation were used to identify service coordination
opportunities and solutions.
2.1.2
Criteria for Activity Center Selection
The goal of this task was to identify a list of at least 10 major activity centers in the sixcounty Chicago metropolitan area. In consultation with the project team, three main
criteria were developed for activity centers on this list :
•
Diversity of type of activity – Many different types of activities take place in
highly concentrated locations. In order to capture a broad range of activity
types, this aspect of the search for activity centers was stratified into three
parts.
–
General employment – The total number of jobs within a specific area
gives an indication of the attractiveness of a location as a site of
economic activity. High concentrations of jobs indicate locations where
significant amounts of persons travel on a daily basis
–
Social services – Transit often serves a special purpose especially for
those in need of social services, health care, and educational
opportunities. Additional activity centers will be added to the list based
on high concentrations of government employment (indicating a high
2-1
Summary Report
concentration of government services) and high concentrations of health
care.
–
Regional attractions – Transit can also serve as a mode of convenience to
regional attractions serving shopping, tourism, and cultural activities.
Locations exhibiting high concentrations of retail, tourism, and cultural
activity were also considered for inclusion in the list of activity centers.
•
Geographic diversity – The list of activity centers should incorporate a cross
section of locations spread across the region, both within the central core and
outside of it. Since a significant amount of regional activity occurs in the
downtown area of the City of Chicago (Chicago Loop), and transit service to
the central downtown area is robust, the service coordination study actively
sought out areas outside Chicago’s historic downtown core.
•
Likelihood of attracting trips involving multiple transit agencies – Activity
centers of interest should be regional draws that attract patrons from one
transit service area to another.
Considering these three criteria, it was decided that the activity centers chosen should
include situations addressing the problems and opportunities for interagency service
coordination in urban and suburban contexts. In the analysis of trip patterns associated
with the final list of activity centers, the ability to service disadvantaged (and
disproportionately transit-dependent) populations was also included as a criterion for
analysis.
2.1.3
Data Sources
This section describes the sources of data for developing the list of activity centers. A
variety of sources provided data, including the Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission (NIPC), Chicago’s Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Economic Census
(of the United States Census Bureau), and the American Hospital Association. Each of
these data sources is described below. These sources provided the data required to
identify a broad range of activity centers by type of activity.
2.1.3.1 Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC)
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) is the official comprehensive
planning agency for the six-county Chicago metropolitan area. Its responsibilities
include estimating employment in the six counties of northeastern Illinois using data
from the United States Census and the Illinois Department of Employment Security.
Data from NIPC are available on a geographic unit designated as a quarter section. A
quarter section is based on the township-range system, while recognizing that some
civil township boundaries are irregular. Typically, a quarter section is a square one-half
mile on each side. Employment for the geographic area is the estimated number of
2-2
Summary Report
people who work at establishments within the geographic area. Part-time workers are
counted, and a person holding two wage or salary jobs is counted twice. NIPC data on
employment are stratified according to several categories of employment, including
government and institutional; manufacturing; retail; finance, insurance, real estate, and
services; transportation, communication, utilities, and wholesaling; and other
employment.
For the Service Coordination Study, 1995 employment data consistent with revisions of
the 1990 Census were extracted from the NIPC database under the categories of:
•
Government-institutional
•
Retail
•
Total Employment
Data for each quarter section were collected for each category of employment, for
population, and for the area of the 44 travel analysis zones used in this study to
quantify travel patterns throughout northeastern Illinois. For each quarter section,
three figures were calculated:
•
Total employment by category
•
Employment normalized to population (i.e., number of jobs per resident)
•
Employment normalized to the area of the zone (i.e., number of jobs per
amount of land area, or density of employment)
2.1.3.2 Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau
The Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau (CCTB) is a sales and marketing
organization which promotes the Chicago area for conventions, trade shows and group
meetings, especially for major facilities such as McCormick Place and Navy Pier. The
CCTB works in partnership with the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, the
Chicago Office of Tourism, and the Illinois Bureau of Tourism to promote tourism in
the Chicago region. The Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau compiles data on
attendance at cultural and tourism destination from many of its member organizations
and the Mayor’s Office of Special Events. Data were collected from the CCTB on
attendance at major recreational and tourist attractions in the City of Chicago, including
festivals and sports venues, for 2001. These statistics assisted in identifying significant
cultural and tourism-related activity centers in the City of Chicago. Statistics on event
or venue attendance were compiled into clusters (based on geographic proximity) and
ranked.
2-3
Summary Report
2.1.3.3 Economic Census
The United States Census Bureau, through the Economic Census, collects information
on businesses and employees. The Economic Census, conducted every five years,
provides profiles of the United States economy. Data compiled for the Economic
Census includes the number of establishments, sales or receipts, annual payroll, and the
number of paid employees. Data are collected for all firms and classified according to
the 1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The smallest
geographic unit for which data are reported are ZIP codes. The last year for which data
were collected and compiled and for which statistics were available at this writing was
1997. Data for 9 of the 18 industrial sectors in the 1997 Economic Census are available
at the ZIP code level.
The Economic Census was used as a supplement to the NIPC data on employment in
order to capture sectors of the economy not designated within the NIPC databases. For
this study, data related to three specific industrial sectors were compiled for all ZIP
codes in the six-county Chicago metropolitan area. The three sectors were (1)
Educational Services (indicating educational clusters), (2) Health Care and Social
Assistance (indicating medical and other social service concentrations), and (3)
Accommodation and Food Services (indicating high concentrations of hotels and
tourism-related establishments).
The Educational Services Sector, Number 61, includes establishments that provide
instruction and training in a wide variety of subjects. These include schools, colleges,
universities, and training centers. They may be privately owned and operated for-profit
or not-for-profit, or publicly owned and operated. Services offered to students can
include food and accommodation.
The Health Care and Social Assistance sector, Number 62, includes establishments
providing health care and social assistance to individuals. These establishments include
those providing only medical care, both health care and social assistance, and social
assistance only. The employees at these establishments are trained professionals,
including health practitioners and social workers.
The Accommodation and Food Services sector, Number 72, includes establishments that
provide lodging and/or preparation of meals, snacks, and beverages for immediate
consumption. These activities are frequently combined at some establishments.
Excluded from the sector are civic and social organizations; amusement and recreation
parks; theaters; and other recreation or entertainment facilities providing food and
beverages.
A number of considerations should be kept in mind when analyzing data from the
Economic Census. First, the category of paid employees consists of full-time and part
time employees, including salaried officers and executives of corporations. Second, the
2-4
Summary Report
Economic Census defines an establishment as a single physical location at which
business is conducted and/or services are provided. This allows locations to be
analyzed more accurately, since the employees of a single firm with operations at
multiple locations are reported for the location of each establishment surveyed, rather
than for the company’s headquarters.
The third consideration is a caveat. Economic Census data are not available for taxexempt firms in the Educational Services and the Health Care and Social Assistance
sectors for zip codes or smaller units. Data for tax-exempt firms are only reported in
statewide and regional reports. This exclusion may skew the results and should be
used with caution in making evaluations, since many employees throughout
Northeastern Illinois work for tax-exempt or government entities.
2.1.3.4 American Hospital Association
As a supplement to the health care data in the Economic Census, the analysis of activity
centers incorporated data from the American Hospital Association (AHA). The AHA is
a national organization that represents health care networks and over 5,000 hospitals
across the United States. The AHA keeps a database of member hospitals, from which
data were compiled for hospitals in the Chicago area. Data on the number of staffed
beds, outpatient visits, and personnel were used to determine which locations (as
designated by ZIP Codes) had the highest concentration of health services.
2.1.4
Development of the List of Major Activity Centers
Development of the list of activity centers was accomplished in three phases of analysis,
corresponding to the three main types of activity specified in the criteria for activity
centers. The four phases of analysis were:
•
a general analysis of total employment
•
analysis of social services (health care and government services)
•
analysis of regional attractions (retail centers, cultural centers and venues)
•
consultation with the project study team
2.1.4.1 Locations with High Total Employment
An analysis of total employment was the first step in developing a list of activity centers
for this study. Using data from NIPC, the values of total employment by quarter
section zone were divided into five ranges of employment and mapped onto a regional
map in order to identify clusters of activity. This map was used to identify clusters of
employment (Exhibit 2.1).
2-5
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.1 – Total Employment by Quarter Section
1995 Total Employment
0
2 - 3600
3618 - 15242
15243 - 45242
45243 - 100249
100250 - 168663
CTA/Metra Service
See Inset
Significant Cluster
CTA Service
Metra Service
2-6
Summary Report
Four different types of clusters were identified from the data:
•
quarter sections in the highest range (above 100,250 employees)
•
quarter sections in the second-highest range (between 45,243 and 100,249
employees)
•
quarter sections in the third-highest range (between 15,243 and 45,242
employees)
•
a cluster of more than five quarter sections in the fourth-highest range
(between 3,618 and 15,242 employees).
These clusters are listed in Exhibit 2.2.
Exhibit 2.2 – Clusters With High Levels Of Total Employment
Range
Highest Range
Second-Highest Range
Third-Highest Range
Fourth-Highest Range
(cluster of 5 or more
quarter sections)
Fourth-Highest Range
(cluster of 2 to 4
sections)
Locations of Clusters
Chicago Loop
Chicago Loop, North Michigan Avenue
North Michigan Avenue / River North, Westside Medical Center, University
of Chicago, O’Hare International Airport
Schaumburg/Woodfield Corporate Center, West Loop/University of Illinois
at Chicago, Oak Brook, Lake-Cook Road
Downers Grove, McCormick Place, Morton Grove, Forest Park, Joliet
Locations that fit into the top four types of high employment clusters were considered
for inclusion based on total employment alone. Exhibit 2.3 shows the nine locations
selected on this basis.
Exhibit 2.3 – Top Activity Centers based on Total Employment
Location
Downtown Chicago
University of Chicago / Hyde Park
O’Hare International Airport
Lake-Cook Road area
Schaumburg – Woodfield
Oak Brook area
West Loop / University of Illinois at Chicago
2-7
Major Service Provider(s)
CTA, Metra
CTA
CTA
CTA, Metra
CTA, Pace
Metra, Pace
Pace
Pace
CTA
Summary Report
2.1.4.2 Locations with Concentrated Social Services
In the interest of including various types of activity center, locations with high levels of
social services were considered. Three separate analyses were performed to determine
which locations should be added to the list of activity centers:
•
an analysis of government employment using NIPC data
•
an analysis of potential social service-related sectors using Economic Census
data
•
an analysis of self-reported data from hospitals in the Chicago metropolitan
area
2.1.4.2.1
Analysis of Government Employment using NIPC Data
Using a technique similar to that used to analyze total employment, a map of
government employment was created based on NIPC quarter section data. This map
was used to identify clusters of government employment (Exhibit 2.4).
2-8
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.4 – Significant Clusters of Government Employment
1995 Government
Employment
0
1 - 649
650 - 1933
1934 - 3942
3943 - 8281
8282 - 22405
CTA/Metra Service
See Inset
Significant Cluster
CTA Service
Metra Service
2-9
Summary Report
Five employment ranges were developed. Locations that fit into the top three rangers
are listed in Exhibit 2.5.

quarter sections in the fourth range (between 3,943 and 8,241 employees)

quarter sections in the third range (between 1,934 and 3,942)
Exhibit 2.5 – Clusters with High Levels of Government Employment
Range
Highest Range
Second-Highest Range
Third-Highest Range
Cluster
Chicago Loop, Westside Medical Center
Cook County Courts at 26th and California, University of Illinois at Chicago
Waukegan, Elgin, Palatine, Chicago State University, Joliet, Oak Forest
Hospital, Wheaton (near College of DuPage), O’Hare International Airport
The two locations in the top range, the Chicago Loop and the Westside Medical Center,
are on the recommended list of activity centers based on total employment (Exhibit 2.3).
Two additional locations from the second-highest range were considered for inclusion –
the Cook County Courts at 26th and California, and the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The University of Illinois at Chicago was considered for inclusion based on total
employment alone. The Cook County Courts cluster, however, was not recommended
for the list of major activity centers since it is a specialized social services concentration,
rather than a more general social services center likely to attract a greater variety of
travel purposes.
2.1.4.2.2
Analysis of Employment in Education and Health Care using the Economic
Census
Economic Census data were analyzed for two categories that might serve as proxies for
social service industries – education, and health and social services. Data were collected
for all ZIP codes and organized first by range of employment reported and then by the
number of establishments within each ZIP code. Listings of the top ZIP codes for the
Educational category and the Health and Social Services Categories are shown in
Exhibits 2.6 and 2.7, respectively. Unfortunately, the Economic Census data were
inconclusive for these economic sectors, since many of the community areas identified
failed to correspond to prominent clusters in either of their respective categories. The
fact that many of those people employed in these economic sectors work in the public
and nonprofit sectors likely contributed to the inability to draw firm conclusions from
the relevant Economic Census data.
2-10
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.6 – Areas with Highest Concentrations of Employees Working in Non-TaxExempt Educational Establishments* (1997)
Range of
Employment
Number of
Reported in
ZIP Code Community Area
County Establishments
Sector
60016 Des Plaines
Cook
3
1,000 to 2,499
60514 Clarendon Hills
DuPage
2
500 to 999
60521 Hinsdale/Burr Ridge
Cook
18
250 to 499
60173 Schaumburg/Hoffman Estates
Cook
17
250 to 499
60604 Loop Station
Cook
11
250 to 499
60076 Skokie/Evanston
Cook
6
250 to 499
60532 Lisle/Downers Grove
DuPage
5
250 to 499
* ZIP Code level data do not include employees in government or non-profit
establishments
Exhibit 2.7 – Areas with Highest Concentrations of Employees Working in Non-TaxExempt Health Care and Social Service Establishments * (1997)
Range of
Number
Employment
Reported in
of
County Establishments
ZIP Code Community Area
Sector
60521 Hinsdale/Burr Ridge
Cook
380
2,500 to 4,999
60611 Near North Side/Ontario Street
Cook
291
2,500 to 4,999
60126 Elmhurst/Bensenville
DuPage
167
2,500 to 4,999
60194 Hoffman Estates
Cook
141
2,500 to 4,999
60525 Burr Ridge/Brookfield
Cook
130
2,500 to 4,999
60616 Twenty Second Street
Cook
88
2,500 to 4,999
* ZIP Code level data do not include employees in government or non-profit
establishments
2.1.4.2.3
Analysis of College / University Enrollment
Another way to gauge concentrations of educational opportunities is to examine college
and university enrollment. Exhibit 2.8 provides data on enrollment at Chicago area
colleges and universities. These data, collected by the State of Illinois Board of Higher
Education, show that the University of Illinois at Chicago has the region’s highest
enrollment. This activity center is already considered for inclusion as a location with
one of the highest employment concentrations in the region.
2-11
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.8 – Enrollment at Chicago Area Colleges and Universities (Fall 2001)
College / University
Enrollment
University of Illinois at Chicago
24,610
DePaul University (multiple campuses)
19,549
Northwestern University
17,041
Harry S. Truman College
14,147
Loyola University of Chicago
13,359
University of Chicago
12,016
Wilbur Wright College
11,560
Northeastern Illinois University
10,937
Columbia College
8,848
Governors State University
8,800
2.1.4.2.4
Analysis of Hospital Size using American Hospital Association Information
In order to shed more light on the concentration of health care services in the region,
data were analyzed from the American Hospital Association on major medical facilities
and hospitals for 2001 (Exhibit 2.9). These data include the number of hospital beds,
outpatient visits, and personnel. Data for hospitals were compiled together where
hospitals are located near each other. Since the number of hospital beds is the only data
category for which all hospitals reported data and provides a reasonable measure of
comparison, the hospital clusters are ranked in order of number of beds. Locations
associated with the top two hospitals already fall within the recommended list of
activity centers, confirming their position on the list. The next two hospitals on the list
were considered for inclusion – a cluster of hospitals in downtown Evanston, and the
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in North Chicago.
2-12
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.9 – Data on Hospitals in the Chicago Metropolitan Area (2001)
Rank Zip Code
Hospitals Included
Westside Medical Center (Cook
County Hospital, Rush
Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical
Center, University of Illinois at
Chicago Medical Center)
North Michigan Avenue –
Streeterville (Northwestern
Memorial Hospital, Rehabilitation
Institute of Chicago, VA Chicago
Health Care System)
City
Sum of
Hospital
Beds
Number of
Outpatient
Visits
Number of
Personnel
Chicago
1720
1,448,440
16,874
Chicago
1129
852,139
8,427
1
60612
2
60611
3
60202
(with
60201,
60225,
60035)
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare,
St. Francis Hospital
Evanston
938
At least
1,387,762 *
At least 5,722 *
4
60064
VA Medical Center
North
Chicago
836
Not Reported
Not Reported
60068
(with
60016)
60657
(with
60640)
Holy Family Medical Center,
Advocate Lutheran General
Hospital
Park Ridge
749
-
-
Advocate Northside Health
Network
Chicago
663
Not Reported
Not Reported
7
60453
Advocate Christ Medical Center
Oak Lawn
627
325,886
Not Reported
8
60616
625
At least 85,147
*
At least 900 *
9
60452
603
52,678
1,510
10
60614
Chicago
559
266,966
2,333
11
60153
Maywood
536
Not Reported
-
12
60637
Loyola University / Hines VA
Medical Center
University of Chicago Hospitals
Chicago
533
448,908
5,101
13
60123
Elgin Mental Health Center
Elgin
500
Not Reported
1,128
14
60160
440
210,775
1,820
15
60521
432
272,827
2,224
16
60005
395
368,124
2,362
17
18
60425
60631
393
373
309,810
229,275
1,734
2,114
5
6
Mercy Hospital and Medical Center,
Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Chicago
Center
Oak Forest Hospital of Cook
Oak Forest
County
Children's Memorial Hospital,
Columbus Hospital, Grant Hospital
Gottlieb Memorial Hospital,
Melrose Park
WestLake Hospital
Hinsdale Hospital, RML Specialty
Hinsdale
Hospital
Arlington
Northwest Community Healthcare
Heights
Ingalls Hospital
Harvey
Resurrection Medical Center
Chicago
2-13
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.9 – Data on Hospitals in the Chicago Metropolitan Area (2001) (continued)
Hospitals Included
City
Sum of
Hospital
Beds
Number of
Outpatient
Visits
Number of
Personnel
Provena St. Joseph Medical Center
Joliet
369
388,637
1,836
20
60463
Palos Community Hospital
Palos Heights
360
224,817
* Zip Code Cluster contains at least one hospital not reporting data for this category
1,955
Rank Zip Code
19
60435
2.1.4.2.5
Summary – Locations with Concentrated Social Services
Through the analysis of social service concentrations, only the analysis of hospital size
resulted in locations being recommended for addition to the list of major activity
centers. These two locations are shown in Exhibit 2.10.
Exhibit 2.10 – Locations to Consider based on Social Service Criteria
Location
Evanston Hospital Cluster (downtown
Evanston)
VA Medical Center – North Chicago
2-14
CTA, Metra, Pace
Metra, Pace
Summary Report
2.1.4.3 Locations with Regional Attractions
For the purposes of this study, regional attractions include retail centers, tourist
attractions, areas with high concentrations of tourist-related businesses, and highattendance sports venues. Three separate analyses were performed to determine which
locations should be added to the list of activity centers considered:
•
an analysis of retail employment using NIPC data
•
an analysis of employees in the accommodation and food services industrial
sector by location, using Economic Census data
•
an analysis of attendance figures collected by the Chicago Convention and
Tourism Bureau
2.1.4.3.1
Analysis of Retail Employment using Data from NIPC
Using the same basic technique as that used for the analyses of total employment and
government employment, a map of retail employment was created based on quarter
section data from NIPC. This map was used to identify clusters of retail employment
(Exhibit 2.11).
2-15
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.11 – Significant Retail Clusters
Retail Employment 1995
0
1 - 296
297 - 686
687 - 1510
1511 - 3413
3414 - 8347
CTA/Metra Service
See Inset
Significant Cluster
CTA Service
Metra Service
2-16
Summary Report
Again, five employment ranges were developed. Locations that fit into the top two
ranges are listed in Exhibit 2.12.
•
•
clusters of two or more quarter sections in the fourth range (between 1,511
and 3,413)
Exhibit 2.12 – Clusters with High Levels of Retail Employment
Range
Highest Range (cluster
of 1 or more quarter
sections)
4th Range (cluster of 2
quarter sections or
more)
Cluster
Chicago Loop, North Michigan Avenue, O’Hare Airport, Woodfield Mall,
Oak Brook Shopping Center, Hoffman Estates (Sears Headquarters)
Yorktown Mall area (Oak Brook), Golf Mill Shopping Center (Niles -Northern Cook County), River Oaks Shopping Center (Calumet City –
Southern Cook County)
Five of the top six locations with retail employment are on the list of major activity
centers. The sixth, Sears Headquarters, is a major administrative center for a large retail
company, and is therefore an employment site alone rather than a retail destination.
Because the top five retail locations all correspond to locations in the list of major
activity centers (Exhibit 2.3), no additional locations were recommended based on retail
employment alone.
2.1.4.3.2
Analysis of Employment in the Accommodation and Food Services Industrial
Sector using Data from the Economic Census
Economic Census data were analyzed for the accommodation and food services sector,
a potential indicator of a high concentration of establishments serving tourists. Data
were collected for all ZIP codes and organized by range of employment reported and
then by the number of establishments within each ZIP code. A listing of the top ZIP
codes for the Accommodation and Food Services category is presented in Exhibit 2.13.
2-17
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.13 – Areas with Highest Concentrations of Employees working in the
Accommodation and Food Services Sector* (1997)
ZIP Code
Community Area or Post Office
County
Number of
Establishments
60611
Near North Side/Ontario Street
Cook
218
Range of
Employment
Reported in Sector
10,000 to 24,999
60018
60601
60610
Des Plaines / Rosemont
Loop Station
Fort Dearborn
Cook
Cook
Cook
300
144
93
5,000 to 9,999
5,000 to 9,999
5,000 to 9,999
60614
60657
60622
60521
60462
60540
60174
60173
60515
60605
60603
60666
Lincoln Park/Logan Square
Graceland/Lakeview
Humboldt Park/Wicker Park
Hinsdale/Burr Ridge
Orland Park/Orland Hills
Naperville/Lisle
St. Charles Geneva
Schaumburg/Hoffman Estates
Downers Grove
Loop Near South Side
Loop Station
O'Hare
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Cook
DuPage
Cook
Cook
Cook
304
270
193
127
125
113
105
98
89
78
72
20
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
2,500 to 4,999
The top location in terms of number of employees corresponds to the North Michigan
Avenue area, a location already noted as a major activity center in Exhibit 2.3.
Similarly, the Loop Station and Fort Dearborn ZIP codes correspond to the Chicago
Loop area, also a major activity center. In addition, one remaining location – Des
Plaines / Rosemont – can be analyzed with O’Hare Airport as a major activity center.
Since the top four locations from this analysis are part of major activity centers already
included, no additional locations were added based on this analysis.
2.1.4.3.3
Analysis of Most-Visited Cultural Attractions
Data from the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau were considered for indicators
of major regional cultural and entertainment draws. Attendance figures for facilities
were compiled into clusters in order to compare the relative attractiveness of a location.
Data on tourist attractions and sports venues are shown in Exhibits 2.14 and 2.15,
respectively.
2-18
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.14 – Annual Attendance at Clusters of Tourist Attractions (2001)
Tourist Attractions
Annual PersonVisits
Facilities Included
Navy Pier
8,840,078
Navy Pier, Chicago Children's Museum
Museum Campus
3,875,888
Field Museum, John G. Shedd Aquarium,
Adler Planetarium
Lincoln Park Zoo
3,000,000
East Loop
3,052,758
Museum of Science and Industry
1,597,887
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago Cultural
Center, Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Exhibit 2.15 – Annual Attendance at Sports Venues (2001)
Annual
Attendance
2,779,456
1,766,172
Sports Venues
Wrigley Field
Comiskey Park
United Center (Bulls and
Blackhawks)
Soldier Field
Allstate Arena
1,590,205
730,891
300,000
Since the top tourism-related attraction, Navy Pier, is near North Michigan Avenue, it
can be analyzed with the North Michigan Avenue activity center, with which it shares
many characteristics of transit connectivity. Based on this analysis, the Chicago
Museum Campus has the highest attendance among the remaining clusters of tourist
attractions and sports venues. Therefore, the Museum Campus was recommended for
inclusion in the list of major activity centers. This cluster southeast of the Loop has
been included as a location to consider from the analysis of total employment.
2.1.4.3.4
Summary – Locations with Regional Attractions
Through this analysis, one additional location was considered for the list of regional
activity centers based on its association with regional attractions (Exhibit 2.16).
Exhibit 2.16 – Locations to Consider Based on Association with Regional Attractions
Location
Museum Campus
CTA, Metra
2-19
Summary Report
2.1.4.4 Locations Suggested by the Project Study Team
Most of the activity centers chosen for further analysis were selected on the basis of the
three criteria described above – significant concentrations of total employment,
concentration of social services, and the presence of major regional attractions. The
project study team reviewed the selected locations and affirmed their merit for analysis
of transit effectiveness. The project study team also suggested additional locations in
order to support two additional goals of the list of activity centers:
•
Geographic diversity
•
Likelihood of attracting trips involving multiple transit agencies
The project study team analyzed the list of activity centers selected thus far, and noted
that most of these centers were clustered around downtown Chicago and suburban
areas in to the north and northwest of downtown Chicago. Given this distribution of
major activity centers, the project study team sought to identify locations in the south
and west segments of the metropolitan region, using data from the analysis of major
activity centers and the study team’s knowledge of the Chicago metropolitan region.
Based on these considerations, the project study team suggested three additional
locations (listed in Exhibit 2.17). The Loyola Medical Center / Hines VA Hospital
cluster was selected from the list of hospital clusters in order to provide an additional
suburban social service location. Downtown Joliet was selected both for its location
toward the far southwest of the metropolitan region but also as a representative of
satellite cities. Finally, the Ford Plant was suggested in order to add an industrial
location in the southern part of the metropolitan region.
Exhibit 2.17 – Locations to Consider Based on Input from the Project Study Team
Location
Loyola Medical Center / Hines VA Hospital –
Maywood
Joliet
Ford Plant
2.1.5
Pace
Pace, Metra
Pace
Summary
A total of fifteen locations were considered for analysis as major activity centers based
on three principal criteria (total employment, social services, and major regional
attractions), supplemented by such other considerations as a variety of activity types
and including all parts of the region. Despite their many differences, these fifteen
locations all share some combination of at least one of the following characteristics: high
2-20
Summary Report
total employment, significant concentrations of social services, and a strong draw as a
cultural, entertainment, or tourist-related site. The fifteen locations, as shown in Exhibit
2.18, also are geographically dispersed with locations in central Chicago, inner suburbs
and outer suburbs.
Exhibit 2.18 – Recommended List of Major Activity Centers based on Total
Employment, Social Services, and Regional Attractions
Location
Downtown Chicago
North Michigan
Avenue / Navy Pier
Museum Campus /
Soldier Field
Westside Medical
Center
University of Chicago /
Hyde Park/Museum of
Science and Industry
O’Hare International
Airport / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road area
Schaumburg –
Woodfield
Oak Brook area
West Loop / UIC
Downtown Evanston
(including Evanston
hospitals)
VA Medical Center –
North Chicago
Loyola Medical Center
/ Hines VA Hospital
Joliet
Ford Plant (130th and
Torrence)
X
Inclusion
based on
Social
Services
X
Inclusion
based on
Regional
Attractions
X
X
X
X
Major Service
Provider(s)
Inclusion based
on Total
Employment
CTA, Metra
CTA
CTA, Metra
Inclusion
based on
Additional
Input
X
CTA
X
X
X
CTA, Metra
X
CTA, Pace
X
Metra, Pace
X
Pace
X
X
Pace
CTA
X
X
X
X
X
CTA, Metra,
Pace
X
Metra, Pace
X
Pace
X
Pace, Metra
X
Pace
X
2-21
Summary Report
2.2
Analysis of Travel Market Patterns
Identifying the prominent regional travel market patterns required the selection of four
or five zones or clusters of zones with the strongest trip-making attraction to each of the
zones containing the 15 major activity centers selected. This was done using data from
the RTA Regional Travel Model's travel demand estimates using 1995 as the base year,
and a set of time-tested heuristics designed to create a set of origin-designation pairs
that include the most strongly attracted zones and that account for a diversity of travel
patterns.
2.2.1
Regional Travel Model Data
In order to understand regional travel patterns and the general trends affecting transit
travel and rates of transfers between different services, previous study efforts had
analyzed projections of travel demand to 2020. This analysis of regional travel used
data from existing regional travel model runs already performed for previous study
efforts at the Regional Transportation Authority. These previously executed runs of the
RTA transit travel demand model used 1995 as the base year and 2020 as the horizon
year for projections and for testing different planning scenarios. Data from these model
runs were re-organized and analyzed to provide insight on general travel trends. Since
no new model runs were performed as part of this study, it is important to note that the
travel trends related in this report reflect trends inherent in regional travel and regional
development when the model was originally calibrated in 1996. As a result, the model
may not capture changes in travel trends caused by recent trends in regional
development, such as the acceleration of significant residential development in central
Chicago and increasing clustering of employment and housing around suburban Metra
stations. Nevertheless, the travel trends in the model should hold true in general terms,
since the overall distribution of regional development and concentrations of major
activity centers throughout the region has not changed significantly since 1996.
The data from the RTA’s transit travel demand model indicate that regional travel on all
modes of transportation is growing, as shown in Exhibit 2.19. However, increases in
regional transit travel are not projected to keep pace with the projected growth in travel
by modes other than transit.
Exhibit 2.19: Projected Daily Person Trips for the Chicago Region - 1995 to 2020
Type of Trip
Transit Trips
Non Transit Trips
Total Trips
1995
1,400,043
16,912,540
18,312,583
2020
1,613,215
21,240,476
22,853,691
2-22
% Increase
15.2%
25.6%
24.8%
Summary Report
For the analysis of regional travel market patterns, estimates of average weekday
person trips from the base year (1995) were organized by zone. A 44-zone travel
analysis model, with the zones organized around major downtown-oriented radial
corridors, was used to quantify existing levels of trip-making to the activity centers.
Exhibit 2.20 shows the zones used in this model. The line separating zones 9 through 17
from zones 18 through 26 distinguishes, in very general terms, the core service areas of
CTA and Pace from one another. (Metra serves areas both within and beyond this
dividing line, and its commuter rail lines are shown in Exhibit 2.20.)
2.2.2
Methods Used
The task of linking the zones with the strongest travel demand to each of the 15 selected
activity centers using the 1995 data involved several steps. First, one zone was selected
to represent each major activity center2. Where portions of an activity center cluster
were located in more than one zone, the primary zone was designated as the
destination zone. Once these destination zones were designated, a list of prominent
origin zones (other than the destination zone itself) was identified for each destination
zone. The first two major criteria considered were the following:
•
The importance of the travel market – calculated as the share of total average
weekday trips from each origin zone to each destination zone (i.e., the total
trips from each origin zone to the designated destination zone divided by the
total number of trips from the origin zone to all destination zones). Ranking
the origins by the share of total daily trips to each destination normalizes by
the number of trips generated by each zone and therefore accounts for the
differences between large zones and small zones.
•
The strength of the travel market - the total number of trips for each O-D zone
pair.
The top two zones were chosen based on the importance of the travel market (the first
criterion). Where the relative shares of trips from two separate origin zones were
relatively close, the second criterion, the absolute number of trips, was used. As
expected, the analysis showed that those origin zones with the highest proportion of
travelers to zones with major activity centers were generally adjacent to destination
zones. In order to ensure a diversity of travel patterns, two additional criteria were
introduced to produce two or three additional zones.
2
This methodology examines travel patterns by zone as a representation of travel patterns to the location (the
major activity center) within that zone. The methodology, therefore, assumes that travel patterns to the major
activity center are similar to travel patterns to the zone containing that major activity center.
2-23
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.20 Map of 44 Travel Zones
2-24
Summary Report
The first additional criterion was the selection of zones outside of the general region
containing the zone. Under this criterion, the six-county area was divided into two
major subregions. Zones 1-17 were classified as the inner region, and zones 18-44 were
identified as the outer region. For local transit services, zones 1-17 roughly correspond
to the CTA’s service area, and Zones 18-44 are served primarily by Pace bus service.
(Metra’s rail network serves both the inner and outer zones.) Exhibit 2.20 shows the 44zone structure, with the inner zone region and outer zone region identified. The
selection of zones outside of each activity center’s respective subregion ensures a more
representative regional coverage and includes zones with a higher likelihood of
interagency transfers. In fact, the Regional Transit Coordination Plan’s Location Study
showed that many of the interagency transfers occur in zones 9-26, which are the border
zones between the inner and outer regions.
The second additional criterion involved travel associated with zones in Chicago’s
Central Business District (zones 1-5). These zones are generally well-served by direct
and frequent transit services. CTA bus and rail service for trips within in this area is
generally dense and abundant, rarely requiring interagency transfers. Additional zones
were investigated for activity centers in Zones 1 through 5 in order to enhance the
geographic diversity of zone pairs.
2.2.3
Consideration of Minority and Low Income Populations
In addition to the two formal criteria for selecting origin-destination pairs, it is
important to consider the extent to which the transit network serves minority and low
income populations. The system of 44 zones to define the region provides a useful basis
for understanding how the minority and low income populations are distributed
throughout the region.
Using data from the 2000 United States Census, the proportion of the population of each
zone that can be classified as minority or low income were calculated. The total
minority population was calculated as the total population minus the white nonHispanic population. The low-income household information was generated by the
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), using the 1999 income ratio and
household estimates. NIPC calculates the income ratio by taking the average of the
median incomes of the census blocks in the quarter section and dividing it by the
average income for the entire region. Quarter sections where the ratio of the mean of
median incomes/regional mean income was under 0.5 (roughly, where average income
in the zone is less than half the regional average) were considered to be low-income
areas. All households located in the "low income" areas were summarized for the
district. A summary of these calculations is presented in Exhibit 2.21, with maps
showing the concentration of minority and low income populations in Exhibits 2.22 and
2.23, respectively.
2-25
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.21: Calculation of Minority Population and Low Income Households
Minority Population
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Low Income Households
Total
Minority
Minority
Minority
Area (Sq.Mi.)
Population Population Percentage
Per Sq.Mi.
30,227
5,017
17%
5.0
1,001
5,968
1,463
25%
2.8
530
2,852
387
14%
3.9
100
5,560
2,304
41%
3.8
609
6,961
2,510
36%
3.6
702
186,607
51,897
28%
23.7
2,190
82,794
65,220
79%
19.6
3,322
93,316
71,680
77%
22.6
3,166
298,564
149,220
50%
31.8
4,690
170,437
90,496
53%
23.6
3,833
270,052
125,445
46%
49.2
2,549
289,259
233,956
81%
41.5
5,634
198,413
147,903
75%
47.5
3,111
234,150
193,563
83%
40.4
4,790
252,479
177,163
70%
56.4
3,141
348,713
334,253
96%
72.8
4,591
213,400
196,858
92%
45.2
4,354
153,391
41,237
27%
56.3
733
61,305
13,174
21%
40.3
327
138,027
13,460
10%
70.8
190
99,399
26,470
27%
55.9
474
113,835
77,670
68%
53.2
1,461
102,762
9,554
9%
66.3
144
95,418
21,826
23%
72.2
302
325,895
138,436
42%
122.3
1,132
132,722
115,228
87%
74.3
1,551
66,115
6,427
10%
75.1
86
188,183
34,218
18%
175.8
195
397,936
98,548
25%
247.3
398
318,071
83,449
26%
218.0
383
328,864
67,725
21%
230.0
294
422,218
75,861
18%
327.5
232
80,424
16,789
21%
199.7
84
274,769
36,776
13%
305.3
120
329,790
192,505
58%
273.0
705
181,581
88,594
49%
183.4
483
292,793
47,552
16%
702.3
68
359,315
45,002
13%
1406.9
32
175,112
55,387
32%
518.7
107
94,976
5,955
6%
437.0
14
184,545
73,411
40%
343.2
214
175,680
35,145
20%
325.4
108
105,329
22,869
22%
736.1
31
48,476
11,670
24%
475.6
25
Total
Households
38,259
4,397
6,271
4,926
6,726
127,751
37,689
44,851
172,418
96,870
136,874
122,255
100,802
74,956
84,615
155,554
102,153
75,641
34,707
77,358
50,042
49,646
49,798
47,879
137,673
51,643
30,566
83,620
175,251
128,482
127,495
166,930
35,426
107,066
127,441
62,929
109,405
137,036
63,569
36,298
67,988
68,369
37,651
18,166
Low Income Low Income
Households Percentage
0%
50
1%
0%
0%
0%
5,200
4%
7,524
20%
13,631
30%
5,514
3%
646
1%
183
0%
4,154
3%
13,548
13%
8,053
11%
1,256
1%
38,516
25%
5,298
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
90
0%
174
0%
365
1%
1,038
1%
3,292
6%
15
0%
22
0%
95
0%
2
0%
1,707
1%
1,627
1%
222
1%
1,027
1%
3,725
3%
3,568
6%
2,530
2%
2,579
2%
2,418
4%
350
1%
1,381
2%
4,567
7%
2,242
6%
307
2%
The Low Income Percentage is calculated as the percentage of households located in quarter sections categorized as
low income areas by zone.
2-26
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.22
Percentage of Minority Population Residing in Quarter Sections by Zone
2-27
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.23
Percentage of Households Located in Quartersections
Categorized as Low Income Areas by Zone
2-28
Summary Report
All of Zones 9 through 17 have minority populations of 46 percent or more. This group
of zones is within Ring 3, the outer Chicago neighborhoods. Three of these zones (16,
14 and 13) also exhibit significant percentages of low income households. Zone 16 on
the South Side of the City of Chicago (including the Stateway Gardens public housing
area and much of Hyde Park) has a 96 percent minority population and 25 percent of
low income households.
Other zones with a high minority population as well as a significant percentage of low
income household are:
- Zone 8 on the near South Side of the City of Chicago, Ring 2
- Zone 7 on the near West Side of the City of Chicago, Ring 2
- Zone 26 on the far South Side of Chicago and the near south suburbs, Ring 4
- Zone 36, which includes Waukegan and the Great Lakes Naval Training Center,
Ring 6
Two far southwest suburban zones, 42 and 43, in Ring 6 (the outer metropolitan zone),
have approximately 20 percent minority populations and have high percentages of low
income households. Zone 42 contains the City of Joliet.
An understanding of where minority and low income populations are concentrated
helps set the context for understanding how well the transit system serves the region.
The poor are particularly dependent on public transit for travel to work, recreation and
social services.
2.2.4
Results
In identifying the prominent travel market patterns, four to five origin zones were
selected for each activity center. The set of origin-destination pairs generated by this
analysis is generally representative of the most prominent travel patterns associated
with major activity centers. The 64 resulting origin-destination zone pairs were used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the regional transit network and to explore coordination
opportunities between the three service boards.
Exhibit 2.24 summarizes the most important travel patterns identified, and Exhibits 2.25
through 2.39 indicate the strength of the selected travel markets associated with each of
the major activity centers.
2-29
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.24: Summary of the Prominent Regional Travel Patterns Identified
Major Activity Centers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
North Michigan Avenue/
Streeterville/River North/Navy Pier
Museum Campus / Soldier
Field/McCormick Place
West Loop / UIC
University of Chicago/Hyde Park/
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
Oak Brook Area / I-88 corridor
(Downers Grove, Lisle, Naperville)
Great Lakes Naval Training Center/ VA
Medical Center- North Chicago
Loyola Medical Center/Hines VA
Hospital- Maywood
Joliet
Ford Plant (130th and Torrence)
Primary
Zone
(Additional
Zones)
3 (2)
Prominent Origin Zones Selected
Zones Adjacent
Zones Not
to Destination
Adjacent to
Zone
Destination Zone
6, 5
26, 25
1
6
5, 26, 18, 25
8
16, 7
26, 25
4 (7)
7
6, 7
4, 8, 6
9, 26, 18
26, 25
16
26, 8, 15, 25
20
28
29
19, 11, 29
37, 29
30, 28
3
9, 10
11, 9
32
33, 41
13, 14
18
19, 9, 27, 10, 28
36
37, 27
22
23, 21, 13, 14
42
26
33, 34
17, 35, 25, 16
2-30
9, 11
8, 15
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.25
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Downtown Chicago (Loop)
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
% of Total Trips From Origin
Zone Destined to Zone
Containing Major Activity Center
Destination Zone
2-31
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.26
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to North Michigan Avenue /
Streeterville/ River North / Navy Pier
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-32
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.27
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Museum Campus
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-33
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.28
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to UIC / West Loop
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-34
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.29
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Westside Medical Center
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-35
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.30
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to University of Chicago
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-36
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.31
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to O’Hare Rosemont
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-37
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.32
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Lake-Cook Road Area
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-38
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.33
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Schaumburg - Woodfield
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-39
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.34
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Oak Brook Area
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-40
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.35
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Evanston / Northwestern
University
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-41
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.36
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Great Lakes Naval Training Center
/ VA Medical Center – North Chicago
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-42
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.37
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Loyola Medical Center / Hines VA
Hospital – Maywood
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-43
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.38
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Joliet
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-44
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.39
Strength of Selected Prominent Travel Markets to Ford Plant (130th and Torrence)
N
< 17,000
17,000 – 46,000
> 46,000
1995 Daily
Weekday Trips
Destination Zone
2-45
Summary Report
Exhibit 2.40 shows the distribution of the origin and destination zones selected, as
defined by concentric rings around downtown Chicago.
Exhibit 2.40: Distribution of the Selected Origin-Destination Zone Pairs by Ring
Around Downtown Chicago
Ring
Number
Description of Ring (Zones Included in
Ring)
Number of
Origin Zones
Selected in Ring
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOTAL
Downtown Chicago (1-5)
Inner Chicago Neighborhoods (6-8)
Outer Chicago Neighborhoods (9-17)
Near Suburbs (18-26)
Intermediate Suburbs (27-35)
Outer Metropolitan Zone (36-44)
All Zones (1-44)
4
9
19
18
11
3
64
Number of
Destination
Zones Selected
in Ring
14
9
4
17
12
8
64
Exhibit 2.41 shows the geographic relationships between the different pairs of origin
and destination zones. In order to better understand the distributions of the prominent
travel patterns presented in Exhibit 2.41, the 64 origin-destination zone pairs were
classified according to the geographic relationship between the locations of the origin
and destination in the following manner:
A.
Zones along the same downtown-oriented radial line or travel corridor (i.e.,
in the same "wedge")
B.
Adjacent zones (i.e., along the same concentric ring).
C.
Zones along other radial lines (i.e., in other "wedges" or travel corridors)
Exhibit 2.41: Classification of Origin-Destination Zone Pairs
CLASSIFICATION
A
B
C
Description
Along same
radial line
Adjacent or
same ring
Along other
radial lines
Number of Zone
Pairs
40
16
8
2-46
Total
64
Summary Report
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
3.1
Classification of Travel Markets by Quality of Transit Service
3.1.1
Introduction and Methodology
For each of the 64 prominent travel markets identified in Chapter 2, the convenience of
the transit service connecting the origin and destination zones was classified by
superimposing the existing transit network over the desire line map. The services were
placed into one of four basic conditions (indicating general levels of ease and
convenience for transit travel) and additional sub-conditions representing more precise
distinctions, as shown in Exhibit 3.1.
Exhibit 3.1: Classifications of Transit Services
Transit
Service
Condition
Subcondition
No. of
Transfers
Required
1
--
0
2
--
--
2-1A
1
2-1B
2-1C
2-2A
2-2B
2-2C
2-2D
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
--
--
4
--
--
Descriptions of Services Involved
Direct and frequent transit service already exists and is
serving the market
A mainline or trunk transfer connection between origin and
destination pairs is required.
Both services are mainline trunks (both rail with high
frequency or rail with high frequency bus)
One mainline trunk service, one feeder
Two local or feeder routes
Two mainline trunk services and one feeder (local route)
Feeder, Mainline, Feeder
Mainline, Feeder, Local
3 Local Lines
Transit services currently connect both the origin to the transit
network or the destination to the transit network but the
routes/schedules are too circuitous or inconvenient to be
feasible.
The existing transit network does not adequately serve the
origin, destination, or both.
Travel markets represented by pairs of origin and destination zones that were already
being served with direct service (no transfers) and frequent service (typically with
headways of less than 10 minutes) were assigned to transit condition 1. Those markets
served by transit with at least one mainline or trunk transfer connection between origin
and destination pairs were assigned to transit condition 2. These markets were, in turn,
further classified into sub-conditions based on the combination of mainline trunk,
feeder, and local routes used to serve each market.
Travel markets with transit service at both the origin and the destination, but where
transit connections between the origin and destination involve a trip with inconvenient
schedules or circuitous routing, were classified as condition 3. Finally, those markets
3-1
Summary Report
where there is minimal transit service to the origin and destination (or both), and where
services do not connect to complete the transit trip (requiring excessive transferring, an
unreasonably circuitous trip, or do not connect at all) were designated as condition 4.
For travel markets meeting sub-conditions 2-2B, 2-2C, 2-2D, 3, and 4, the deficiencies
were characterized in greater detail by indicating the distance of either or both the
origin or destination from the nearest feeder or distributor transit link, the frequency of
the transit link, and the service span.
Professional judgment and comparisons of transit connections were used to determine
the network segments most likely to be used to complete a trip the between two zones
representing the prominent travel market. The assumptions used in selecting the trip
routes and itineraries included:
•
Walking access to the transit network and transfers within the network were
limited to less than 0.5 mile.
•
Travelers would typically select the fastest and most direct route given the
transit network and schedules being operated.
•
Transfers were minimized and generally limited to a maximum of two.
•
Wait times were minimized; frequent service was generally assumed to run
on headways of 10-15 minutes or less.
The analysis also noted the number of transfers, the operators (service boards) used in
completing each itinerary, and a description of the trip including such details as the
likely transfer points and specific routes.
3.1.2
Resources
The classification of transit services available for each travel market (i.e., each pair of
origin and destination zones) was based primarily on the existing transit network
published in the on-line or printed versions of the system maps and individual route
maps published by RTA, CTA, Pace, and Metra as of the summer of 2002. These maps
were used to determine the network segments most likely to be used in completing a
trip between the two zones representing each of the prominent travel markets.
The results were also cross-checked using the on-line trip planner at RTA's Travel
Information Center [http://tripsweb.rtachicago.com], which provides itineraries based
on the latest schedule and route information from the service boards. The on-line trip
planner also provided travel time data for the most likely transit trips. The information
was considered in determining transit travel times for the evaluation of the services.
However, a review of the output from the on-line trip planner indicated that not all
trips and itineraries suggested by the trip planner were feasible. In those cases, the trip
planner's output was not used.
3-2
Summary Report
Most of the major activity centers in this analysis corresponded directly to landmarks
identified in the options of origins and destinations for the on-line trip planner. For the
other activity centers or origins not identified in the options, major intersections or more
specific locales were selected (such as colleges and universities, shopping centers, and
major sports venues), and these were used with the trip planner to represent the origin
zone. In addition, more than one landmark was used for analysis where appropriate,
particularly for those intermediate and outer zones that cover vast areas where
development patterns are largely uniform or where there is more than one principal
center.
3.1.3
Results
Exhibit 3.2 shows the designated transit service conditions for each of the 64 travel
markets analyzed, defined by the origin zone and the zone of the major activity center
(i.e., destination). For markets meeting condition 2, a sub-condition was also specified.
There are four or five travel markets identified for each of the 15 major activity centers.
Exhibit 3.3 summarizes the various travel markets among the four-condition hierarchy.
Exhibit 3.2: Summary of Transit Service Conditions for the 64 Origin-Destination
Pairs
ID
Major Activity Center (Destination)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.2
North Michigan Avenue / Streeterville/Navy Pier
Museum Campus / Soldier Field/McCormick Pl.
UIC / West Loop
UIC / West Loop
UIC / West Loop
UIC / West Loop
UIC / West Loop
U. of Chicago/Hyde Park/ Museum of Sci. & Ind.
3-3
Origin
Zone
6
5
26
25
5
6
26
18
25
16
7
25
26
6
7
9
26
18
4
8
6
26
25
26
8
Destination Transit
SubZone
Condition condition
3
1
-3
1
-3
2
2B
3
2
2B
1
2
1B
1
2
1B
1
2
2B
1
2
2B
1
2
2B
8
2
1B
8
2
1A
8
2
1B
8
2
1B
4
2
1A
4
1
-4
2
1A
4
2
1B
4
2
2A
7
1
-7
2
1A
7
2
1A
7
2
1A
7
2
2A
16
2
1B
16
2
1B
Summary Report
ID
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
Origin
Zone
15
25
O’Hare / Rosemont
3
O’Hare / Rosemont
19
O’Hare / Rosemont
11
O’Hare / Rosemont
29
Lake-Cook Road Area
37
Lake-Cook Road Area
29
Lake-Cook Road Area
9
Lake-Cook Road Area
10
30
28
11
9
33
41
13
14
19
9
27
10
28
Naval Training Ctr
37
Naval Training Ctr
27
Naval Training Ctr
9
Naval Training Ctr
11
Loyola Med. Ctr./Hines VA Hospital- Maywood
23
21
13
14
Joliet
33
Joliet
34
Joliet
8
Joliet
15
17
35
25
16
Destination Transit
SubZone
Condition condition
16
1
-16
2
2B
20
1
-20
2
1B
20
1
-20
2
1B
28
2
1B
28
4
-28
2
2A
28
2
2D
29
4
-29
2
2D
29
2
2B
29
2
2A
32
4
(a)
32
2
1A
32
3
(b)
32
2
2A
18
2
1C
18
2
1A
18
2
1B
18
2
1B
18
2
2B
36
2
2B
36
2
1B
36
2
2B
36
2
2B
22
2
1B
22
2
1B
22
2
2B
22
2
2B
42
3
(c)
42
3
(c)
42
3
(d)
42
3
(d)
26
2
1C
26
2
2D
26
2
2D
26
2
2B
Notes:
(a) Travel market 10.1 is designated as condition 4 since the transit network does not
connect Lockport or Lemont with the Oak Brook/I-88 Corridor in a workable fashion,
except in the vicinity of the Lemont Metra Station or the Lockport Metra Station in the
southern boundary of zone 33. Most origins in this zone are more than two miles from
the nearest transit link (Pace bus stops or Metra stations). The Pace bus routes in the
zone are extremely infrequent. For example, #831 has only three runs in each direction,
3-4
Summary Report
and the headway for #834 is 1 hour. Metra service along the Heritage Corridor operates
three round trips, on weekdays, in the peak direction only.
(b) Travel market 10.3 is designated condition 3 because transit services are particularly
inconvenient and circuitous in comparison with other modes. For instance, the
expected transit travel times are estimated to be three times as long as the highway
travel time. Service is extremely infrequent (i.e., headways of at least 1 hour) on the
Metra Union Pacific/West and Burlington Northern/Santa Fe lines, and several trains
skip many stations in the off-peak direction, sometimes forcing an additional trip
segment by bus or CTA rail.
(c) Transit service to travel markets 14.1 and 14.2 cannot be seen as a realistic option
because of the very limited service span and frequency of Pace bus routes (#354, 364,
831, and 834), Metra’s Heritage Corridor line (three round trips per day), and Metra’s
Rock Island District line (headways of approximately 1 hour). The sparseness of the
transit network in zones 33 and 34 also limits the ease with which customers may reach
the primary trunk routes by transit.
(d) Transit service to travel markets 14.3 and 14.4 is also significantly constrained by the
frequency of the Metra Rock Island District line in the off-peak direction and the
absence of stations between the LaSalle Street station and Gresham station. This again
forces additional bus or rail trip segments and increases the expected transit travel time
to at least twice the highway travel time.
Exhibit 3.3 shows how many of the 64 transit markets (pairs of origin and destination
zones) fit which conditions and sub-conditions.
Exhibit 3.3: Summary of Designated Transit Conditions
Transit Service
Condition
1
2
Sub-condition
Number of Travel Markets
--2-1A
2-1B
2-1C
2-2A
2-2B
2-2C
2-2D
---
7
49
8
16
2
5
14
0
4
5
3
64
3
4
Total
3-5
Summary Report
3.2
Supplementary Evaluation of Transit Services
In order to select the travel markets with the greatest potential for improvement in
transit coordination, it is necessary to evaluate the strength of the transit services and
connections for the 64 travel markets analyzed. In this effort, several measures of
effectiveness are considered:
•
Ratio of transit travel time to highway travel time – The competitiveness of
transit in each market was assessed using data on highway travel time from
the 1995 RTA's Regional Travel Model. These travel times were compared
with the itineraries drawn from the on-line trip planner. (Both sources of
information provided average weekday AM peak travel times for the
respective modes).
•
Maximum headway among connecting services – For those itineraries
classified under transit condition 2, and selected others, the transit network
was examined to determine the maximum headway among the various stages
of a transit trip. As itineraries that involve services with long headways
create less attractive transit options, the maximum headway for the services
in any given itinerary can help identify where higher frequencies or bettertimed services are required.
•
Off peak availability – Long headways or no service during off-peak times
(i.e., mid-day, evenings, and weekends) may also indicate the possibility of
improvements in coordination. The maximum headway among the various
stages of service was noted.
Exhibit 3.4 shows the additional measures of service effectiveness for those origindestination pairs that do not meet the highest standards of transit service effectiveness
(condition 1 or condition 2-1A). These origin-destination pairs might require additional
analysis.
3-6
Summary Report
ID
Activity Center (Destination)
Origin Zone
Destination Zone
Transit Condition
Sub-condition
Ratio of Transit to
Highway Travel
Time *
Maximum PeakHour Headway
Among Connecting
Services (minutes)
Maximum Off-peak
Headway among
connecting services
(minutes)
Exhibit 3.4: Effectiveness of Transit Services Serving the 64 Prominent Travel
Markets
1.1
6
3
1
--
1.4
1.2
5
3
1
--
3.0
1.3
26
3
2
2B
1.3
1.4
25
3
2
2B
1.8
5
1
2
1B
3.8
3.75
7.5
6
1
2
1B
3.7
3.75
7.5
26
1
2
2B
1.7
3.75
7.5
18
1
2
2B
2.6
7.5
10
25
1
2
2B
1.3
8.5
15
16
8
2
1B
4.4
8.6
12
7
8
2
1A
2.9
3.75
7.5
25
8
2
1B
1.9
3.75
7.5
26
8
2
1B
2.1
3.75
7.5
6
7
9
4
4
4
2
1
2
1A
-1A
3.3
1.8
1.3
6.7
8.6
3.75
7.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
North Michigan Avenue /
Streeterville/Navy Pier
UIC / West Loop
UIC / West Loop
UIC / West Loop
4.4
UIC / West Loop
26
4
2
1B
1.8
5
7.5
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
UIC / West Loop
O’Hare / Rosemont
18
4
8
6
26
25
4
7
7
7
7
7
2
1
2
2
2
2
2A
-1A
1A
1A
2A
3.0
1.9
3.1
2.8
1.9
2.7
10
4
4
5.5
4
8.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
6.7
7.5
15
26
16
2
1B
1.8
6.7
10
8
16
2
1B
2.8
6.7
10
15
16
1
--
3.3
6.7
10
25
16
2
2B
4.1
8.5
15
3
20
1
--
1.5
4.3
7.5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
3-7
Transit Condition
O’Hare / Rosemont
19
20
2
Among Connecting
Services (minutes)
Maximum Off-peak
Headway among
connecting services
(minutes)
Destination Zone
7.2
Ratio of Transit to
Highway Travel
Time *
Sub-condition
ID
Origin Zone
Summary Report
1B
5.3
30
60
7.3
O’Hare / Rosemont
11
20
1
--
2.5
4.3
7.5
7.4
O’Hare / Rosemont
29
20
2
1B
2.7
30
30
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
37
29
9
10
28
28
28
28
2
4
2
2
1B
-2A
2D
1.2
15
60
2.1
3.1
50
30
60
60
9.1
Schaumburg - Woodfield
30
29
4
--
9.2
28
29
2
2D
4.4
40
60
9.3
11
29
2
2B
3.2
9.4
9
29
2
2A
2.9
30
30
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
33
41
13
14
19
9
27
10
32
32
32
32
18
18
18
18
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
-1A
-2A
1C
1A
1B
1B
2.2
3.7
2.9
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.8
30
20
30
30
30
60
10
10
30
10
11.5
28
18
2
2B
2.8
30
60
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
37
27
9
11
36
36
36
36
2
2
2
2
2B
1B
2B
2B
2.8
2.7
1.8
2.2
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
23
22
2
1B
3.5
30
30
21
22
2
1B
2.7
30
30
13
22
2
2B
3.2
30
30
14
22
2
2B
2.5
30
30
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.1
15.2
15.3
Naval Training Ctr/
Naval Training Ctr/
Naval Training Ctr/
Naval Training Ctr/
Hospital- Maywood
Hospital- Maywood
Hospital- Maywood
Hospital- Maywood
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
33
34
8
15
17
35
25
42
42
42
42
26
26
26
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
----1C
2D
2D
1.8
2.3
2.1
2.1
5.0
2.4
5.3
10
10
20
20
15.4
16
26
2
2B
4.3
10
20
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
* Transit Travel time was noted to the nearest quarter-hour. For very short trips, the
transit travel time in this ratio may be higher than actual.
3-8
Summary Report
In light of this analysis, it was decided that those origin-destination pairs meeting the
following criteria would be analyzed for potential service improvements:
(a) The transit condition is 3 (transit services exist but are inconvenient) or 4 (there is no
complete transit connection), or meets sub-conditions 2C or 2D (transit connections
exist, but involves at least two transfers, one of which is between local lines)
(b) The maximum peak period headway among connecting services is 20 minutes or
greater
(c) The maximum off-peak (midday) headway among connecting services is 30 minutes
or greater
(d) If none of the above conditions are met, an origin-destination pair is included for
further analysis if both of the following conditions are met: the ratio of transit travel
time to automobile travel time is greater than or equal to 2.7, and the transit travel time
is greater than or equal to 1 hour.
Exhibit 3.5 lists all origin-destination pairs that will be examined in greater detail to
determine appropriate transit improvements in later stages of this study.
3-9
Summary Report
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.2
15.3
Ratio of Transit to
Highway Travel
Time *
7.2
7.4
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.1
10.3
11.1
11.5
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
Sub-condition
6.4
Transit Condition
4.5
5.5
UIC / West Loop
O’Hare / Rosemont
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Naval Training Ctr/
Naval Training Ctr/
Naval Training Ctr/
Naval Training Ctr/
Hospital- Maywood
Hospital- Maywood
Hospital- Maywood
Hospital- Maywood
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Destination Zone
3.4*
Origin Zone
ID
Among Connecting
Services (minutes)
Maximum Off-peak
Headway among
connecting services
(minutes)
Exhibit 3.5 Origin-Destination Pairs to be Examined for Possible Transit
Improvement
26
8
2
1B
2.1
3.75
7.5
18
25
4
7
2
2
2A
2A
3.0
2.7
10
8.5
7.5
15
25
16
2
2B
4.1
8.5
15
19
29
29
9
10
30
28
11
9
33
13
19
28
37
27
9
11
20
20
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
32
32
18
18
36
36
36
36
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1B
1B
-2A
2D
-2D
2B
2A
--1C
2B
2B
1B
2B
2B
5.3
2.7
30
60
30
30
2.1
3.1
50
30
60
60
4.4
3.2
2.9
40
30
30
60
30
30
3.7
2.3
2.8
2.8
2.7
1.8
2.2
30
30
30
60
60
60
60
30
60
60
60
60
60
60
23
22
2
1B
3.5
30
30
21
22
2
1B
2.7
30
30
13
22
2
2B
3.2
30
30
14
22
2
2B
2.5
30
30
33
34
8
15
35
25
42
42
42
42
26
26
3
3
3
3
2
2
----2D
2D
1.8
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.4
5.3
10
20
*Travel market 3.4 was included due to the initial calculation of transit travel time of 1 hour and a ratio of
transit travel time to highway travel time of 2.7. A reassessment of transit service revealed that the
correct values are 0.8 hours and a ratio of 2.1.
3-10
Summary Report
CHAPTER 4: DEFINITION OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FOR SELECTED MARKETS
4.1
Introduction
The first step in the detailed exploration of service coordination improvements was to
identify major activity centers and to quantify the travel markets associated with these
centers. Chapter 2 described the data gathering efforts and analysis associated with the
identification of major activity centers and prominent travel markets in the Chicago
metropolitan area. These prominent travel market patterns were used as the basis for
an analysis of transit services in Chapter 3.
In this chapter, the assessment of transit service to the travel markets identified in the
previous task is followed by the development of a menu of transit service
improvements and proposed modifications to better serve the major origin-destination
pairs. Based on the types of deficiencies identified previously, an inventory of potential
techniques for improving transit service among the prominent travel markets was
developed. This menu of options, as shown in Exhibit 4.1, ranges from real-time
operational changes to long-range investment and restructuring of the network. This
study only considers the medium-range or tactical options for improving transit service
coordination between the service boards. Within the tactical planning level, there are
two major categories of strategies being investigated—changes to service frequency and
schedule, and changes to the route structure and coverage.
Exhibit 4.1 - Menu of Transit Improvement Options by Planning Level
Planning Level:
Time Frame:
Relevant Transit
Improvement
Options:
4.2
Operational
Real-Time or
Short-Range
Expressing
Holding
Short-Turning
Tactical
Medium-Range
Service
Frequency and
Schedule Change
Route Structure
and Coverage
Change
Strategic
Longer-Range
(>1 year)
Bus Network Structure
Network Size
Fleet Size
Fare Policy
Major Capital
Investments
Major Institutional
Change
Description and Exploration of Service Improvements
The following is a description of the types of strategies considered in this analysis.
1. Modifying schedules to facilitate transfers
For those travel markets where the transit travel time is high compared to highway and
where the frequencies of connecting services are similar, it may be possible to create
4-1
Summary Report
better timed transfers with the same frequency of service. Specific options include
changes to the arrival, departure, layover, or running times of individual trips.
2. Improving service frequencies
For those travel markets where peak or off-peak transit headways of connecting
services are possibly inhibiting the viability of certain trips, it may be advisable to
increase the route frequency of the less frequent service. The availability of the less
frequent service often drives the propensity to connect between trunk, distributor, and
feeder services. This strategy may improve the timing and coordination of services by
reducing the transfer penalty (i.e. wait and transfer times).
3. Lengthening service spans
Particularly for those travel markets not well-served in the off-peak hours, it may be
beneficial to extend the span of service to match that of other services, thus helping to
meet the demand for that market. This would allow new and existing riders to make
trips not currently feasible by transit.
4. Establishing limited-stop services on existing routes
Adding or dedicating resources to improve express and local services at transfer
locations and on existing trunk lines is a good strategy for targeting long and short
trips. This strategy would be particularly effective in travel markets where the transit
travel time is considerably higher than highway because of long or circuitous routes
with many stops. The result may be a reduction of in-vehicle time for longer trips and a
reduction in overall transit travel time if the frequencies are maintained for both express
and local services. As an alternative to establishing full-fledged express services, it may
be possible to alter the stop or station spacing along existing routes to reduce transit
travel times. Under this option, there is a tradeoff between convenience and speed of
service.
5. Adding service to transfer locations on trunk lines
Adding a stop to an existing trunk line may be a viable strategy if it creates or enhances
transfer opportunities with other services. In particular, this may be the case for some
Metra lines with limited-stop service at certain hours of the day.
6. Extending or deviating existing feeder/distributor routes
Travel markets that are not well served by the transit network may benefit from the
extension or deviation of existing routes to create new or enhanced connections. This
strategy may increase the convenience of transit service for the desired market, but
would also increase travel times for other markets and would require higher operating
costs.
7. Establishing strategic transfer points
This combination strategy involves a set of route extensions and/or deviations to create
a single location for multiple transfers to facilitate connectivity. This may also involve
4-2
Summary Report
increasing frequency on the trunk and/or connecting routes to better serve the strategic
transfer point.
8. Establishing new feeder/distributor routes
For prominent travel markets that meet Condition 3 or 4 as defined in Task 2, new
routes may be suggested. Although potentially one of the most costly options, new
routes would make the transit network more convenient to reach for potential new
riders in the under-served travel markets.
9. Improving physical connections between services
Improved physical connections can reduce transfer and overall travel time, improve the
accessibility of the transfer, and make the connection more attractive and apparent.
Exhibit 4.2 lists these nine strategies, notes the general conditions under which they
would be applicable, and illustrates each option in a stylized fashion. The dashed lines
in Exhibit 4.2 indicate services that are being added or changed.
Exhibit 4.2 –Transit Service Improvement Strategies
Applicable
Strategies
1. Modify
Schedules
2. Improve
Service
Frequencies
Illustration of Strategy
Peak or off-peak headways of
connecting services are
inhibiting the viability of
certain trips.
Station/
Stop
Time
Station/
Stop
Time
The travel market is not well
served in the off-peak hours.
Distance -->
3. Lengthen
Service Spans
General Travel Market
Conditions
Transit travel time is high and
the service frequencies of
connecting routes are similar.
Station/
Stop
AM
Time Æ
PM
4-3
Summary Report
Applicable
Strategies
4. Establishing
limited-stop
services on
existing routes
5. Add a stop
at transfer
location on
trunk line
6. Extend or
Deviate
Existing
Service
7. Establish
Strategic
Transfer Points
8. Establish
New Feeders
9. Improve
Physical
Connection
General Travel Market
Conditions
A high transit-to-highway
travel time ratio is inhibiting
the viability of the trip.
Transit services currently
connect the origin and the
destination but the routes are
too circuitous or inconvenient
to be feasible.
Adding a stop at an existing
station on a trunk line may
create a transfer location with
other services.
Illustration of Strategy
The number of transfers
required is inhibiting the
viability of the trip.
destination to the transit
network but the routes are too
circuitous or inconvenient to
be feasible.
The existing transit network
does not adequately serve the
The number of transfers
required is inhibiting the
viability of the trip.
network, but the routes are
to be feasible.
The existing transit network
does not adequately serve the
network, but the routes are
to be feasible.
4-4
Summary Report
Exhibit 4.3 lists the potential benefits and costs of each strategy.
Exhibit 4.3 –Expected Benefits and Costs of Improvement Strategies
Applicable
Strategies
1. Modify
Schedules
2. Improve Service
Frequencies
Potential Benefits

3. Lengthen
Service Spans

4. Establishing
limited-stop
services on
existing routes

5. Add a stop at
transfer location
on trunk line

6. Extend or
Deviate Existing
Service

7. Establish
Strategic Transfer
Points

8. Establish New
Feeders

Better timed transfers can
reduce wait and transfer
times.
Improving the coordination
of service frequencies
between trunk and feeder
routes can reduce wait and
transfer times.
Increasing off-peak
convenience of transit to
new and existing riders in
the travel market.
Creates differentiated
services to target long and
short trips.
Reduced dwell times and
overall travel times.
Reduced transfer times, wait
times, and travel times.
Creating a new transfer
location may reduce the
travel time of some riders
from feeders.
May improve the
connectivity of the regional
network.
May reduce transfer times,
wait times, or travel times for
some riders.
Facilitating or eliminating
transfers.
May increase convenience
of transit network to existing
and potential riders.
May reduce transfer times,
wait times, or travel times for
some riders.
May facilitate or eliminate
other transfers.
May increase system userfriendliness of transit and
ability of potential patrons to
understand the system.
May increase accessibility of
network to existing and
potential riders.
Increased convenience and
connectivity of network to
potential new riders.
Potential Costs

Little or no cost if the
frequency and span of
services are not increased.
Increased operating costs if
service is added.
Additional vehicles may be
required during peak hours.

service is added.

Some inconvenience if
stops are removed.
service is added.
Additional vehicles may be
required during peak hours.

Increased trunk line travel
times depending on the
number of stops and the
dwell times associated
therewith.

Deviating routes may
increase travel times for
other riders.
May increase operating
costs if there are additional
vehicle-miles or hours.
May require additional
vehicles during peak hours.
Deviating routes may
increase travel times for
other riders.
May increase operating
costs if there are additional
vehicle-miles or hours.
vehicles during peak hours
Removing other stops
would affect convenience of
transit network.

Increased operating costs.
vehicles during peak hours.
4-5
Summary Report
Applicable
Strategies
9. Improve
Physical
Connection
Potential Benefits

4.3
Reducing transfer times .
Facilitating physical
transfers.
Making transfer connections
easy to understand.
Increasing accessibility of
network to existing and new
riders.
Potential Costs

Cost of physical
improvements.
service is added.
Detailed Analysis of Transit Service to Specific Travel Markets
For each of the 31 travel markets identified as warranting further examination, an
investigation of the full set of transit service improvement strategies was undertaken.
For each of these travel markets listed in Exhibit 4.4 below, a set of itineraries was
developed to characterize all likely transit travel paths from the origin zone to the
destination activity center. Each itinerary was characterized as a series of links,
connected at specific nodes (transfer intersections or transfer stations).
Characteristics of the existing transit routes serving each travel market were then
investigated to suggest a set of potential transit service improvements. For each transit
link, several data items were collected. These include span of service, peak hour
headway, link travel times, and in many cases, the times of specific scheduled runs of
relevant links.
This investigation of transit service characteristics provided information about how the
various transit services are linked to one another, speed of service, frequency of transit
links, the extent to which the frequencies of various services match, and the extent to
which connections are well-timed or even feasible. These transit service characteristics
were then assessed with respect to the travel market conditions identified in Exhibit 4.2
to develop a set of potential transit service improvement strategies for each travel
market to be considered in the next chapter.
Because the focus of this study is interagency transit travel, this analysis also included
an investigation of whether the itineraries included interagency transfers. Each transfer
point in every itinerary was identified as either an interagency transfer or not. Each
itinerary containing an interagency transfer point was identified as an interagency
itinerary.
Only origin-destination combinations that included at least one interagency itinerary
among the set of likely travel itineraries were carried forward for detailed analysis.
Travel markets (origin-destination pairs) involving no interagency transfers were
excluded from analysis beyond identifying potential service improvement strategies,
4-6
Summary Report
since any changes to the service combination are subject to individual service board
decisions.
This analysis defers improvements within each service board’s operations to that
particular service board. Each service board has particular constraints that may affect
how it expands and improves service. Since each of the three service boards in the RTA
area has a different farebox recovery ratio target, they may be limited in their ability to
fund and implement specific changes. Although some improvements to service may be
operationally feasible, the availability of funds to subsidize the service and the
mandated farebox recovery ratio may constrain the ability to implement them.
Exhibit 4.4 lists the 31 travel markets included in the first stage of transit improvement
analysis. This list includes both those origin-destination zone pairs that require
interagency travel and those that do not. Exhibit 4.5 shows the potential strategies
identified for each of the 23 travel markets with some interagency transferring, and
Exhibit 4.6 provides the same information for the eight travel markets with no
interagency transferring. These strategies represent a starting point for further service
improvement analysis.
4-7
Summary Report
Exhibit 4.4 – 31 Travel Markets in First Stage of Transit Improvement Analysis
Travel Market (OD) No.
3.4
4.5
5.5
6.4
7.2
7.4
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.1
10.3
11.1
11.5
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.2
15.3
Museum Campus
UIC / West Loop
O’Hare / Rosemont
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Naval Training Center
Loyola Med./Hines VA Hosp./Maywood
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Origin Zone
26
18
25
25
19
29
29
9
10
30
28
11
9
33
13
19
28
37
27
9
11
23
21
13
14
33
34
8
15
35
25
Destination Zone
8
4
7
16
20
20
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
32
32
18
18
36
36
36
36
22
22
22
22
42
42
42
42
26
26
4-8
Museum Campus
UIC / West Loop
O’Hare / Rosemont
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
OD
No.
3.4
4.5
5.5
6.4
7.2
7.4
8.3
8.4
9.3
9.4
10.3
11.5
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.3
Origin Dest.
Zone Zone
26
8
18
4
25
7
25
16
19
20
29
20
9
28
10
28
11
29
9
29
13
32
28
18
27
36
9
36
11
36
23
22
21
22
13
22
14
22
34
42
8
42
15
42
25
26
4-9
4. Establish
Ltd.-Stop 5. Add Stop 6. Extend 7. Establish
2. Improve 3. Lengthen Services on at Transfer or Deviate Strategic 8. Establish 9. Improve
1. Modify
Service
Service
Transfer
New
Physical
Existing Location on Existing
Freq.
Spans
Feeders Connection
Schedules
Routes
Trunk Line Service
Points
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exhibit 4.5 – Summary of Improvement Strategies to be Considered for Travel Markets with Interagency Transfers (23)
Summary Report
Lake-Cook Road Area
Joliet
OD
No.
8.2
9.1
9.2
10.1
11.1
12.1
14.1
15.2
Origin Dest.
Zone Zone
29
28
30
29
28
29
33
32
19
18
37
36
33
42
35
26
4-10
4. Establish
Limit'd-Stop 5. Add Stop 6. Extend 7. Establish
2. Improve 3. Lengthen Services on to Transfer or Deviate Strategic 8. Establish 9. Improve
1. Modify
Service
Service
Transfer
New
Physical
Freq.
Spans
Feeders Connection
Schedules
Routes
Trunk Line Service
Points
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exhibit 4.6 – Summary of Potential Improvement Strategies for Travel Markets without Interagency Transfers (8)
Summary Report
Summary Report
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF
COST-EFFECTIVE IMPROVEMENTS
Using the spectrum of potential transit improvements for the 23 travel markets
identified in Chapter 4 as involving interagency travel itineraries, this chapter explores
the application of specific improvements to these travel markets in greater detail, from
the standpoint of cost-effectiveness. Section 5.1 examines what potential ridership gains
may result from the types of changes proposed. Section 5.2 examines the order-ofmagnitude cost impacts of the proposed improvements. The analyses for these two
parts of the chapter are combined in Section 5.3 to determine which of these changes are
most cost-effective, especially in light of farebox recovery requirements.
5.1
Evaluation of Ridership Impacts
The evaluation of ridership impacts as a result of service changes was carried out in
four basic steps. First, specific characteristics of the links and nodes of each itinerary
were analyzed and calculated. Second, itineraries with the lowest travel times for each
travel market were identified as representative travel itineraries. Third, potential
improvements to these itineraries were explored through in-depth analyses of
schedules. Lastly, the ridership impacts of these potential improvements were
estimated.
5.1.1
Identification of Itinerary Characteristics
From the 31 travel markets for which itineraries were analyzed in depth, data on each
link and node for each itinerary were collected from schedules published by each
service board in September 2002. For each link, the following data were collected and
identified:
•
Location of the start node
•
Route name or number
•
Operator / Service Board
•
General direction of travel
•
Average in-vehicle travel time during the morning peak period (based on
published schedules as of September 2002)
•
Location of end node
•
Sequence in the itinerary
5-1
Summary Report
The following data were collected and identified for each node:
•
Location
•
Average wait time during the morning peak period from the preceding link
to the following one
•
Whether the transfer involves different service boards or not
For itineraries involving links with infrequent headways or variable travel times, all
potential itineraries available in the morning peak period were specified in detail. This
showed how the various transit services were actually connected throughout the
morning peak period.
This analysis focuses on the morning peak period for several reasons:
•
Data are generally available on the proportion of total travel made by transit
during the morning peak period. These data are not as readily available
across all modes for the midday, evening, or weekend periods.
•
The morning peak period is short in duration, allowing for a more thorough
exploration of all possible travel itineraries.
•
Transit service is at its most intensive during the peak periods, allowing for
all available services and travel itineraries to be compared consistently.
Once all data for links and nodes were collected, the following data were calculated for
each itinerary:
5.1.2
•
the average total scheduled travel time during the morning peak period
•
initial wait time (the average wait time for the first transit link, calculated as
half the headway)
•
intermediate waiting times (i.e, at transfer points)
Selection of Itineraries
The total travel times of each itinerary identified for each zone combination were
calculated and compared with each other. A representative itinerary for travel between
the origin zone and the destination was then chosen from among the set of itineraries
by selecting the itinerary with the lowest travel time. In cases where several itineraries
had similar paths and similarly low travel times, one of these itineraries was designated
as the representative itinerary. In some cases, however, different portions of each origin
zone were served by distinctly different itineraries. In these instances, more than one
itinerary was selected as a representative path for the travel market. The approximate
percentage of the zone for which each itinerary provided the shortest travel time was
5-2
Summary Report
noted. Exhibit 5.1 summarizes the itineraries chosen as representative of the transit
service quality for each travel market.
Itineraries for those travel markets for which the most attractive transit paths involve
only one service board (travel markets 6.4, 13.1, 13.2, and 15.2) were not analyzed for
specific improvements, as these services are the responsibility of the individual service
boards involved. Similarly, since most of the itineraries serving travel market 15.3
involve the CTA only, this travel market was not analyzed further.
Exhibit 5.1- Summary of Service Quality (Travel Time Elements)
for Representative Itineraries
Itinerary
Code of
Most
Travel Represent
Market
ative
Itinerary
No.
3.4
341
4.5
454
5.5
555
6.4
646
7.2
722
741*
7.4
742*
8.3
836
8.4
841
9.3
9.4
10.3
11.5
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.3
14.4
15.2
931
942
1031
1151
1221
1231
1241
1311
1323
1331
1341
1431
1442
1522
1532**
1534**
15.3
1st Leg
Metra ME
Pace 208
Metra RI
CTA 103
Pace 226
Metra UP-NW
Pace 600
CTA Red
2nd Leg
CTA 12
CTA Purple
CTA Blue
CTA Red
CTA Blue
Pace 220
CTA Blue
CTA Yellow
CTA 81
Metra UP-N
CTA Blue
CTA 78
CTA Blue
Metra MD-N
Metra UP-N
CTA 96
CTA 81
Pace 302
Pace 325
CTA Blue
CTA Blue
CTA Red
CTA Orange
Pace 358
CTA 111
Pace 382
Pace 606
CTA Blue
Pace 747
Pace 212
Pace 563
Metra UP-N
Metra UP-N
Pace 331
Pace 301
Pace 308
Pace 322,331
Metra RI
Pace 383
CTA 34
CTA 103
3rd Leg
CTA Blue
CTA 55/59
Pace 626
Pace Shuttle
Bug / 213
Pace 606
Pace 563
Pace 563
Metra RI
CTA 34
Total
Wait
Time
(min.)
8
19
13
11
19
27
17
15
Involves
Total
Total Share of Only
Vehicle Travel Travel
One
Time
Time
Market Service
(min.) (min.) Assigned Board
25
33
100%
53
72
100%
43
56
100%
41
52
100%
X
42
61
100%
45
72
25%
31
48
75%
53
68
100%
35
57
92
100%
12
17
22
26
76
78
71
37
38
18
16
33
50
30
8
39
58
78
41
31
25
60
81
22
9
19
24
85
86
21
49
89
70
95
63
57
101
138
152
59
47
37
40
118
136
51
57
128
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
5%
X
X
X
X
*Multiple itineraries serve different parts of the origin zone.
**Multiple itineraries serve different parts of the origin zone. Only one representative itinerary
involves interagency transfers.
5-3
Summary Report
5.1.3
Application of Service Improvements
The 23 prominent travel markets whose most representative (and most attractive)
itineraries contain interagency transfers are carried forward to analyze the potential
impact of service improvements. For each itinerary, the components of the transit trip
were examined to find cases where any of the following conditions occurred:
•
Long initial wait time – the first leg of the trip has a high waiting time due to
a high headway
•
Long transfer time – subsequent segments of the trip have high waiting times
either due to long headways of those subsequent segments of poor timing of
services
•
Long trip segment times – a trip segment may exhibit several characteristics
that increase the travel time
For each of these cases, the schedules for each itinerary were investigated in greater
detail to identify any possible strategies to improve the transit level of service.
Schedules were analyzed to determine where connections could be enhanced either by
incremental adjustments to schedules or the addition of connecting bus runs. Exhibit
5.2 shows the results of investigations of each of the selected representative itineraries.
Based on the characteristics of the interagency connections of each itinerary, a particular
itinerary improvement strategy is also suggested in Exhibit 5.2.
For each of these strategies, the impacts of implementing each strategy on each travel
time element of the entire trip (i.e., average initial wait time, average transfer time,
average total wait time, and average total in-vehicle time) were calculated. Exhibit 5.3
shows the relative impacts of the selected transit improvement strategy for each of the
representative interagency transit itineraries.
5-4
CTA Blue
Pace 220
555 Metra RI
722 Pace 226
Metra UP741 NW
742 Pace 600
836 CTA Red
841 CTA 81
931 CTA Blue
5.5
7.2
7.4
7.4
8.3
8.4
9.3
Link 3
Pace Shuttle
Bug / 213
Pace 606
Metra UP-N
CTA Yellow Pace 626
CTA Blue
CTA Blue
CTA Purple CTA Blue
454 Pace 208
4.5
CTA 12
341 Metra ME
Link 2
Details
3.4
Itinerary
Travel
Market Itin.
No. No. Link 1
Link 4
5-5
Express trains to Lake-Cook Road bypass
the Chicago Northside area, leaving long
wait times.
Express bus between Rosemont and
Northwest Transportation Center is not
available in reverse commute direction.
Express buses between the Northwest
Transportation Center and Rosemont CTA
station operate only once every 20 to 30
minutes during the peak period.
Express buses operate direct to Lake-Cook
road area but gaps in the schedule leave
some long waits.
All Metra trains stop at Roosevelt Road
already. Frequency of connection can be
supplemented.
The only interagency transfer is at Davis
Street Station. Average peak hour headway
is approximately 30 minutes for Pace feeder
buses.
Express train runs pass through this zone
leaving low frequencies on the high speed
trains and higher frequencies on the local
trains.
Pace feeder buses arrive every 15 minutes
at Jefferson Park station. Connections are
readily available.
Pace connection to O’Hare comes only once
every 30 minutes during the peak period.
Characteristics of Representative
Itineraries
Itinerary Improvement Strategy
Add 600 in reverse direction, with 4
additional runs during each peak period.
Add stop at Ravenswood for UP-N Train
309.
Add 4 new runs on Pace 626 during the
peak period to provide a 10 min. headway
(Morning runs at 7:35, 7:55, 8:15, 8:25).
Double the frequency of Pace 600 with four
Double Frequency of 220 between O'Hare
and Des Plaines Station (4 additional runs
during each peak period).
Increase frequency of Pace 226 with 3
additional runs in a 2 hour peak period.
Add stop at 103rd / Washington Hts. express
runs 404, 408, and 410.
Double the frequency of CTA 12 between
Metra Roosevelt Road Station and Adler
Planetarium.
Double the frequency of Pace 208, adding 4
additional runs in a 2 hour peak period
Exhibit 5.2 – Strategies to Improve Transit Coordination
for 19 Prominent Travel Markets with Interagency Transfers
Summary Report
942 CTA78
Pace 747
CTA Blue
Link 2
Details
Itinerary Improvement Strategy
Peak hour service on Pace 322 stretches to Increase freq. of 322, adding 4 runs during a
20 to 25 minutes.
two-hour peak period.
Increase frequency of reverse commute
Metra Rock Island trains, adding 2 trains to
create half-hour headways.
Increase frequency of reverse commute
Metra Rock Island trains, adding 2 trains to
create half-hour headways.
Reverse commute trains operate only once
an hour. Connections through downtown
Chicago leaves a circuitous route.
Reverse commute trains operate only once
an hour. Connections through downtown
Chicago leaves a circuitous route.
Pace
322,331
Metra RI
13.4 1341 CTA Blue
14.3 1431 CTA Red
14.4 1442 CTA Orange Pace 383
CTA 103
15.3 1534 Pace 382
CTA 34
CTA 34
15.3 1532 CTA 111
Metra RI
5-6
No direct services from the north is available. Extend all runs of CTA 34 2 miles to the east
Services operate from the south or through a to 130th and Torrence.
circuitous route via CTA 30. CTA 34 stops
short of the 130th and Torrence location.
No direct services from the north is available. Extend all runs of CTA 34 2 miles to the east
Services operate from the south or through a to 130th and Torrence.
circuitous route via CTA 30. CTA 34 stops
short of the 130th and Torrence location.
Delay 2 runs of Pace 308 by 3 minutes to
meet CTA trains at Forest Park.
13.3 1331 CTA Blue
Schedule of runs results in some missed
connections at Forest Park Station.
Metra UP-N Pace 563
12.4 1241 CTA 81
Pace 308
Metra UP-N Pace 563
12.3 1231 CTA 96
Add short shuttle from Great Lakes station to
meet Train 305.
Express bus between Rosemont and
Add 600 in reverse direction with 4
Northwest Transportation Center is not
available in reverse commute direction.
st
Missed connection and long gaps in service Add 2 runs to Pace 747 and delay 1 run.
of express bus leave result in long
connection times.
Skip-stop train run configuration during peak Add stop at Glenview for 3 runs in the
periods creates no possibility for connections morning (2110, 2114, 2118).
to east west buses from origin-zone.
Connections for short ride to Naval Medical Add short shuttle from Great Lakes station to
Center are not present for one train arrival. meet Train 305.
Characteristics of Representative
Itineraries
Connections for short ride to Naval Medical
Center are not present for one train arrival.
Link 4
Add short shuttle from Great Lakes station to
meet Train 305.
Pace 606
Link 3
Connections for short ride to Naval Medical
Center are not present for one train arrival.
12.2 1221 Metra UP-N Pace 563
11.5 1151 Metra MD-N Pace 212
10.3 1031 CTA Blue
9.4
Itinerary
Travel
Market Itin.
No. No. Link 1
Summary Report
Total
Strategy
Wait
1st Leg
2nd Leg
3rd Leg
Investigated
Time
Increase frequency
8
3.4
341 Metra ME CTA 12
of CTA 12
Increase frequency
19
4.5
454 Pace 208 CTA Purple CTA Blue
of Pace 208
rd
Add stop at 103 /
13
Washington Heights
5.5
555 Metra RI
CTA Blue
for express runs
Increase frequency
19
7.2
722 Pace 226 CTA Blue
of Pace 226
Metra UPDouble frequency of
27
741
Pace 220
Pace 220
NW
7.4
Double frequency of
17
742 Pace 600 CTA Blue
Pace 600
Add 4 new runs on
15
Pace 626 (10 min.
8.3
836 CTA Red CTA Yellow Pace 626
headway)
Add stop at
Pace Shuttle
Ravenswood for UP- 35
8.4
841 CTA 81
Metra UP-N
Bug / 213
N Train 309
Add Pace 600 in
12
9.3
931 CTA Blue Pace 606
reverse direction
Add Pace 600 in
17
9.4
942 CTA 78
CTA Blue
Pace 606
reverse direction
Add 2 runs to Pace
st
22
747 and delay 1
10.3 1031 CTA Blue Pace 747
run
Add stop at
26
Glenview for 3 runs
11.5 1151 Metra MD-N Pace 212
in the morning
Add short shuttle
from Great Lakes
76
12.2 1221 Metra UP-N Pace 563
station to meet UPN Train 305
OD Itin.
No. Code
72
56
61
72
48
68
92
70
95
63
57
101
53
43
42
45
31
53
57
58
78
41
31
25
5-7
33
25
Total
Total
Vehicle Travel
Time
Time
30
14
8
5
4
4
5
13
10
15
10
10
3
Initial
Wait
Time
Existing
71
43
55
90
66
88
63
35
62
46
46
62
30
46
12
14
12
8
31
10
4
17
4
3
9
5
Total
Time
without
Initial Transfer
Wait
Time
-42
-6
-7
5
5
-16
-3
0
-9
0
0
-5
-3
0
0
0
-18
-18
1
0
0
0
0
-10
0
0
-42
-6
-7
-13
-13
-15
-3
0
-9
0
-10
-5
-3
Total
Total
Vehicle Travel
Time
Time
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5
0
Initial
Wait
Time
-42
-6
-7
-13
-13
-15
-3
0
-9
0
-10
0
-3
Total
Wait
Time
-42
-6
-7
5
5
-16
-3
0
-9
0
0
0
-3
Total
Time
without
Initial Transfer
Wait
Time
Proposed Change
Exhibit 5.3 - Impacts of Transit Improvement Strategies on Transit Travel Time Elements
Summary Report
1532 CTA 111
1534 Pace 382
CTA 34
CTA 103
CTA 34
Strategy
Investigated
Add short shuttle
from Great Lakes
Add short shuttle
from Great Lakes
Delay 2 runs of
Pace 308 by 3
minutes
Increase freq. of
Pace 322
Increase frequency
of outbound Metra
Rock Island trains
Increase frequency
of outbound Metra
Rock Island trains
Extend CTA 34*
Extend CTA 34*
39
8
50
33
16
18
71
78
Total
Wait
Time
89
49
86
85
24
19
81
60
128
57
136
118
40
37
152
138
Total
Total
Vehicle Travel
Time
Time
30
4
4
3
8
8
4
8
Initial
Wait
Time
98
53
132
115
32
29
148
130
9
4
46
30
8
10
67
70
Total
Time
without
Initial Transfer
Wait
Time
0
0
-16
-15
-8
-6
-42
-42
Total
Wait
Time
5-8
-15
-15
-16
-15
-28
-4
-42
-42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-15
-15
-16
-15
-28
-4
-42
-42
-15
-15
0
0
-20
2
0
0
Initial
Wait
Time
0
0
-16
-15
0
-6
-42
-42
Total
Time
without
Initial Transfer
Wait
Time
Proposed Change
Total
Total
Vehicle Travel
Time
Time
* Both the intra-agency itineraries 1532 and the interagency itinerary 1534 involve the same service improvement strategy.
15.3
Metra RI
Metra RI
14.3 1431 CTA Red
Pace 383
Pace
322,331
13.4 1341 CTA Blue
CTA
Orange
Pace 308 /
301
13.3 1331 CTA Blue
14.4 1442
Metra UP-N Pace 563
3rd Leg
12.4 1241 CTA 81
2nd Leg
Metra UP-N Pace 563
1st Leg
12.3 1231 CTA 96
OD Itin.
No. Code
Existing
Summary Report
Summary Report
5.1.4
Ridership and Incremental Revenue Estimation
Methods Used
This section describes the process for estimating the potential ridership impact of transit
service improvements to each travel market under consideration. It begins with a
discussion of the data available for estimating ridership. It suggests and describes
appropriate ridership estimation techniques. The section concludes with a summary of
estimated ridership impacts.
The ridership estimation process began with an assessment of the data available. In this
case, the 44 zonal trip flows of the six-county metropolitan area from the Location Study
(completed in 2001) were used as the base for estimating ridership. These data,
provided by the RTA, included travel times, number of trips, and trip purposes by
zone. Although the original travel model was last calibrated in 1996, the general
patterns of trip-making and regional development have not changed significantly, and
the data are therefore generally representative of travel between zones.
The travel time analysis of this data yielded some key information required for
ridership estimation:
•
the travel itineraries with the best travel times for each travel market
•
travel time elements for peak period service (wait times, transfer times, and
in-vehicle link times) of the most attractive itineraries for each travel market
•
estimated travel time elements that result from specific transit improvement
strategies
Furthermore, the following data associated with the travel zones are available from the
original analysis of zonal travel:
•
total daily transit trips to every other zone for work purposes and for nonwork purposes
•
total trips to every other zone by purpose
Methods for estimating ridership were evaluated against several criteria. It was
decided that any estimation method must:
•
be simple to apply
•
match the data available
•
reflect fine distinctions of transit service improvement for a particular market
•
incorporate a wide variety of types of transit service improvement
5-9
Summary Report
The most appropriate ridership estimation method, given the data available and the
desire to account for differences in various travel time elements, was one that was based
on travel time elasticities. Travel time elasticities capture impacts of specific changes to
a travel market, such as changes to initial wait time, in-vehicle travel time and total
travel time. Using travel time elasticities also makes it possible to account for market
size.
Calculating Ridership Estimates
In applying travel time elasticities to estimate incremental ridership, several
calculations were undertaken. First, the total number of trips within the travel market
(i.e., from one zone to another) was enumerated. Because the changes to be analyzed
take place during the peak period, the number of trips in the travel market was
multiplied by an adjustment factor (the 14.6% share of trips in the Chicago region taken
during the morning peak period of 6 AM to 9 AM) in order to estimate the number of
trips taken during the morning peak period. For those travel markets where more than
one itinerary was chosen to represent the most attractive service alternative, each
itinerary’s share of the travel market was multiplied by the number of trips taken
during the morning peak period in order to estimate the size of the sub-market served
by that itinerary.
Several travel time elasticities were selected to estimate the effects of various changes to
travel time elements on ridership. Exhibit 5.4 shows the travel time elasticities chosen.
Exhibit 5.4 - Elasticities Applied for Ridership Estimation
Travel Time Element Affected
Elasticities of Ridership with
respect to Service*
-0.20
-0.68
-1.03
-0.40
Wait Time
In-Vehicle Time
Total Travel Time
Transfer Time
*Source: Patronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Services, Mayworm, et al., 1980.
The estimate for new transit trips was calculated by multiplying several values together:
the percentage change in a specific service characteristic (travel time element) due to the
proposed service improvement (as calculated from the possible improvements
described in Exhibit 5.2), the elasticity of transit passengers with respect to that service
characteristic (i.e., how heavily they respond to the service change in question – Exhibit
5.3), and the size of the travel market. Therefore, the estimate of ridership change, R,
in new daily trips is given by
5-10
Summary Report
R = t x ∗ ex ∗ N i
where t is the percentage change in travel time impact due to the proposed service
strategy x, e is the ridership elasticity with respect to service strategy x, and N is the
existing number of transit trips in travel market i.
Because the relative magnitude of the change to the different travel time elements
varied across all itineraries, applying different elasticities yielded a range of different
results. Exhibit 5.6 shows the minimum and maximum estimates of new transit trips
resulting from different proposed service changes.
These ridership estimates have certain limitations. First, the ridership estimates only
account for potential new trips following a certain type of travel path between an origin
zone and a destination zone. Other types of trips that may be attracted as a result of the
service improvement (trips within the zone and trips between other zone combinations)
are not part of the calculation. Furthermore, although the itineraries selected generally
represent the fastest and thus the most attractive transit option for the specified travel
market, certain sub-segments of that travel market or of others may be attracted to other
travel itineraries due to a number of other factors, such as modal preference,
perceptions of safety, walk time, and the number of transfers. Lastly, it is assumed that
the proposed service changes would not have a significant impact on existing ridership
since they are relatively minor. It is conceivable, however that service changes that add
substantially to any component of existing travel times would have an impact on
existing transit customers.
Calculating Incremental Revenue
For purposes of revenue estimation, the number of new transit trips as estimated using
the impact on total travel time is used. This measure is most consistent across all types
of service improvements as is shown as daily new trip based on total travel time in
Exhibit 5.4. The estimates of incremental morning peak period transit trips were then
multiplied by several factors to calculate annual incremental transit trips due to the
peak period transit improvement. First, the increment in new transit trips was
multiplied by two in order to account for the return trip. (Corresponding service
improvements, and the costs associated therewith, were assumed in the opposite
direction for the PM peak period as a necessary precondition of attracting additional
trips.) Next ,the total number of new daily trips attributed to peak period service
improvements was multiplied by an annualization factor of 260 (an approximation of
the number of weekdays in one year, or 52 weeks multiplied by five working days), and
the average fare collected by each service board (from the 2002 RTA Budget Book). The
average fares for each service board were calculated for the year 2000, the last year for
which actual passenger revenue and system ridership were both available. These
values are shown in Exhibit 5.5.
5-11
Summary Report
Exhibit 5.5 - Average Fares for RTA Service Boards (Actual, 2000)
CTA
Metra
Pace
Passenger Fare Revenue*
$368,884,000
$182,821,000
$37,400,000
System Ridership
450,530,000
78,800,000
38,700,000
Average Fare
$ 0.819
$ 2.320
$ 0.966
*Excludes reduced fare subsidies or any other non-farebox revenue (e.g., investments, advertising, etc.).
The resulting estimates of incremental revenue gains are presented in Exhibit 5.6.
5-12
722 Pace 226
CTA Blue
741 Metra UP-NW Pace 220
742 Pace 600
CTA Blue
836 CTA Red
841 CTA 81
931 CTA Blue
942 CTA 78
1031 CTA Blue
1151 Metra MD-N
1221 Metra UP-N
1231 CTA 96
1241 CTA 81
1331 CTA Blue
1341 CTA Blue
1431 CTA Red
1442 CTA Orange
1532 CTA 111
1534 Pace 382
7.2
7.4
7.4
8.3
8.4
9.3
9.4
10.3
11.5
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.3
13.4
14.3
14.4
15.3
15.3
CTA 103
CTA 34
Pace 383
Metra RI
Pace 322,331
Pace 308
Metra UP-N
Metra UP-N
Pace 563
Pace 212
Pace 747
Pace 606
CTA Blue
Metra UP-N
CTA Yellow
CTA Blue
555 Metra RI
5.5
Link 2
CTA 12
CTA Purple
Itin.
Link 1
No.
341 Metra ME
454 Pace 208
OD
No.
3.4
4.5
CTA 34
Metra RI
Pace 563
Pace 563
Pace 606
Pace Shuttle
Bug / 213
Pace 626
CTA Blue
Link 3
1
Add short shuttle from Great Lakes
station to meet UP-N Train 305
5-13
Extend CTA 34
Extend CTA 34
Increase frequency of outbound Metra
Rock Island trains.
2
42
1
1
9
10
1
Delay 2 runs of Pace 308 by 3 minutes
Increase freq. of Pace 322 between
th
st
54 / Cermak and 1 / Cermak
Increase frequency of outbound Metra
Rock Island trains
1
2
1
19
8
2
58
1
1
65
35
1
1
3
9
2
29
12
4
7
2
2
22
15
27
65
14
5
15
52
Increase freq. of Pace 226
Double frequency of Pace 220
Add 4 new runs on Pace 626 (10 min.
headway)
Add stop at Ravenswood for UP-N
Train 309
Add Pace 600 in reverse direction
Add 2 runs to Pace 747 and delay 1st
run
Add stop at Glenview for 3 runs
Add stop at 103rd / Washington Heights
for express runs
Transit Service Improvement
Increase freq. of CTA 12
900
24,700
400
400
27,700
7,200
400
400
-
-
400
11,100
4,700
1,300
1,300
9,400
11,500
27,700
1,000
-
500
-
32,700
8,500
500
500
1,500
2,500
500
13,100
5,500
1,500
1,500
11,100
4,500
13,600
-
-
-
1,200
1,200
-
-
1,200
1,200
3,600
6,000
-
-
3,600
-
10,900
-
78,400
1,900
24,700
2,100
1,600
60,400
15,700
2,100
2,100
5,100
8,500
900
24,200
10,200
6,400
2,800
20,500
15,400
25,100
106,100
2
58
1
1
65
17
1
1
3
5
1
26
11
3
3
22
9
27
65
New Daily
Incremental Annual Revenue Gain due to
Trips in Market
New Transit Trips in the Market ($)
Based on
Min. Max.
Change in
New
New
Total Travel
Trips Trips
CTA
Pace
Metra
Total
Time
10
35
14
6,000
16,900
22,900
15
28
20
8,500
10,000
18,500
Exhibit 5.6 - Estimates of Incremental Ridership and Incremental Revenue for Investigated Transit Service Improvements
Summary Report
Summary Report
5.2
Estimation of Cost Impacts
In order to develop order-of-magnitude costs for each of the suggested transit
improvement strategies identified in Chapter 4, the RTA Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) Cost Model was updated and applied using the best cost data available. This
section describes the data sources and methods used to update and recalibrate the
model, the model’s theory and underlying assumptions, and the estimates of the cost
impacts of the service adjustments under consideration.
5.2.1
Data Update
The database for the RTA O&M Cost Model contains detailed cost, network, and service
level data documenting historical or “baseline” operating and maintenance cost
conditions for each of the three RTA service boards. The O&M Cost Model, developed
by Booz Allen Hamilton for the RTA in 1996, is a menu driven, PC-based application
originally designed to estimate variations in operating and maintenance costs for the
three service boards. Specifically, the model allows users to analyze the cost impacts
associated with a wide range of potential operating and maintenance scenarios. For this
study, the RTA O&M Cost Model was recalibrated and validated based on the budget
and service data available from the service boards.
Baseline Cost Data
First, the underlying budget data within the model at the management center level (e.g.,
rail operation or bus division) was updated to reflect the most recent annual budgets
available from each of the three service boards. These budget data were included in
each service board's Input Module (Service Board Cost Baseline) which provides an
itemized description of service board O&M costs segmented by management center and
by input type (e.g., labor, fuel, utilities, insurance), based on actual service board cost
data for the latest available year. These baseline data provide a basis for estimating the
cost impacts resulting from changes in factors affecting costs (cost drivers) and other
input parameters. This database also documents the specific cost drivers and service
and network loads assigned to each management center within the model.
The cost data for input into the model were derived from the following sources:
•
Chicago Transit Authority 2002 Annual Budget Department Detail
•
Metra 2002 Final Budget
•
Pace 2002 Operating Program.
Additionally, the input was supplemented with the National Transit Database 2000
reports for each service board and recent results of the Pace Deficit Reduction Study.
5-14
Summary Report
The budgeted cost data were compared with recent actual cost data from the service
boards to ensure the validity of the underlying budget assumptions.
Service and Network Driver Data
Second, the model cost drivers (i.e., factors affecting operating cost) were updated to
reflect the planned service levels, fleet sizes and network configurations underlying the
period(s) represented by the input budget data. These cost drivers included network
miles, peak vehicles, vehicle miles and vehicle hours. The following section describes
the model’s theory and structure in more detail.
5.2.2
Model Recalibration and Adjustments
The first two steps provided the framework required to enter and calibrate the model
baseline to reflect recent service board experience. Given the differences in data
availability across the RTA service boards, however, the management centers and input
types are not readily comparable between service boards, nor are they always consistent
from one year to the next. Therefore, for both Pace and Metra, it was necessary to
redistribute costs to account for differences in budget reporting and accounting and the
model's cost input structure. No adjustments were made to CTA cost data. The
following calibration and validation procedures were undertaken to prepare the model
and data for the analysis conducted as part of this study:
Pace Budget Data
The Pace 2002 Budget was used to update the cost data for the operating divisions.
Other cost categories, such as Administration and Centralized Support, were
redistributed into the following operating divisions proportionally according to their
share of the total budget:
•
Pace Operating (Motor Bus- Directly Operated)
•
Public Carriers (Pace Motor Bus- Purchased Transport)
•
Private Carriers (Pace Motor Bus- Purchased Transport)
•
Dial-a-Ride (Pace Demand Response- Directly Operated)
•
ADA Paratransit Services(Pace Demand Response- Contracted)
•
Vanpool
Furthermore, the expense categories presented in the Pace 2002 Budget (Labor/Fringes,
Fuel, Parts/Supplies, Utilities, Insurance, Purchased Transportation/Other, and Other)
were disaggregated and redistributed into the pre-existing model expense categories in
5-15
Summary Report
order to use the model’s full capability. This data redistribution was performed using
the proportions between categories as listed in the detailed 2000 National Transit
Database figures for Pace. Thus, the model's expense categories included:
•
Operator Salaries/Wages
•
Other Salaries & Wages
•
Fringe Benefits
•
Services
•
Fuels & Lubricants
•
Tires & Tubes
•
Other Materials
•
Utilities
•
Casualty/Liability
•
Taxes
•
Purchased Transportation
•
Misc. Expenses
Metra Data
A second instance of re-calibration involved Metra’s budget, service, and network data.
For the purposes of this analysis, these data were consolidated and entered into the
model according to five operating divisions or groups thereof:
•
Metra Diesel lines (including Heritage Corridor, Milwaukee District, North
Central Service, and Rock Island District, and South West Service)3
•
Metra Electric
•
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)4
•
Union Pacific (UP)
•
NICTD/South Shore5
3 Metra-employed crews operate trains on these lines, as well as on Metra Electric. Metra owns the Milwaukee, Rock Island,
and Metra Electric Districts. On other lines where a host railroad owns the tracks, Metra-employed crews operate trains
under trackage rights agreements.
4 The BNSF and UP lines are the only elements of the Metra system where a freight railroad supplies the operating crews under
a purchase-of-service contract.
5-16
Summary Report
Scenario Building
The RTA O&M Cost Model was originally designed to allow users to create and analyze
the widest possible range of service board operations and maintenance scenarios.
However, the model was customized for the purposes of this study. Specifically, the
service and network inputs were simplified by using two of the model’s five original
“Scenario Builders”, namely the Service and Network Builders:
•
Network Builder: The Network Builder allows users to define the network
configuration for a specific scenario. Here, users can define each network link
used to construct transit routes, including length, name, location, number of
stations, and other characteristics. The model requires network builder data
inputs in order to estimate the cost impacts of scenarios due to changes in
overall network size (i.e., changes in the network size cost driver).
•
Service Builder: The Service Builder allows users to establish each scenario’s
service definition on a service-type-by-service-type basis, as desired. In
particular, the service builder is used to define service levels for different
service types, in terms of vehicle miles, vehicle hours, peak vehicles, and
other variables. These data are required to determine each scenario’s overall
service cost driver values.
Using these two basic scenario builders and the accompanying model functions, the
desired order-of-magnitude incremental cost data were generated and validated after
running the updated model and viewing the output.
5.2.3
Model Theory and Structure
The pre-existing RTA Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost Model underwent
minor adjustments as appropriate to account for the specific needs of the service
coordination analyses and the data collected as part of the re-calibration and update.
The adjustments allowed for the analysis of operating costs for the various types of
proposed service improvements. Finally, the model was modified and validated to
summarize all cost impact analyses by mode, by service board, and by service
coordination scenario. The following subsections describe the updated model in
greater detail.
5 NICTD is the service provider, and Metra has a purchase-of-service contract with NICTD covering the share of
total South Shore Line operating costs accounted for by passenger boardings and alightings at Hegewisch
(which is the only station on the South Shore Line proper in Illinois).
5-17
Summary Report
Key Model Assumptions
The theoretical foundations for this use of the RTA O&M Cost Model are unchanged
from the original applications when the model was developed. The model rests on a
number of key assumptions regarding a service board’s cost structure and those factors
which determine overall O&M cost levels:
•
Network and Service Costs: Service board operating and maintenance costs
can be sub-divided into two types:
–
Fixed or “Network” Costs
–
Variable or “Service” Costs
As their names suggest, fixed or network costs tend to remain constant
regardless of the level of service supplied. Total network costs can be
thought of as the minimum level of expenditure required to operate a transit
service of a given network size, regardless of the level of service supplied.
Variable or service costs, on the other hand, vary in direct proportion with the
level of service supplied and maintenance performed by the service board.
Overall, service costs account for a higher proportion of total agency O&M
costs as compared with network costs.
•
Cost Drivers: Total cost levels for both network costs and service costs are
determined primarily by a unique set of “cost driver” factors. These cost
drivers are different for the two cost types:
Network Cost Drivers:
–
–
Network Size (e.g., directional route miles)
Peak Vehicles
Service Cost Drivers:
–
–
Vehicle Miles
Vehicle Hours / Train Hours
Hence, an increase in any one of these cost drivers can be expected to lead to
an increase in overall operating and maintenance cost levels.
•
Management Center Cost Drivers & Driver Loads: In general, the cost
drivers which determine agency O&M costs vary from one service board
management center to another, based on the type of function performed.
Within the model, the O&M costs for individual management centers are
determined by a pre-selected set of cost drivers, including one network driver
and one service driver. Exhibit 5.7 shows a selection of cost driver values for
an operator, grouped by typical National Transit Database (NTD)
management center functions.
5-18
Summary Report
Exhibit 5.7 - Typical Cost Driver Selection and Driver Loads
By Management Center Function
Management Center
Function
Vehicle Operations
Vehicle Maint.
Non–Vehicle Maint.
Administration
Network Driver
Driver
Load
Peak Vehicles
30%
Peak Vehicles
30%
Network Miles
70%
Peak Vehicles
50%
Service Driver
Driver
Load
Vehicle Hours
70%
Vehicle Miles
70%
Vehicle Miles
30%
Vehicle Miles
50%
The cost driver load refers to the percentage of cost that is driven by the network
driver (the network load) and the service driver (service load). By definition, the
network and service loads must sum to one.
Model Structure
The model’s relationship structure and flow charts were not altered. In general, the
O&M Cost Model estimates total operating and maintenance costs for each scenario
developed by the user by monitoring changes in the individual cost driver values for
that scenario as compared with the model baseline. These cost impacts are then
distributed across the operator’s routes and facilities, allowing model users to evaluate
the scenario’s cost impacts from changes to the service or network cost drivers. A more
detailed presentation of the models internal structure follows.
•
Calculation of Baseline O&M Costs: A model run begins by calculating the
total baseline costs for both the network and service drivers (i.e., across all
network links, bus garages, rail operating groups, and transit routes and
services found in the Network and Service Module databases). These baseline
values then provide the basis for evaluating the cost impacts resulting from
differences in the cost driver values between the scenarios and the baseline.
For example, the total network cost driver value across all links k is
Driver_xTotal =
∑ Driver _ x
link _ k
k
The model next computes the cost levels associated with each cost driver, and
divides this value by the total cost driver level to estimate the baseline cost driver
unit cost. Note that cost driver unit costs are estimated at two different levels:
first, (Type 1) by management center input type, $UCost driver _ x ,input _ z ,mgmt _ cnr _ y (e.g.,
labor costs per vehicle mile for the vehicle maintenance management center)6;
6 These unit costs by management center input type are (indirectly) modified by the user during scenario development to reflect
anticipated changes in input productivity, input unit cost levels, and input cost inflation rates.
5-19
Summary Report
$UCost driver _ x ,input _ z ,mgmt _ cntr _ y =
( Load driver _ x ,mgmt _ cntr _ y ) * ($Cost input _ z ,mgmt _ cntr _ y )
Driver _ x Total
(Type 1)
and second (Type 2) for the service board as a whole, $UCost driver _ x (e.g., per
vehicle mile across all input types and management centers), where
$UCost driver _ x =
∑ ∑ $UCost
driver _ x ,input _ z ,mgmt _ cntr _ y
(Type 2)
mgmt _ cntr input
is summed across all management centers and input types. Finally, the model
computes the total operating and management cost levels for each cost driver by
link, garage and/or transit route as the product of the total cost driver value and
the driver unit cost. For example, the total network driver cost for network link k
and cost driver x is given by
$Tot _ Cost link _ k ,driver _ x = Driver _ x link _ k *$UCost driver _ x .
•
Calculation of Scenario O&M Costs: After estimating the baseline cost
values, the model next estimates the unit and total cost values associated with
the model scenario being evaluated. Here, the model begins by adjusting the
Type 1 cost driver unit costs to reflect changes in management center staffing
levels, productivity, unit costs and inflation rates:
$UCost Scenario _i ,driver _ x ,input _ z ,mgmt _ cntr _ y = ($UCost Baseline ,driver _ x ,input _ z ,mgmt _ cntr _ y ) * ( Π)
where Π represents the product of all productivity, staffing level, input cost, and
inflation adjustments associated with the model scenario in question. The model
next computes the total, agencywide unit cost for each cost driver as
$UCost Scenario _i ,driver _ x , =
∑ ∑ $UCost
Scenario _ i ,driver _ x ,input _ z ,mgmt _ cntr _ y
mgmt _ cntr input
summed across all management centers and input types. Finally, the model
computes the total operating and maintenance cost levels for that scenario by
link, garage and/or transit route (by cost driver) as the product of the total
scenario cost driver values and the scenario-adjusted unit costs for the cost
drivers. For example, the total O&M cost associated with cost driver x for
network link k in scenario i is given by
$Tot _ Cost Scenario _i ,link _ k ,driver _ x = Driver _ x Scenario _ i ,link _ k *$UCost Scenario _i ,driver _ x .
5-20
Summary Report
5.2.4
Cost Impacts of Service Adjustments
The updated O&M model provided order-of-magnitude cost impacts for each of the
preferred transit service improvements identified in Chapter 4. Key inputs to the model
included the incremental vehicle hours, vehicle/car miles, and peak vehicle
requirements. These four general service strategies were evaluated for O&M cost
impacts:
•
Modifying Schedules—This involves changing departure or arrival times for
individual runs, without adding any new service or vehicle miles. Therefore,
the only change to the model cost drivers is a small increase in vehicle hours,
as the span of service over the course of a day is expanded to cover the
schedule modification.
•
Improving Service Frequencies—This set of strategies involves adding runs
and therefore adding vehicle/car miles and hours to the annual sum. It also
has an impact on the total number of vehicles required in the peak scenarios
only, since it is assumed that any additional vehicles needed to supply the
new service during off-peak periods would come from the peak requirement.
•
Route Deviation—These strategies involve extending service (i.e., network
size in directional route miles) with an impact on total vehicle miles and
hours, as well as vehicle requirements (in the peak scenarios only).
•
New Service-- This service strategy similarly results in additional vehicle
miles, vehicle hours, and vehicle requirements (in the peak scenarios only).
In all, 34 general improvement strategies were modeled for both peak and off-peak
scenarios, yielding a total of 68 model runs. Exhibit 5.8 summarizes the inputs to the
model for 34 cases representing the universe of general strategies identified, by the
operator involved (i.e., by applicable individual elements of each service board). It is
important to note that the cases listed for improving service frequencies, deviating
routes, and adding new service are all forms of additional service. These descriptions of
service improvements are, therefore, interchangeable, and can be combined to
approximate additional scenarios with order-of-magnitude costs. For example, an
alternative that improves frequencies over a ten-mile-long route, adding two runs per
hour (to result in a total of two runs per hour) can also be used to represent the addition
of new service over a new ten-mile route with the same incremental frequency of two
runs per hour.
Exhibit 5.9 summarizes the resulting model output, including the estimated incremental
costs, costs per mile, and cost per hour for each of the 34 cases for both peak and offpeak scenarios. As can be seen, the annual incremental costs per hour of application for
5-21
Summary Report
each suggested transit service improvement ranges from negligible to $22,000. It is
estimated that increasing service frequencies, deviating routes, and offering new service
are the most expensive types of service changes. The least costly options involve
additions of small increments of schedule time to existing service as a result of a
planned delay, shifted run, or the addition of a station or two to an existing run.
It is also very important to note that the cost figures in Exhibit 5.9 are intended for
general estimates of operating and maintenance costs for additional service in the longterm, and are not intended to be used for detailed, short-term service planning. As
such, the estimates include all costs related to vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance,
non-vehicle maintenance, and general administration. The large differences between
cost estimates for incremental improvements during the peak and off-peak periods are
due to differences in service and network cost drivers applied within the cost model.
Off-peak cost estimates are order-of-magnitude marginal costs for additional services,
based on service cost drivers only. However, the peak period cost estimates also
include network costs related to the service improvements such as the operation and
maintenance of additional vehicles, but do not include actual capital costs.
5-22
Summary Report
Exhibit 5.8 – Model Input for Estimating Unit Costs of General Strategies
Parameters of General Strategy
No.
General Strategy
1 Modify Schedules
2 Modify Schedules
Operator
Involved
CTA: Bus
CTA: Bus
Route
Miles
Affected
-
Model Input: Network and Service Cost
Drivers
Total
Additional
Additional
Total
Total New Vehicles
Vehicle
Schedule Number
Additional Vehicle Required
Miles
Time
of Runs
Car Miles
Hours
(incl.
(min.)
Affected (annually)* (annually)** (annually) spares)***
5
12
0
299
0
10
12
0
598
0
3
Modify Schedules
Pace
-
5
6
0
-
166
0
4
Modify Schedules
Pace
-
10
6
0
-
333
0
5
Modify Schedules
Pace
-
5
12
0
-
333
0
6
Modify Schedules
-
10
12
0
-
665
0
7
Modify Schedules
Pace
Metra:
BNSF
-
5
1
0
-
25
0
8
Modify Schedules
Metra: UP
-
5
1
0
-
25
0
-
5
1
0
-
25
0
-
5
1
0
-
25
0
-
10
1
0
-
51
0
-
10
1
0
-
51
0
-
10
1
0
-
51
0
-
10
1
0
-
51
0
2.0
10.0
0
0
2
2
2,386
11,929
-
243
1,214
3
12
17 Improve Service Freq. Pace
2.0
0
1
1,473
-
123
2
10.0
0
1
7,365
-
613
4
2.0
0
2
2,946
-
245
3
Metra:
21 Improve Service Freq.
BNSF
10.0
0
2
14,729
-
1,225
12
20.0
0
1
12,306
86,096
445
2
22 Improve Service Freq. Metra: UP
20.0
0
1
12,306
73,880
425
2
20.0
0
1
12,306
75,057
472
2
20.0
0
1
12,306
47,808
525
2
0.5
0.5
0
0
4
8
1,193
2,386
-
121
243
3
10
2
9
Modify Schedules
10 Modify Schedules
11 Modify Schedules
12 Modify Schedules
13
14
15
16
23
24
25
26
Metra:
Diesel
Metra:
Electric
Metra:
BNSF
Metra: UP
Metra:
Modify Schedules
Diesel
Metra:
Modify Schedules
Electric
Improve Service Freq. CTA: Bus
Metra:
Improve Service Freq.
Diesel
Metra:
Electric
Route Deviation
CTA: Bus
Route Deviation
CTA: Bus
27 Route Deviation
Pace
0.5
0
1
368
-
31
28 Route Deviation
Pace
0.5
0
2
736
-
61
2
29 Route Deviation
Pace
0.5
0
4
1,473
-
123
3
30 New Service
31 New Service
CTA: Bus
Pace
2.0
5.0
0
0
4
1
4,772
3,682
-
486
306
10
3
32 New Service
Pace
5.0
0
2
7,365
613
6
Pace:
5.0
0
1
3,530
253
2
Contracted
Pace:
34 New Service
5.0
0
2
7,060
505
5
Contracted
*
In the case of Metra, this represents additional train miles
**
Metra only
***
For peak scenario calculations only. Vehicle requirement is not included in off-peak scenarios since it is assumed that no
additional vehicles will be needed.
33 New Service
5-23
Summary Report
Exhibit 5.9 – Unit Cost Estimates of General Strategies in the Peak and Off-Peak
Model Output: Peak
No.
General Strategy
1 Modify Schedules
2 Modify Schedules
Operator
Involved
CTA: Bus
CTA: Bus
Model Output: Off-Peak
Increm. Increm.
Increm. Increm.
Additional
Estimated
Cost
Cost
Estimated
Cost
Cost
Length of Schedule Number Incremental
per
per
Incremental
per
per
Time
of Runs
Service
Cost
Cost
Vehicle VehicleVehicle VehicleAffected
(miles)
(min.)
(annual)
-Mile
Hour
(annual)
-Mile
Hour
5
12
$11,000
N/A
$37
$11,000
N/A
$37
10
12
$22,000
N/A
$37
$22,000
N/A
$37
3
Modify Schedules
Pace
-
5
6
$4,000
N/A
$24
$4,000
N/A
$24
4
Modify Schedules
Pace
-
10
6
$8,000
N/A
$24
$8,000
N/A
$24
5
Modify Schedules
Pace
-
5
12
$8,000
N/A
$24
$8,000
N/A
$24
6
Modify Schedules
-
10
12
$16,000
N/A
$24
$16,000
N/A
$24
7
Modify Schedules
Pace
Metra:
BNSF
-
5
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
8
Modify Schedules
Metra: UP
-
5
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
-
5
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
-
5
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
-
10
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
-
10
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
-
10
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
-
10
1
Negligible
N/A
N/A
Negligible
N/A
N/A
2.0
10.0
0
0
2
2
$199,000
$799,000
$83
$67
$820
$658
$15,000
$67,000
$6
$6
$62
$55
9
Modify Schedules
10 Modify Schedules
11 Modify Schedules
12 Modify Schedules
13
14
15
16
Metra:
Diesel
Metra:
Electric
Metra:
BNSF
Metra: UP
Metra:
Modify Schedules
Diesel
Metra:
Modify Schedules
Electric
2.0
0
1
$103,000
$70
$841
$5,000
$3
$41
10.0
0
1
$220,000
$30
$359
$23,000
$3
$38
2.0
0
2
$157,000
$53
$641
$9,000
$3
$37
Metra:
21 Improve Service Freq.
BNSF
10.0
0
2
$637,000
$43
$520
$45,000
$3
$37
20.0
0
1
$357,000
$29
$802
$226,000
$18
$507
22 Improve Service Freq. Metra: UP
20.0
0
1
$400,000
$33
$942
$232,000
$19
$546
20.0
0
1
$467,000
$38
$990
$273,000
$22
$579
20.0
0
1
$398,000
$32
$759
$278,000
$23
$530
0.5
0.5
0
0
4
8
$209,000
$649,000
$175
$272
$1,722
$2,674
$26,000
$39,000
$22
$16
$214
$161
23
24
25
26
Metra:
Diesel
Metra:
Electric
Route Deviation
CTA: Bus
Route Deviation
CTA: Bus
27 Route Deviation
Pace
0.5
0
1
$100,000
$272
$3,264
$1,000
$3
$33
28 Route Deviation
Pace
0.5
0
2
$101,000
$137
$1,648
$2,000
$3
$33
29 Route Deviation
Pace
0.5
0
4
$152,000
$103
$1,240
$5,000
$3
$41
30 New Service
31 New Service
CTA: Bus
Pace
2.0
5.0
0
0
4
1
$736,000
$159,000
$154
$43
$1,516
$519
$126,000
$11,000
$26
$3
$260
$36
32 New Service
Pace
Pace:
Contracted
Pace:
Contracted
5.0
0
2
$319,000
$43
$521
$23,000
$3
$38
5.0
0
1
$34,000
$10
$135
$2,000
$1
$8
5.0
0
2
$84,000
$12
$166
$5,000
$1
$10
33 New Service
34 New Service
5-24
Summary Report
5.3
Identification of Cost Effective Improvements
Effective transit service improvement strategies must meet existing service standards in
order to be implemented. The most important of these service standards is the regional
farebox recovery requirement of 50%. As part of its annual budget approval process,
the RTA Board establishes cost recovery targets for each of the three transit service
boards. The targets for 2002 are presented in Exhibit 5.10.
Exhibit 5.10 - Cost Recovery Ratio Targets (2002)
Service Board
CTA
Metra
Pace
Recovery Ratio Target
52%
55.3%
40%
In order to understand how the service improvements that were explored perform with
respect to the cost recovery ratio mandates, incremental cost estimates have been
associated with each of the service improvements described above in Section 5.1.3. Cost
estimates are calculated, based on projected annual revenues due to new trips in the
travel market. Since the regional cost recovery ratio is 50%, the upper limit of
incremental costs allowable for any given service improvement is two times the
projected annual revenue. Costs for each specific service improvement were calculated
using the incremental cost model, and Exhibit 5.11 shows the results. Two separate
costs are presented. The first represents the cost of additional vehicles operated during
the peak period, and the second represents the cost of the same service improvement if
no additional peak vehicles are required (a likely scenario for off-peak operations.)
The ability of each of these service improvements to meet regional cost recovery ratio
mandates was analyzed. For those transit service improvements proposed as
improvements to more than one market, the revenues were aggregated to develop a
total for all the markets analyzed. Other markets (origin-to-destination pairs) also
served by the proposed changes were identified. The combined revenue and the
additional markets served were considered as each improvement was assessed for
potential to meet cost recovery standards. Exhibit 5.12 shows the results of this
assessment.
Five of the proposed service improvements are estimated to meet the cost recovery
standards in both the peak and off-peak periods, based on the ridership generated by
the markets investigated in this analysis. Each of these service improvements involve
only minor schedule adjustments, such as the addition of stops on Metra express trains,
and adding time to schedules to facilitate transfers. Two additional service
improvements (addition of service on both inbound and outbound Pace route 600, and
increase in frequency of Pace route 322 over a portion of the route) may also meet cost
recovery standards if other markets served are considered.
5-25
10
11
9
13
28
27
9
11
13
14
8
15
25
25
341
454
555
722
741
742
836
841
931
942
3.4
4.5
5.5
7.2
7.4
7.4
8.3
8.4
9.3
9.4
10.3 1031
11.5 1151
12.2 1221
12.3 1231
12.4 1241
13.3 1331
13.4 1341
14.3 1431
14.4 1442
15.3 1532
15.3 1534
26
26
42
42
22
22
36
36
36
18
32
28
29
29
28
20
20
20
7
4
8
Dest.
Zone
832,000
Increase frequency of outbound Metra Rock
Island trains
Extend CTA 34
5-26
538,000
538,000
832,000
Island trains
Extend CTA 34
1,300
189,300
16,600
Add short contracted shuttle from Great Lakes
Increase freq. of Pace 322 to 1st / Cermak
16,600
255,000
255,000
638,000
638,000
1,300
90,700
800
800
800
Negligible
Negligible
16,600
69,700
168,300
Negligible
98,900
98,900
89,800
237,700
Negligible
246,800
246,800
105,600
67,900
98,900
Negligible
113,300
34,000
1,900
24,700
2,100
1,600
15,700
60,400
2,100
2,100
5,100
8,500
900
6,400
24,200
10,200
2,800
20,500
15,400
25,100
106,100
18,500
22,900
Estimated Annual
Total Estimated Annual
Incremental Cost if
Revenue Gain from Service
Implementation Requires Improvement for Specified
No Additional Vehicles ($) Travel Market (O-D Pair) ($)
302,800
215,800
246,800
Negligible
310,500
91,000
Add 2 runs to Pace 747 and delay 1st run
Add stop at Glenview for 3 MD-N runs in the
morning (2110, 2114, 2118)
Increase frequency of Pace 226
headway)
Add stop at Ravenswood for UP-N Train 309
Add stop at 103 / Washington Heights for 3
express runs
rd
Service Improvement
Increase frequency of CTA 12 between
Roosevelt Station and Museum Campus
Increase frequency of Pace 208
9
19
29
29
25
18
26
Itin. Origin
No. Zone
OD
No.
Estimated Annual
Incremental Cost of
General Strategy ($)
Exhibit 5.11 – Estimated Costs and Revenue Gains for Identified Transit Service Improvements
Summary Report
1151
11.5
931
942
9.3
9.4
Total
1031
742
7.4
10.3
741
7.4
841
722
7.2
8.4
555
5.5
836
454
4.5
8.3
341
Itin.
No.
3.4
OD
No.
28
13
10
9
11
9
29
29
19
25
18
26
18
32
28
28
29
29
20
20
20
7
4
8
Add 4 new runs on Pace
626 (10 min. headway)
Add stop at
Ravenswood for UP-N
Train 309
Add 2 runs to Pace 747
and delay 1st run
Add stop at Glenview
for 3 MD-N runs in the
morning (2110, 2114,
2118)
Increase freq. of CTA 12
between Roosevelt
Station and Museum
Campus
Increase freq. of Pace
208
Add stop at 103rd /
Washington Hts. 3
express runs
226
Double frequency of
Pace 220
Double frequency of
Pace 600 in Inbound
direction and Add Pace
600 in reverse direction
Service Improvement
8,500
900
6,400
2,800
24,200
10,200
59,500
25,100
15,400
20,500
106,100
18,500
22,900
113,300
34,000
89,800
98,900
67,900
105,600
69,700
45,500
84,150
118,850
123,400
107,900
151,400
0
155,250
5-27
Negligible Negligible
168,300
237,700
246,800
215,800
302,800
310,500
91,000
34,850
44,900
49,450
33,950
52,800
0
56,650
17,000
Combined Revenue
Required from all
Estimated Annual
Markets Served for
Total Est. Annual
Revenue Gain from Incremental Cost of
50% Cost Recovery
($)
Service
Improvement
No Add’l
No Add’l
between Specified Ad’l Peak
Peak
Ad’l Peak
Peak
Origin and
Origin Dest.
Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles
Vehicles
Destination ($)
Zone Zone
Required Required Required Required
{
z
{
z
{
z
{
z
z

{

z
z
{

z
{

{

z
{
{

{
z
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
z

Potential to Meet Cost
Recovery Standard
Serves Zones
No Add’l
Serves Zones with Low
Ad’l Peak
Peak
Income
Vehicles Vehicles with Minority
Required Required Populations Populations
Zones 6, 10, 18 to Zone
28
Zone 29 to Zone 6
Zone 29to Zone 9
Zone 29 to Zone 10
Zone 29 to Zone 11
Zone 29 to Zone 12
Zone 19 to Zone 11
Zone 19 to Zone 6
Zone 19 to Zone 20
Zone 19 to Zone 4
Zone 19 to Zone 18
Zones 17, 35, and 44 to
Zone 8
Other Market
(Origin-Destination
Pairs) Served by
Proposed Service
Improvement
Exhibit 5.12 – Ability to Meet Cost Recovery Standards for Identified Transit Service Improvements
Summary Report
25
25
15
8
14
13
9
11
27
26
26
42
42
22
22
36
36
36
1,900
26,600
24,700
2,100
3,700
1,600
60,400
15,700
2,100
2,100
9,300
5,100
538,000
832,000
189,300
1,300
16,600
255,000
638,000
90,700
1,300
800
269,000
416,000
94,650
650
8,300
127,500
319,000
45,530
650
400
Zones 8 and 16 to Zone
26
Zone 14 to Zone 22
Zone 22 to Zone 14
Zones 25 and 34 to Zone
42
Zone 7 to Zone 22
Zones 6, 10 and 18 to
Zone 36
Other Market
(Origin-Destination
Pairs) Served by
Proposed Service
Improvement
{
{

z
z
{
{
z
z
z
5-28
z

z

Potential to Meet Cost
Recovery Standard
Serves Zones
No Add’l
Serves Zones with Low
Peak
Ad’l Peak
Income
Vehicles Vehicles with Minority
Required Required Populations Populations
z = High -- meets cost recovery standard with trips from specified O-D pairs
= Moderate -- may meet cost recovery standard if other O-D pairs served are considered
{ = Low – Not likely to meet cost recovery standard under any vehicle requirement
z = Service improvement benefits travel that involves at least one zone with more than 80% minority population
= Service improvement benefits travel that involves zones with minority populations between 40% and 80%
{ = Service improvement benefits travel that involves zones with minority populations of less than 40%
z = Service improvement benefits travel that involves zones with greater than 15% of households in low-income classified areas population
= Service improvement benefits travel that involves zones with the proportion of households in low income classified areas between 6% and 15%
{ = Service improvement benefits travel that involves zones with 5% or fewer households in low income classified areas
1534
1442
14.4
Total
15.3
Total
1431
14.3
1532
1341
13.4
15.3
1331
1231
1241
12.3
12.4
Total
13.3
1221
Itin.
No.
12.2
OD
No.
Service to Low
Income Populations
Potential to Meet
Cost Recovery
Standard
Service to Minority
Populations
Extend CTA 34
Delay 2 runs of Pace 308
by 3 minutes
322 to 1st / Cermak
Increase frequency of
outbound Metra Rock
Island trains
Add short contracted
shuttle from Great
Lakes station to meet
UP-N Train 305
Service Improvement
Combined Revenue
Required from all
Estimated Annual
Markets Served for
Total Est. Annual
50% Cost Recovery
Revenue Gain from Incremental Cost of
Service
($)
Improvement
No Add’l
No Add’l
between Specified Ad’l Peak
Peak
Peak
Ad’l Peak
Origin and
Origin Dest.
Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles
Vehicles
Destination ($)
Zone Zone
Required Required Required Required
Summary Report
Summary Report
To apply service improvement strategies more generally, it is important to investigate
how well the various transit service improvements for which unit costs were developed
meet regional farebox recovery mandates. Using the estimated unit costs from the cost
model of implementing specific transit services, it is possible to estimate the number of
passengers required to generate enough fare revenue to meet the cost recovery
requirements. Exhibit 5.13 shows how many new trips would be required to justify a
specific improvement over one hour of the peak period for each weekday throughout
the year. During the peak period, extra vehicles are needed for adding service,
resulting in higher operating costs and higher thresholds for the number of passengers
required. Similarly, Exhibit 5.14 shows the number of passengers required per hour
for adding off-peak service.
The options requiring the fewest passengers in order to be justified in cost recovery
terms are those that involve a simple modification of schedules through such activities
as shifting run times, short delays at specific points along a run for the purpose of
making connections, establishment of timed transfers, and adding stops. Generally,
adding new services (whether on new or existing routes) requires a significant number
of new passengers – levels not demonstrated in the estimates of ridership increases in
specific travel markets.
The calculations presented in Exhibits 5.13 and 5.14 suggest that it is difficult to justify a
particular transit service improvement based solely on a single improvement to a single
travel market. The thresholds for financial viability of many of the different
improvement types are rather high. This suggests a number of key considerations.
Service improvements that require the addition of service (through increasing service
frequency, deviating routes, extending routes, or introducing new service) should
improve travel times to more than one travel market in order to be financially
justifiable. Also, service improvements that require the purchase and deployment of
additional equipment and personnel, such as most improvements contemplated during
the peak periods, involve much higher incremental costs and therefore require much
higher thresholds of new transit riders. On the other hand, adding service in the offpeak hours may be more cost-effective, especially if the travel time benefits of service
improvements are substantial, and transit demand during off-peak hours is high.
5-29
Summary Report
Exhibit 5.13 - Required Incremental Passengers to Meet Cost Recovery
Ratio Targets in Peak Hours
Case
General Strategy
Involved
Operator
No. of
Runs
per
Hour
Length Additional
of
Schedule
Service
Time
(miles)
(min.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
CTA Bus
CTA Bus
Pace
Pace
Pace
Pace
Metra: BNSF
12
12
6
6
12
12
1
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Modify Schedules
Metra: UP
Metra: Diesel
Metra: Electric
Metra: BNSF
Metra: UP
Metra: Diesel
Metra: Electric
CTA Bus
CTA Bus
Pace
Pace
Pace
Pace
Metra: BNSF
Metra: UP
Metra: Diesel
Metra: Electric
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
2
10
2
10
2
10
20
20
20
20
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
New Service
New Service
CTA Bus
CTA Bus
Pace
Pace
Pace
CTA Bus
Pace
4
8
1
2
4
4
1
32
New Service
33
New Service
34
New Service
Pace
Pace –
Contracted
Pace –
Contracted
Est. Annual
Incremental
Cost for Each
Application
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,000
22,000
4,000
8,000
8,000
16,000
Negligible*
Required Incremental
Passengers per Hour
To Meet
To Fully
Cost
Recover Recovery
Costs
Ratio
46
92
15
29
29
57
2
23
46
6
12
12
23
2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Negligible*
Negligible*
Negligible*
Negligible*
Negligible*
Negligible*
Negligible*
199,000
799,000
103,000
220,000
157,000
637,000
357,000
400,000
467,000
398,000
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
827
3,319
363
775
553
2,243
524
587
685
584
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
431
1,726
146
310
222
898
289
323
377
322
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
209,000
649,000
100,000
101,000
152,000
736,000
159,000
868
2,696
353
356
536
3,057
560
452
1,402
142
143
215
1,590
224
2
5
$
319,000
1,124
450
1
5
$
34,000
120
48
2
5
$
84,000
296
119
*Assumed to be $1,000 for calculation of required passengers
5-30
Summary Report
Exhibit 5.14 - Required Incremental Passengers to Meet Cost Recovery
Ratio Targets in Off-Peak Hours
Case
General Strategy
Involved
Operator
No. of
Runs
per
Hour
Length
of
Service
(miles)
Est. Annual
Incremental
Cost for Each
Application
Required Incremental
Passengers
To Meet
To Fully
Cost
Recover Recovery
Costs
Ratio
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CTA Bus
CTA Bus
Pace
Pace
Pace
Pace
Metra: BNSF
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
10
2
10
2
10
20
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
15,000
67,000
5,000
23,000
9,000
45,000
226,000
63
279
18
81
32
159
332
33
146
8
33
13
64
183
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
Route Deviation
New Service
New Service
New Service
1
1
1
4
8
1
2
4
4
1
2
20
20
20
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
5
5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
232,000
273,000
278,000
26,000
39,000
1,000
2,000
5,000
126,000
11,000
23,000
341
401
408
108
162
4
8
18
524
39
81
188
221
225
57
85
2
4
8
273
16
33
33
New Service
1
5
$
2,000
8
4
34
New Service
Metra: UP
Metra: Diesel
Metra: Electric
CTA Bus
CTA Bus
Pace
Pace
Pace
CTA Bus
Pace
Pace
Pace -Contracted
Pace -Contracted
2
5
$
5,000
18
8
Note: The estimated costs and, therefore, the required incremental passengers for cases 1-14 in the off-peak period
are identical to the peak period as shown in Exhibit 5.10.
5-31
Summary Report
CHAPTER 6: FINANCING SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
Improving connections between services operated by different service boards requires
coordination and cooperative effort. There is currently no formal, ongoing process to
determine which service improvements are appropriate to support, or how they should
be funded. This chapter explores various aspects of allocating costs or sharing funding
responsibilities for interagency service improvements. This exploration is informed by
the analysis of the many potential transit improvements in Chapter 4, and the
implications on cost and revenue discussed in Chapter 5.
A formal and ongoing process for cooperation in the planning and funding of
interagency transit service improvements may be warranted for several reasons. First,
in most cases, particular transit service improvements result in uneven impacts to
different service boards with respect to costs, revenues, and benefits. Since the CTA,
Metra, and Pace have different fare structures and are subject to different cost recovery
ratios, these differences in costs, revenues, and benefits affect whether or not a given
service board pursues a particular improvement, even if such a change would be of net
benefit to the RTA system as a whole. Second, a formal process for developing and
evaluating service improvements would create a forum and a constituency for
interagency service improvements where none existed before. Third, tight budgets
reduce the ability of individual service boards to experiment with service changes and
expansions. A process to support interagency service improvements may increase the
willingness of service boards to explore them. A cost allocation / shared funding
system may provide enough incentive for the service boards to coordinate on planning
for interagency transit trips while meeting regionwide farebox recovery requirements.
Before discussing specific shared funding mechanisms, this chapter describes the
existing funding system for operating subsidies in the Chicago region. It continues with
discussions of the purposes of a shared funding system, the general qualities of a cost
allocation / shared funding system, and possible options for implementing such a
system.
6.1
Existing Funding System
Subsidies for operating transit services are currently provided through the RTA Sales
Tax and state funding, which is also derived from sales tax receipts. The RTA Sales Tax
is levied in the six-county northeastern Illinois region. The total sales tax revenue
collected is equivalent to 1% of taxable sales in Cook County, and 0.25% of taxable sales
in the “collar” counties of DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will. After the RTA
retains 15 percent of the total sales tax, the remaining 85 percent of the sales tax revenue
is distributed to the three RTA service boards by the formula shown in Exhibit 6.1.
6-1
Summary Report
Exhibit 6.1 – Distribution of RTA Sales Tax Funds
Service Board
CTA
Metra
Pace
Total
Percentage of Funds Collected from Each Jurisdiction
Distributed to Each Service Board
Suburban Cook
City of Chicago
Collar Counties
County
100%
30%
0%
0%
55%
70%
0%
15%
30%
100%
100%
100%
Exhibit 6.2 shows the proportion of funds by the jurisdiction from which the monies are
collected. Exhibit 6.3 shows the proportions of the RTA sales tax that each transit
agency receives.
Exhibit 6.2 – Proportion of RTA Sales Tax Funds by Jurisdiction of Collection (2002)
Share of Total
Sales Tax
Collected
31%
Jurisdiction of
Collection
City of Chicago
Suburban Cook
County
Collar Counties
Total
54%
15%
100%
Exhibit 6.3 – Distribution of RTA Sales Tax Funds by Transit Agency (2002)
Share of Total
Sales Tax
Collected
15%
40%
34%
11%
100%
Transit Agency
RTA
CTA
Metra
Pace
Total
6.2
The Need for Cost Allocation / Shared Funding
The existing system of sales tax collection and distribution functions adequately for
many transit services. In most cases where a particular operator makes improvements
6-2
Summary Report
to transit services, that operator bears all of the costs and keeps all of the revenues
associated with those improvements. Usually, the benefits are confined to a population
within the operator’s service area. But as travel patterns have changed and as activity
centers have spread throughout the region, a growing market for interagency trips has
developed. In these cases, the benefits are not as neatly confined to a single service
area, and the costs and revenues are not as neatly confined to a single service board.
The growth of interagency trips may now warrant the establishment of a system to
allocate costs and/or share funding for service improvements that improve transfers
between service boards.
6.2.1
Examples of Shared Funding Arrangements
Shared cost allocation and shared funding arrangements already exist. In several
instances, an outside entity such as another service board, a local jurisdiction, or a local
organization or institution provides supplemental funding for certain services to be
operated and/or for certain fare discounts to be offered. Several examples of shared
funding arrangements currently exist in the Chicago metropolitan area. Many of these
arrangements were developed to maximize benefit to transit patrons with little or no
cost impact to the operator. In other words, these arrangements were revenue positive
or at least revenue neutral for the service boards involved.
Two examples of voluntary funding arrangements between service boards include
Link-Up and PlusBus stickers which may be bought in conjunction with a Metra
monthly ticket. The Link-Up is a sticker or (for rapid transit travel) a fare card which, in
addition to being valid for unlimited travel on Pace during the month for which the
Metra ticket is valid, may be used on CTA during peak periods (Monday through
Friday from 6:00 to 9:30 AM and from 3:30 to 7 PM). The PlusBus sticker allows ticket
holders to ride Pace buses on an unlimited basis for as long as the ticket is valid. Metra
compensates Pace and CTA for participation in these joint fare arrangements. Related
to this, Metra also subsidizes the $1.00 fares offered on certain CTA bus routes seen as
feeders to its own network. These routes provide shuttle services to and from
downtown commuter rail stations in the morning and afternoon peak periods.
The benefits associated with these existing cooperative service arrangements are
limited. The Plus Bus and Link-Up features can only be added to Metra monthly
passes. No similar discounts are available to less frequent riders. Even with the
subsidy provided by Metra, only 800 passes are sold per month with the Link-Up or
PlusBus. Also, the $1.00 shuttle services are limited to specific routes and can only be
boarded at specific locations. Riders like the service and want more hours of usage and
more boarding options. Greater flexibility might increase the usefulness of these
arrangements.
Other shared funding agreements are initiated and managed by entities such as
transportation management associations (TMAs). In the Lake-Cook Road area in
6-3
Summary Report
southern Lake and northern Cook counties, employers established the TMA of LakeCook to help reduce congestion and improve mobility in southern Lake and northern
Cook counties. The TMA works to coordinate and fund supplemental transit services
for employers and activity centers in the area. It helps with the Shuttle Bug bus routes
which distribute passengers to employer offices in the Lake-Cook corridor from the
Lake-Cook Road station of Metra’s Milwaukee District North Line and the Braeside
station of the Union Pacific North Line. Pace operates the service, while Metra and the
members of the TMA (the employers) provide funding for the service—60% and 40%,
respectively.
The TMA’s efforts have also led to the development of service in other corridors,
including Willow Road, Route 22, and Route 60. Funding for these services comes from
various sources, including employers, federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) and Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC) grants, and public-private
partnerships. In total, the Lake-Cook TMA facilitates the provision of service for about
1,000 daily trips.
Another example of shared funding arrangements is in the City of Chicago. A TMA
was formed for the Illinois-Grand corridor under the leadership of the Navy Pier
portion of the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA). The Illinois-Grand
TMA is made up of developers, the CTA and MPEA, and is funded by membership fees
and grants. Through the TMA, the Navy Pier Trolley, a fare-free shuttle bus, operates
between State Street and Navy Pier.
6.2.2
Potential Benefits of Cost Allocation/Shared Funding Arrangements
Cooperative service arrangements such as those listed above require commitments in
funding, in both the short term and the long term. A systematic approach to regional
transit coordination may enhance overall coordination of transit services in the Chicago
region. Trips across the region frequently involve more than one operator. The model
for single-operator cost sharing mechanisms illustrated in the previous examples may
require adjustment for multi-operator settings, for two reasons. First, improvements to
these transit trips may require coordinated changes with more than one operator.
Second, even if the improvement requires a change to only one service board’s
operation, such an improvement may create costs and benefits to other operators. A
cost allocation or shared funding system may ensure that multiple service boards share
the costs and benefits associated with service improvements more equitably.
Creating a mechanism to allocate funding across service boards for improvements to
trips involving interagency transfers serves several functions. First, it enhances
cooperative planning efforts. Such mechanisms ensure that one service board does not
bear the entire cost of an improvement that benefits more than one service board. This
encourages service boards to think more broadly about service improvements, and to
consider specific changes that may be possible with additional funding. Second, a
6-4
Summary Report
shared funding mechanism reduces the financial risk of innovation. Since more
solutions may be devised by cooperative planning, a cooperative funding process can
enhance the willingness to try innovative, though unproven, service strategies. Third, a
shared funding mechanism benefits the general public, especially those whose travel
patterns involve more than one operator (i.e., reverse commutes, cross-regional, or nonradial travel, etc.). Fourth, planning cooperatively between the service boards may
reduce redundancies in service and promote more universal efficiency in the
metropolitan transit network.
6.3
Desirable Characteristics of a Shared Funding Mechanism
Any mechanism to distribute any combination of costs, revenues, or external funding
among the service boards or other organizations should have the following qualities:
•
Stable – Funding sources should be reliable and should not fluctuate
significantly from year to year. This implies that the data used to allocate
funding should not be subject to large fluctuations, and that the sources of
funding should also be stable.
•
Consistently applied / Impartial – The allocation formula should not be
subject to manipulation, and should be applied consistently across all cases.
Participants will accept a cost allocation scheme more readily if verifiable
data are applied consistently to all participants.
•
Simple – The shared funding mechanism should be simple to calculate, and
should use easily available data.
•
Transparent – The process of allocating funds must be clear and easy to
understand for all parties involved.
•
Auditable – The implementing agency should be able to verify the data
through an audit without significant dispute. Participants should be readily
able to verify the data and the allocation results.
•
Reflect Benefits and Costs – Allocation methods must encourage transit
investment strategies with the highest potential for improving service for
interagency transit trips. The data used to calculate the allocation of costs or
funding (e.g., incremental cost, incremental revenue, incremental ridership,
vehicle miles, vehicles, ridership) should reflect the specific impacts of
introducing the service innovation.
•
Equitable – The burden of serving passengers who require interagency trips
should be shared by the affected service boards.
In order to simplify the budget planning and service planning processes, existing
agreements for coordinating service emphasize stability, simplicity, and transparency.
They are also based on ridership, the most easily-audited and widely-reported data.
Service boards have typically not adopted interagency agreements that result in
6-5
Summary Report
significant changes in financial position from year to year, that require significant
renegotiation or calculation each year, or that are based on data that are difficult to
measure or audit.
6.4
Structure of a Cost Allocation / Shared Funding System
Any change to the current funding mechanism requires thorough investigation. There
are several elements defining any cost allocation / shared funding system. Two key
elements are:
•
Duration of Funding – How long does the funding arrangement apply to a
specific transit improvement?
•
Funding Program Type – Are funds exchanged directly between participants,
or are they collected and distributed by a third party?
The remainder of Section 6.4 describes these key elements of the cost allocation / shared
funding system, and the most important issues associated with each element.
6.4.1
Duration of Funding
The duration of funding describes the period of time over which a service innovation is
funded by or subject to a shared funding or cost allocation method. With this element,
there are two primary options – permanent funding or short-term (demonstration)
funding.
A permanent funding arrangement implies that new services providing interagency
connectivity will be funded indefinitely into the future. Under such a permanent
funding arrangement, a dual funding system would arise, with two parallel sets of
funding arrangements. Services that existed before the cost allocation system or that are
introduced without any direct benefit from the cost allocation system would continue to
be funded according to previously-established mechanisms. Services introduced under
the cost allocation system would be funded by the alternative system.
Applying an alternative funding system on a lasting basis would require a
reconsideration of the existing allocation of funds. As more and more services were
introduced, two parallel administrative categories of transit service would develop –
one designed to serve interagency trips, and the other serving trips involving only one
agency’s services. Given that the service areas of the three service boards overlap in
many locations throughout the metropolitan area, maintaining two distinct funding
systems would be difficult. It might become increasingly difficult to determine which
services serve the purpose of enhancing interagency trips to the extent that they should
be funded as such, as opposed to those services that do not qualify for interagency
funding.
6-6
Summary Report
The second alternative for funding duration is to apply the cost allocation / funding
system for a short term, or on a demonstration basis. Services that are introduced with
the purpose of enhancing interagency trips would be funded by the cost allocation
system for a limited period of time, after which the services would be evaluated and
either be absorbed into the appropriate service boards’ systems and funded through
each service board’s normal funding mechanisms, or be discontinued for failing to meet
cost recovery standards.
Exhibit 6.4 compares two time frames for a cost sharing / shared funding mechanism.
Exhibit 6.4 - Comparison of Durations of Funding
OPTION
PERMANENT
(LONG TERM)

STRENGTHS
Stability of funding
Ensures that funding
arrangements in the long term
reflect regional priorities for
service.

DEMONSTRATION
(SHORT TERM)
6.4.2

Simple to administer.
Allows for trials of service
without significant or long term
commitment of resources

WEAKNESSES
Creates two parallel operating
funding systems
Administrative difficulties may
result from the difficulty in
distinguishing between new
services that enhance
interagency trip making and
established services that
already serve interagency trips.
Minor service adjustments from
season to season may change
the level of connectivity.
Requires commitments in
advance to fund the service in
the long-term and integrate the
service into the system
Requires an alternate funding
source or a reallocation of
regular operating funding if the
service is to continue once the
demonstration period is over.
This creates difficult policy
decisions.
Funding Program Type
The second major structural element of a cost allocation / shared funding system is the
type of funding program. When considering the prospect of establishing a funding
program for transit services in the Northeastern Illinois region, it should be recognized
that each service board is responsible for setting its own fares. Also, most of the regular
operating subsidies for the CTA, Metra, and Pace are established by a funding formula
specified by the Illinois General Assembly in the RTA Act, as amended. Any new
funding programs and cost allocation schemes would have to be funded and allocated
in compliance with the RTA Act. Alternatively, the Act would have to be amended.
6-7
Summary Report
In the institutional context of the RTA and its three service boards, two major types of
funding program can be considered. The first type is a funding transfer program
between service boards, based on mutual agreement for mutual benefit. The second
funding type is a grant program that distributes funds to service boards.
6.4.2.1 Funding Transfer Program
Under a funding transfer program, service boards would cooperate to fund specific
interagency service improvements that would benefit interagency transit trip-making.
The service boards would undertake planning for the service improvements jointly.
The RTA could oversee a transfer of funds from one service board to another, or the
service boards could make arrangements among themselves based on the nature of the
specific service improvements being implemented. This could be done according to an
allocation formula that accounts for the relative financial impacts and benefits of the
improvement under consideration, or the service boards could agree on the amount of
the revenue transfer themselves. Examples of existing service coordination agreements
that involve funding transfers include:
•
Routes or route segments jointly operated as combined CTA and Pace routes,
with agreements for mutual honoring of fare cards, transfers, and passes;
•
Metra’s agreements with Pace and CTA for PlusBus and Link-Up
enhancements to Metra monthly passes;
•
The $1.00 peak period fares on certain CTA bus routes to and from
downtown Metra commuter rail terminals; and
•
Pace Route 835, which supplements Metra’s South West Service. Pace
operates the service under a purchase-of-service contract with Metra. All
appropriate Metra fares are charged, and Metra tickets are honored, but no
Pace fares or fare instruments are accepted on Route 835.
Exhibit 6.5 shows the generalized institutional structure of a funding transfer program.
6-8
Summary Report
Exhibit 6.5 - Structure of a Service Funding Transfer Program
ADMINISTRATOR
OPERATOR
/ SERVICE
BOARD
OPERATOR
/ SERVICE
BOARD
6.4.2.2 Grant Program
The second type of funding program is a grant program. Grant programs use an
administrative entity to distribute funds to the service boards. Under a grant program,
funds are generated from specific sources, either existing sources or new ones. These
sources could include federal CMAQ and JARC grants, state grants, RTA discretionary
funds, and/or funds from local jurisdictions or organizations which would then pass
through an administrative entity. The administrative entity would apply for and collect
funds from various sources, and distribute funds to providers of services that are found
to be meeting specific requirements. In a grant program, service boards would apply,
individually or jointly, for funding for specific service improvements that benefit
interagency transit trip-making. Funding would be distributed according to established
criteria. The funding amounts would be set by a predetermined formula or by other
criteria that may be established.
Exhibit 6.6 illustrates the institutional arrangement of a grant program.
6-9
Summary Report
Exhibit 6.6 - Structure of a Grant Program
FUNDING SOURCE
COLLECTION
ADMINISTRATOR
DISBURSEMENT
OPERATOR /
SERVICE BOARD
6.4.2.3 Comparison of Funding Transfer Programs and Grant Programs
Both types of funding program types have their strengths and weaknesses. Exhibit 6.7
categorizes the strengths and weaknesses for each of the types of funding programs.
Exhibit 6.7 - Options for Types of Funding Programs
FUNDING
PROGRAM TYPE
FUNDING
TRANSFER
PROGRAM
STRENGTHS

More directly tied to specific
benefits on a case-by-case
basis
Can be limited to only a few
cases
Can follow the market to grow
wherever possible
WEAKNESSES

Difficult to calculate incremental
costs and revenues.
Calculations require detailed
data
May be difficult to secure
agreements between service
boards on terms of payment
and terms of evaluation
Service boards need business
incentives to transfer funds
Higher potential for institutional
inertia to prevent action
In emergency no accounting,
bills for service sent to operator,
but free to riders
6-10
Summary Report

GRANT
PROGRAM

Formal application process
allows service improvements to
be considered and compared
together
Independent review of service
improvements gives incentives
for service boards to apply for
funding for service innovations

6.4.3
Requires a commitment of
funding either from external
sources or existing sources.
Such funding may already be
committed.
Only available for a limited time
At end of demonstration, new or
improved services must
compete with existing services
for funding
Can create a budgetary or
operating strain on the existing
network
Structural Options for Cost Allocation / Shared Funding
When the duration of funding and the type of funding program are considered
together, there are four basic options for the structure of a cost allocation system:
•
Demonstration Grant Program – Service boards submit applications to the
RTA for short-term seed funding, based on improvements to interagency
transit travel.
•
Demonstration Funding Transfer Program – Service boards enter into shortterm agreements to share costs or revenues of a specific service improvement
on a case-by-case basis. The process can be mediated by the RTA.
•
Long-term Grant Program – A specific fund is dedicated to designated
services that critically improve interagency transit travel.
•
Long-term Funding Transfer Program – Service boards enter into long-term
agreements to share costs or revenues of specific service improvements.
Exhibit 6.8 shows existing examples of each of these arrangements.
Exhibit 6.8 – Existing Examples of Cost Allocation Structures
FUNDING
PROGRAM TYPE
OPTION
FUNDING
TRANSFER
PROGRAM
Long Term Examples

GRANT
PROGRAM

PlusBus
Link-Up
Metra South West Service /
Pace route 835
$1.00 downtown shuttle fares
on CTA
TMA (Shuttle Bug support)
UPS service
Short Term (Demonstration)
Examples

Acceptance of other fare
instruments during service
disruptions or emergencies

CMAQ grant (3 years) for
Chicago Trolleys
JARC grants (3-5 years)

6-11
Summary Report
6.5
Parameters for Implementing a Cost Allocation / Shared Funding System
Once a structure for allocating cost or sharing funds has been decided on, three
parameters must be defined for the cost allocation / shared funding mechanism:

Funding Administration – A funding administrator allocates funds and/or
mediates funding transfers according to an established or agreed-on process.
Sources of Funding – Decision-makers must establish a source of funds.
Dedicated sources of funds are less subject to changes in the budgetary cycle
than legislative appropriations.
Clearinghouse Function – Institutional and administrative mechanisms must be
established for collecting and distributing funds.
This section describes the major options available for sources of funding and the basis
for a clearinghouse.
6.5.1
Sources of Funding
The source of funding under most scenarios is assumed to be the RTA Sales Tax.
Supplementary sources include federal programs and local contributions. Exhibit 6.9
describes how funding from the RTA might be apportioned for this purpose, depending
on the type of funding program.
6-12
Summary Report
Exhibit 6.9 – Potential Sources of Funds for Each Option
FUNDING OPTION
FUNDING
TRANSFER
PROGRAMS
GRANT
PROGRAMS

PRIMARY SOURCES
Specific amounts of operating
subsidy funds used to support
services of inter-agency
significance.
RTA sales tax funding, with a
specific amount designated as
a grant fund.
SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES
Federal sources such as
Congestion Management Air
Quality (CMAQ) funds, Job
Access Reverse Commute
(JARC), and Surface
Transportation Program (STP)
funds. Such allocations must,
of course, comply with federal
spending guidelines. For
example, CMAQ funds may
require that the operating
support grants be provided on a
demonstration basis only.
Local jurisdictions or local
organizations (e.g.,
municipalities and employers)
and institutions can contribute
on a case-by-case basis as a
“local match”.
CMAQ and JARC
Contributions from local
jurisdictions may be collected
consistently. Local jurisdictions
may also provide matching
funds towards start-up grants
through specific partnership
agreements.
Both funding transfer programs and grant programs can be funded from the same
sources – federal programs, state programs, local jurisdictions, and local organizations.
The specific requirements of each program, especially for federal funding programs,
need to be taken into account when allocating funds.
6.5.2
Basis for Distribution of Funding (for Funding Transfer Programs)
A cost allocation / shared funding system for a funding transfer program is applied on
a case-by-case basis. Under such a program, funding is transferred from one operator
to another based on a predetermined formula or set of criteria. Funding can be
transferred based on the characteristics of the particular service improvement. Three
options for allocating funding are presented in Exhibit 6.10.
6-13
Summary Report
Exhibit 6.10 – Summary of Funding Exchange Types
ALLOCATION
ALTERNATIVE
SHARED COSTS
SHARED
REVENUE
REVENUE
WEIGHTED BY
SHARE OF
COSTS
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Data – baseline
vehicle miles and
hours, incremental
vehicle miles,
incremental vehicle
hours
Route-by-Route
Revenue – may
require baseline and
incremental ridership
and average fare
data
Cost Data (baseline
vehicle miles and
hours, incremental
vehicle miles,
incremental vehicle
hours), Baseline
Ridership on all
affected legs of a trip,
Revenue Data
(incremental
ridership, average
fare)
MAJOR IMPACT
Splits funding costs evenly among operators involved.
Transfers funding from service board with lower
incremental costs to service board with higher
incremental costs.
Reallocates revenue from service board with higher
average fare to service board with lower average fare
(since incremental ridership is theoretically constant for
service boards involved). No major funding transfers if
affected services have similar average fares.
Reallocates revenue based on a weighted share of total
costs. Cost recovery ratio of incremental revenue to
incremental cost becomes constant between the
service boards involved.
Exhibit 6.11 shows an example of how different funding exchange systems might work.
In the example, implementation of changes to a feeder service result in an annual net
cost increase of $9,000. Implementation of corresponding changes to the trunk service
result in a net cost increase of $4,000. Both the feeder and trunk services experience a
gain of 6 round trip riders a day. With average one-way fares of $0.97 and $1.25,
respectively, the feeder and the trunk service experience increases in annual revenue of
$3,014 and $3,457. Both service boards experience increases in ridership, revenue, and
costs. The cost recovery ratios of the increments are 33% and 98% for the feeder and
trunk, respectively. In this example, given the requirements of farebox recovery ratio,
there is no incentive for the operator of the feeder service to initiate the service.
The three scenarios of shared cost, shared revenue, and revenue weighted by shares of
cost illustrates how both service boards can experience increased revenue while
maintaining cost recovery ratios. In this particular example, the operator providing the
feeder service increases revenue under all scenarios but only approaches appropriate
farebox recovery with two of the approaches – shared costs, and revenue weighted by
cost shares. The weighted revenue alternative equalizes the cost recovery ratio of the
incremental service improvements and enables both operators to exceed a 50% cost
recovery ratio. Under the Existing – No Coordination scenario, each service is
6-14
Summary Report
implemented independent of each other, and the operator of the feeder service is not
able to meet cost recover standards. The service is not likely to be introduced.
Exhibit 6.11 – Hypothetical Example Illustrating the Impacts of Various Funding
Exchange Systems on a Hypothetical Example
Feeder Route
Cost Recovery Ratio
of Incremental Service
Change
Trunk Route
Funding
Transfer
from Trunk
Increm.
Cost Revenue Required Cost Revenue Required Service to
Feeder
Increase Increase Subsidy Increase Increase Subsidy
Existing – No
Coordination
SHARED COSTS
SHARED REVENUE
REVENUE
WEIGHTED BY
COST SHARES
Feeder
Trunk
$ 9,000
$ 3,014
$ 5,986
$ 4,000
$ 3,900
$ 100
$-
33%
98%
$ 6,500
$ 9,000
$ 3,014
$ 3,457
$ 3,486
$ 5,543
$ 6,500
$ 4,000
$ 3,900
$ 3,457
$ 2,600
$ 543
$ 2,500
$ 443
46%
38%
60%
86%
$ 9,000
$ 4,787
$ 4,213
$ 4,000
$ 2,127
$ 1,873
$ 1,773
53%
53%
The practical issues associated with implementing any of these funding allocation
schemes must be considered. One primary issue relates to the difficulty of estimating
the actual costs of service improvements. Calculating the incremental cost due to a
specific service improvement requires that a cost model be calibrated and approved by
all participating service boards. It also requires that the inputs to this model be
calculated as well. Calculations of cost are, therefore, complex and often cumbersome.
A second major issue is the difficulty of distinguishing between those impacts due to
incremental service improvements and those due to other causes. So many different
variables affect cost and ridership that it is difficult to determine precisely how many
vehicle miles, vehicle hours, or new riders are attributable to a specific change in
service, making it difficult to calculate a true incremental cost or revenue. This makes
effective and accurate data measurement techniques very important.
A third issue is budgetary fluctuation. Budget planners rely on consistent trends,
consistent revenues, and consistent costs in order to develop their plans. A funding
allocation scheme that resulted in significant fluctuations in funding transfers would be
difficult to plan for. Fourth, it is difficult to predict the impact of a proposed service
change in advance with much accuracy. For these reasons, existing agreements among
the service boards have typically focused on funding allocation schemes that are based
on revenue and ridership, even if the impact of such agreements is less pronounced
than funding allocation schemes that involve some measurement of cost. Data on
revenue and ridership are collected and payments are made at the end of a particular
period.
6-15
Summary Report
6.5.3
Basis for Funding Disbursement (for Grant Programs)
For grant programs, a third party funding entity, most likely the RTA, would allocate
grants or specified amounts of funding based on the specific characteristics of the
service being proposed. The RTA grant contributions may be based on the allocation
factors presented in Exhibit 6.12 – net incremental subsidy, net incremental costs, net
incremental ridership, net incremental vehicle hours, or net incremental vehicle miles.
With each of these alternatives, the RTA and its stakeholders would establish an
application process for awarding grants to fund proposed service improvements that
would enhance interagency transit connections. Following the establishment of such a
procedure, the RTA would then invite applications for service proposals. A service
board, a combination of service boards, or one or more service boards in cooperation
with other entities, would be free to apply. The RTA would evaluate the proposed
services, and allocate funding either by rank or shared among all projects meeting
requirements. Decisions would be based on a predetermined average rate (per vehicle
mile, per vehicle hour, or per new rider), or on calculations of net costs or net
incremental subsidy derived from estimates of vehicle miles, vehicle hours, or whatever
determining elements may have been established. Post -award audits would confirm
that grant amounts were appropriately allocated. Adjustments in the grant amounts
could be made at that point, if needed.
Exhibit 6.12 – Potential Allocation Methods for Particular Service Improvements
ALLOCATION
ALTERNATIVE
NET
INCREMENTAL
SUBSIDY –
(Service Boards
would be funded
essentially the
same as currently,
while the funding
required for
specific lines
would not count
against cost
recovery)
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
Cost Data (baseline
vehicle miles and
hours, incremental
vehicle miles,
incremental vehicle
hours)
Baseline ridership on
all affected legs of a
trip
Revenue data
(incremental
ridership, average
fare)
STRENGTHS
Reflects actual need
WEAKNESSES
Requires significant data
collection
Requires separate
accounting of incremental
revenue (by run or by line)
Relies on a detailed and
reliable cost model for
accurate calculation in cost
due to incremental service
changes
6-16
Summary Report
ALLOCATION
ALTERNATIVE
NET
INCREMENTAL
COSTS
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
Baseline vehicle
miles and hours.
Incremental vehicle
miles, incremental
vehicle hours.
NET
INCREMENTAL
RIDERSHIP
Baseline and
incremental riders
Reflects the number of
persons who are
attracted to a specific
improvement
Data are easily
collected and audited
NET
INCREMENTAL
PASSENGER
MILES TRAVELED
Baseline and
incremental
passenger miles
Reflects the amount of
benefit as the amount
of patrons attracted to
the new service and
the increase in
distance traveled
NET
INCREMENTAL
VEHICLE MILES
Baseline and
incremental vehicle
miles
Data are easily
STRENGTHS
Data are easily
collected and
auditable
Short-term capital costs
can be accounted
WEAKNESSES
Requires consensus on a
cost model
Requires consensus on use
of incremental versus fully
allocated costs
May be unable to capture
small service changes (e.g.,
schedule adjustments)
changes
New riders can be
influenced by other factors
such as marketing, or fare
discounts
Results in a less significant
reallocation of resources (all
affected segments of a trip
have identical ridership
gains)
Difficult to calculate
because causes of increased
ridership hard to attribute
New riders can be
influenced by other factors
such as marketing, or fare
discounts
Does not reflect relative
cost burdens (possibly to the
disbenefit of short services)
Data on passenger miles
are difficult to calculate to a
high level of accuracy
Does not account for
schedule adjustments
May create incentives for
wasteful operation (moving
vehicles rather than
passengers)
accurate calculation of cost
changes
6-17
Summary Report
ALLOCATION
ALTERNATIVE
NET
INCREMENTAL
VEHICLE HOURS
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
Baseline and
incremental vehicle
hours
STRENGTHS
Data are easily
WEAKNESSES
May create incentives for
wasteful operation (moving
vehicles rather than
passengers)
changes
Exhibit 6.13 provides a graphic summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the
various grant program alternatives. This illustration suggests there is a tradeoff
between accuracy of calculation and reflection of actual need (or service provided).
Exhibit 6.13 –Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Potential Funding
Disbursement Schemes for Grant Programs
Calculation Ease
Accuracy of Calculation
Reflects Actual Need for
Funding

~
~

z
z

~
~

z
z
z
~

Net Incremental Subsidy
Net Incremental Costs
Net Incremental Ridership
Net Incremental passenger
Miles
Net Vehicle Miles (an input
to cost)
Net Vehicle Hours (an
input to cost)
{
Low

LowMedium

Medium
~
MediumHigh
z
High
6-18
Summary Report
6.6
Summary of Considerations for Shared Funding Programs
Any new method to promote service innovation or to develop solutions to close service
gaps for interagency transit trips will require some changes to the current method of
funding transit operations in the Chicago region. These are the main concepts
presented in this chapter:
•
The existing funding system has no explicit incentive to encourage service
coordination. Funds are distributed by pre-determined formulas directly to
service boards based on revenues generated within specific jurisdictions.
Budgets and operations planning for each service board are self contained.
•
The region already has several agreements for shared funding to support
service coordination. The success of a sustainable service arrangement
depends on a shared sense of mutual benefit on the part of the service boards
involved. The existing service agreements emphasize stable funding sources,
simplicity, and transparency in implementation.
•
There are four major options for a cost allocation system – a demonstration
grant program, a demonstration funding transfer program, a long term grant
program, and a long-term funding transfer program. The most commonly
implemented shared funding arrangements are demonstration grant
programs and long-term funding transfer programs.
•
There are several methods for allocating costs or sharing funding, including
sharing revenue, sharing costs, and covering net subsidies. Within the
spectrum of methods, there is a tradeoff between simplicity and transparency
on the one hand, and exact and accurate adherence to stated goals on the
other. Transit agencies have typically implemented solutions that require
simple calculations and use data that can be commonly agreed upon or are
easily audited. For example, many programs use ridership as the basis for
determining amounts for shared funding.
Stakeholders should consider what characteristics of a funding mechanism are most
important, and should then select and implement a shared funding system that both
supports effective transit service planning and reflects the stakeholders’ shared values.
6-19
Summary Report
CHAPTER 7: MAJOR FINDINGS
The Service Coordination Study has explored ways to improve the connectivity of the
transit system to better serve travel patterns throughout the Chicago metropolitan area.
This study makes demand-driven analyses of travel patterns in the metropolitan area,
and of the effectiveness of the transit system in serving those markets. Several major
findings follow from this exploration of travel markets, analysis of service
improvements, and processes to promote service coordination.
Fifteen activity centers were identified throughout the six-county Chicago metropolitan
area on the basis of concentrations of employment, social services, and regional
attractions, and considerations of geographic distribution.
Exhibit 7.1 – Recommended List of Major Activity Centers based on Total
Employment, Social Services, and Regional Attractions
Location
Downtown Chicago
/ Navy Pier
Museum Campus /
Soldier Field
University of Chicago /
Hyde Park/Museum of
Science and Industry
O’Hare International
Airport / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road area
Oak Brook area
West Loop / UIC
Downtown Evanston
(including Evanston
hospitals)
VA Medical Center –
North Chicago
Loyola Medical Center /
Hines VA Hospital
Joliet
Ford Plant (130th and
Torrence)
X
Inclusion
based on
Social
Services
X
Inclusion
based on
Regional
Attractions
X
X
X
X
Major
Service
Provider(s)
Inclusion based
on Total
Employment
CTA, Metra
CTA
CTA, Metra
Inclusion
based on
Additional
Input
X
CTA
X
X
X
CTA, Metra
X
CTA, Pace
X
X
Metra, Pace
Pace
Pace
CTA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CTA,
Metra, Pace
X
Metra, Pace
X
Pace
X
Pace, Metra
X
CTA / Pace
X
Once these zones were identified, areas were identified within the region with a high
propensity for travel to these activity centers, involving transit trips that require more
7-1
Summary Report
than one service board. The origins and destinations of these transit trips were
established through a travel analysis model using a system of zones organized around
the major downtown-oriented radial corridors of the Chicago area transit network
(Exhibit 7.2).
Exhibit 7.3 lists those travel analysis zones with a high propensity to travel to the
various activity centers. Each of these zone combinations was then classified according
to a rating system (Exhibit 7.4) that determined the attractiveness of the transit service
involved in serving a trip between the origin and destination zone. This rating system
accounted for the number of transfers and the nature of the services serving that
particular travel market (i.e., that particular combination of zones).
7-2
Summary Report
Exhibit 7.2 Map of 44 Travel Zones
7-3
Summary Report
Exhibit 7.3: Summary of the Prominent Regional Travel Patterns Identified
Major Activity Centers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
North Michigan Avenue/
Streeterville/River North/Navy Pier
West Loop / UIC
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
(Downers Grove, Lisle, Naperville)
Great Lakes Naval Training Center/ VA
Medical Center- North Chicago
Hospital- Maywood
Joliet
Primary
Zone
(Additional
Zones)
3 (2)
Prominent Origin Zones Selected
Zones Adjacent
Zones Not
to Destination
Adjacent to
Zone
Destination Zone
6, 5
26, 25
1
6
5, 26, 18, 25
8
16, 7
26, 25
4 (7)
7
6, 7
4, 8, 6
9, 26, 18
26, 25
16
26, 8, 15, 25
18
20
28
29
19, 9, 27, 10, 28
19, 11, 29
37, 29
30, 28
3
9, 10
11, 9
32
33, 41
13, 14
36
37, 27
9, 11
22
23, 21, 13, 14
42
26
33, 34
17, 35, 25, 16
8, 15
7-4
Summary Report
Exhibit 7.4: Classifications of Transit Services
Transit
Service
Condition
Subcondition
No. of
Transfers
Required
1
--
0
2
--
--
2-1A
1
2-1B
2-1C
2-2A
2-2B
2-2C
2-2D
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
--
--
4
--
--
Descriptions of Services Involved
Direct and frequent transit service already exists and is
serving the market
A mainline or trunk transfer connection between origin and
destination pairs is required.
Both services are mainline trunks (both rail with high
frequency or rail with high frequency bus)
One mainline trunk service, one feeder
Two local or feeder routes
Two mainline trunk services and one feeder (local route)
Feeder, Mainline, Feeder
Mainline, Feeder, Local
3 Local Lines
Transit services currently connect both the origin to the transit
network or the destination to the transit network but the
routes/schedules are too circuitous or inconvenient to be
feasible.
The existing transit network does not adequately serve the
The zone combinations included a wide variety of transit condition classifications.
Exhibit 7.5 shows how the travel markets were distributed by transit service condition.
Exhibit 7.5: Summary of Designated Transit Conditions
Transit Service
Condition
1
2
Sub-condition
Number of Travel Markets
--2-1A
2-1B
2-1C
2-2A
2-2B
2-2C
2-2D
---
7
49
8
16
2
5
14
0
4
5
3
64
3
4
Total
Thirty-one of those travel markets (Exhibit 7.6), including those with poor transfers,
those with many transfers, and those with high travel times, were then analyzed further
for the service characteristics of the specific transit links making up representative
transit travel itineraries for the relevant zone combinations.
7-5
Summary Report
Exhibit 7.6 – 31 Travel Markets in First Stage of Transit Improvement Analysis
Travel Market (OD) No.
3.4
4.5
5.5
6.4
7.2
7.4
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.1
10.3
11.1
11.5
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.2
15.3
Museum Campus
UIC / West Loop
O’Hare / Rosemont
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
Origin Zone
26
18
25
25
19
29
29
9
10
30
28
11
9
33
13
19
28
37
27
9
11
23
21
13
14
33
34
8
15
35
25
Destination Zone
8
4
7
16
20
20
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
32
32
18
18
36
36
36
36
22
22
22
22
42
42
42
42
26
26
For each of these 31 travel markets, all potential transit links connecting the origin zone
and the destination were identified. Characteristics of transit trips were calculated for
each transit itinerary (wait time, each link time, internal transfer wait times, total travel
time). For each of the travel markets, one or two itineraries were selected as
representative itineraries. The 23 of these 31 travel markets that have representative
itineraries involving more than one service board were matched with potential service
improvements (Exhibit 7.7).
7-6
Museum Campus
UIC / West Loop
O’Hare / Rosemont
O’Hare / Rosemont
Lake-Cook Road Area
Lake-Cook Road Area
Joliet
Joliet
Joliet
OD
No.
3.4
4.5
5.5
6.4
7.2
7.4
8.3
8.4
9.3
9.4
10.3
11.5
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.3
Origin Dest.
Zone Zone
26
8
18
4
25
7
25
16
19
20
29
20
9
28
10
28
11
29
9
29
13
32
28
18
27
36
9
36
11
36
23
22
21
22
13
22
14
22
34
42
8
42
15
42
25
26
7-7
4. Establish
Ltd.-Stop 5. Add Stop 6. Extend 7. Establish
2. Improve 3. Lengthen Services on at Transfer or Deviate Strategic 8. Establish 9. Improve
1. Modify
Service
Service
Transfer
New
Physical
Freq.
Spans
Feeders Connection
Schedules
Routes
Trunk Line Service
Points
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exhibit 7.7 – Summary of Improvement Strategies to be Considered for Travel Markets with Interagency Transfers (23)
Summary Report
Summary Report
One specific service improvement was then chosen on the basis of offering the greatest
reduction in travel time. The cost of each service improvement was calculated by
estimating cost inputs (peak vehicles, vehicle miles, vehicle hours) and running an
Operating and Maintenance Cost Model originally developed for the RTA with these
inputs. Ridership was estimated by determining the impact on travel time of the
service improvements, and by applying service elasticities to the transit markets (i.e., by
determining how attractive the various time savings would be to potential customers).
The revenue associated with the proposed service improvement was calculated by
multiplying the number of new riders by the average fare for the service involved. A
summary of estimated costs and revenues is presented in Exhibit 7.8.
Upon examination of service improvements, a few techniques emerged as viable and
cost-effective service improvements – addition of stops on express line-haul services,
and increases in frequency for short bus route segments. The investigation of other
types of transit improvements showed that the interagency transit network service
design met most of the existing transit needs. There were few significant untapped
markets not already served with the cost-effective level of transit service. Additional
service improvements may therefore require external funding to foster new transit
markets.
7-8
10
11
9
13
28
27
9
11
13
14
8
15
35
25
341
454
555
722
741
742
836
841
931
942
3.4
4.5
5.5
7.2
7.4
7.4
8.3
8.4
9.3
9.4
10.3 1031
11.5 1151
12.2 1221
12.3 1231
12.4 1241
13.3 1331
13.4 1341
14.3 1431
14.4 1442
15.3 1532
15.3 1534
26
26
42
42
22
22
36
36
36
18
32
28
29
29
28
20
20
20
7
4
8
Dest.
Zone
832,000
Island trains
Extend CTA 34
7-9
538,000
538,000
832,000
Island trains
Extend CTA 34
1,300
189,300
16,600
Increase freq. of Pace 322 to 1st / Cermak
16,600
255,000
255,000
638,000
638,000
1,300
90,700
800
800
800
Negligible
Negligible
16,600
69,700
168,300
Negligible
98,900
98,900
89,800
237,700
Negligible
246,800
246,800
105,600
67,900
98,900
Negligible
113,300
34,000
1,900
24,700
2,100
1,600
15,700
60,400
2,100
2,100
5,100
8,500
900
6,400
24,200
10,200
2,800
20,500
15,400
25,100
106,100
18,500
22,900
Estimated Annual
Total Estimated Annual
Incremental Cost if
Revenue Gain from Service
Implementation Requires Improvement for Specified
No Additional Vehicles ($) Travel Market (O-D Pair) ($)
302,800
215,800
246,800
Negligible
310,500
91,000
Add 2 runs to Pace 747 and delay 1st run
Add stop at Glenview for 3 MD-N runs in the
morning (2110, 2114, 2118)
headway)
Add stop at Ravenswood for UP-N Train 309
Add stop at 103 / Washington Hts. 3 express
runs
rd
Service Improvement
Increase freq. of CTA 12 between Roosevelt
Station and Museum Campus
9
19
29
29
25
18
26
Itin. Origin
No. Zone
OD
No.
Estimated Annual
Incremental Cost of
Exhibit 7.8 – Estimated Costs and Revenue Gains for Identified Transit Service Improvements
Summary Report
Summary Report
Because many of the service improvements analyzed would require additional and/or
alternative funding, various processes and structures were explored for supporting
interagency service improvements. Among the various options are a funding transfer
program and a grant program, shown in Exhibits 7.9 and 7.10, respectively. Each of
these can be applied on both a short-term (demonstration) and a long-term basis.
Existing agreements between the service boards suggest that short-term demonstration
grant programs and long-term funding transfer programs are the most common shared
funding structures used.
Exhibit 7.9 - Structure of a Service Funding
Transfer Program
Exhibit 7.10 - Structure of a Grant
Program
ADMINISTRATOR
FUNDING SOURCE
OPERATOR
/ SERVICE
BOARD
OPERATOR
/ SERVICE
BOARD
COLLECTION
ADMINISTRATOR
DISBURSEMENT
OPERATOR /
SERVICE BOARD
As experience with existing agreements shows, arranging a process to engage the
service boards to cooperatively develop, analyze, evaluate, implement, and fund
improvements to interagency transit connections can help support and sustain better
interagency service coordination.
7-10