Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report
Transcription
Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report
DRAFT Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report March 2015 DRAFT Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report February 2015 Submitted By: Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................................. 2 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms Used in this Document ............................................................................................ 3 1.0 1.1 1.2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5 Report Organization ............................................................................................... 5 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 2.1 2.2 SOCIOECONOMIC FORECASTING APPROACH ................................................. 7 Study Area Overview ............................................................................................. 7 Socio-Economic Forecasting Methodology ...................................................... 10 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 RIDERSHIP FORECASTING APPROACH ............................................................. 44 Model Approach ................................................................................................... 44 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 44 Highway & Transit Network .............................................................................. 46 Work Trip Demand Tables ................................................................................. 47 Socioeconomic Base and Forecasting ................................................................ 48 Transit Network Assumptions ........................................................................... 50 Mode Choice .......................................................................................................... 54 4.0 4.1 4.2 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION APPROACH......................................................... 57 Rail Corridors Analyzed ...................................................................................... 58 Corridor Rail Capital Cost Estimation .............................................................. 60 5.0 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATION APPROACH .......... 67 6.0 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................... 69 APPENDIX A: EXPRESS BUS SPEED RUNS....................................................................... 70 1 Existing Conditions & Market Assessment Report List of Tables Table 2.1: 1970 – 2010 Population ............................................................................................. 12 Table 2.2: 1970 – 2010 Employment .......................................................................................... 13 Table 2.3: Employment Growth Rates...................................................................................... 16 Table 2.4: Population Growth Rates ......................................................................................... 16 Table 2.5: Grundy County Population & Employment Forecasts ........................................ 25 Table 2.6: Kendall County Population & Employment Forecasts ........................................ 30 Table 2.8: IVPTP Study Area Population & Employment Forecasts ................................... 40 Table 3.1: LODES Origin-Destination Data File Structure .................................................... 47 Table 3.2: Socioeconomic Totals 2010 and 2040 ...................................................................... 48 Table 3.3: LaSalle-Peru to Joliet Commuter Rail Service Timetable .................................... 51 Table 3.4: Joliet to LaSalle-Peru Commuter Rail Service Timetable .................................... 51 Table 3.5: LaSalle-Peru to Montgomery Service Timetable .................................................. 52 Table 3.6: Montgomery to LaSalle-Peru Commuter Rail Service Timetable ...................... 52 Table 3.7: LaSalle-Peru to Joliet Express Bus Service Timetable .......................................... 53 Table 3.8: Joliet to LaSalle-Peru Express Bus Service Timetable .......................................... 53 Table 3.9: Sandwich to Aurora Express Bus Service Timetable............................................ 54 Table 3.10: Aurora to Sandwich Express Bus Service Timetable.......................................... 54 Table 3.11: Mode Choice Coefficients ...................................................................................... 55 Table 3.12: Mode Choice Equations.......................................................................................... 56 Table 4.1: Joliet to LaSalle Rail Capital Cost Estimate ........................................................... 63 Table 4.2: Montgomery to LaSalle Rail Capital Cost Estimate ............................................. 66 List of Figures Figure 1.1: IVPTP Study Area ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.1: IVPTP Study Area ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.2: 1990 – 2000 Historic Population Trend ................................................................... 9 Figure 2.3: 2000 – 2010 Historic Population Trend ................................................................. 10 Figure 2.4: Standard Logistics S-Curve .................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.5: Grundy County Population & Employment Trend............................................ 22 Figure 2.6: Aux Sable Township (Grundy) Population & Employment Trend ................. 23 Figure 2.7: Felix Township (Grundy) Population & Employment Trend ........................... 24 Figure 2.8: Kendall County Population & Employment Trend ............................................ 27 Figure 2.9: Oswego Township (Kendall) Population & Employment Trend ..................... 28 Figure 2.10: Seward Township (Kendall) Population & Employment Trend .................... 29 Figure 2.11: LaSalle County Population & Employment Trend ........................................... 31 Figure 2.12: Peru Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend .......................... 32 Figure 2.13: Ottawa Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend...................... 33 Figure 2.14: LaSalle Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend ...................... 34 Figure 2.15: Bruce Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend ........................ 35 2 Existing Conditions & Market Assessment Report Figure 2.16: Manlius Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend .................... 36 Figure 2.17: Utica Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend ......................... 37 Figure 3.1: Regional View of the Illinois Valley Model with CMAP Zone System ........... 45 Figure 3.2: Focused View of the Illinois Valley Model with CMAP Zone System ............ 45 Figure 3.3: Illinois Valley Highway & Transit Network........................................................ 46 Figure 3.4: Households 2010 and 2040 by Township ............................................................. 49 Figure 3.5: Total Employment 2010 and 2040 by Township ................................................. 49 Figure 4.1: Freight Railroad Corridors ..................................................................................... 59 Acronyms Used in this Document ACG ACS ADA ADT ACS BEA BNSF CATS CEDDS CMAP CSX CTC CVP DOAP DMU DTC DTIP EA FRA FTA GTS HSTP IAIS IDOT IR ISTHA ITEP IVPTP JRMTC The al Chalabi Group American Community Survey American with Disabilities Act Average Daily Traffic American Community Survey Bureau of Economic Analysis Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Chicago Area Transportation Study Woods & Poole Complete Economic and Demographic Data Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning CSX Transportation Centralized Traffic Control Consolidated Vehicle Procurement Downstate Operating Assistance Program Diesel Multiple Unit Direct Traffic Control Downstate Transportation Improvement Program Environmental Assessment Federal Railroad Administration Federal Transit Administration Grundy Transit System Human Services Transportation Plan Iowa Interstate Railroad Illinois Department of Transportation Illinois Railway Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program Illinois Valley Public Transportation Study Joliet Regional Multimodal Transportation Center KAT LEHD MCD METRA MSA MP NCAT NCICG NCIEDD NIPC O&M RTA ROW TAZ TMA TWC UP W&P Kendall Area Transit Local Employer-Household Dynamics Minor Civil Division Commuter Rail Division of Regional Transportation Authority Metropolitan Statistical Area Milepost North County Area Transit North Central Illinois Council of Governments North Central Illinois Economic Development District Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Operating & Maintenance Regional Transportation Authority Right of Way Transportation Analysis Zone Transportation Modeling Area Track Warrant Control Union Pacific Railroad Woods & Poole 1.0 Introduction The Illinois Valley Corridor Comprehensive Public Transportation Plan (IVPTP) was initiated in early 2014 to assess, analyze and plan for enhanced public transportation options to residents of Grundy, Kendall, and LaSalle Counties, which comprise the overall study area. This study builds upon planning work completed in 2003 that examined the feasibility for commuter rail service in the Illinois Valley. The previous 2003 analysis focused solely on commuter rail feasibility in the Illinois Valley, and found that commuter rail service was feasible, but more refined analysis was necessary. The IVPTP Existing Conditions & Market Assessment Report was prepared in August 2014. It described the collection of demographic data, review of existing community plans, overview of current transportation networks, existing public transit services, input from project stakeholders, along with several other sources of information. A market assessment was also conducted analyzing available information of trip patterns. This data and supporting information provides a strong foundation to establish a sound plan allowing for the development of effective and efficient public transportation alternatives in the future. The purpose of this Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report is to document the methodologies used in the IVPTP for socioeconomic forecasting, ridership forecasting, and costing. The approach for socioeconomic forecasting includes the population and employment projections for the study area. These socioeconomic forecasts as used by the transit ridership forecasting model to predict future transit users on proposed new services. The projected ridership on these new services reflects the benefits of transit. These benefits are compared to the costs of the new services. The approach for the capital cost to construct the new services and the operating & maintenance costs to run the new services are also described. 1.1 Report Organization The IVPTP Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report includes the following sections: Section 2 – Socioeconomic Forecasting Approach Section 3 – Ridership Forecasting Approach Section 4 – Capital Cost Estimation Approach Section 5 – Operating & Maintenance Cost Estimation Approach 1.2 Study Area The study area for the IVPTP encompasses LaSalle, Kendall and Grundy Counties. Since the study also considers potential commuter rail connections to existing Metra service in Aurora and Joliet, these areas will also be discussed in their role as connecting stations. The communities of Spring Valley, Grandville and Ladd in Bureau and Putnam Counties are also 5 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report included as places whose residents may access public transportation services in the study area. Figure 1.1 depicts a map of the study area. Figure 1.1: IVPTP Study Area 6 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 2.0 2.1 Socioeconomic Forecasting Approach Study Area Overview The Study Area consists of the Counties of LaSalle, Grundy and Kendall, plus certain townships of Western Will County and eastern Bureau and Putman Counties. The municipalities of Channahon, Joliet, LaSalle, Marseilles, Minooka, Morris, North Utica, Ottawa, Peru and Seneca, are the originators of an earlier transit study. The earlier study area, encompassing Interstate I80 from Joliet to LaSalle, has been expanded to include the Illinois Railway from Ottawa to Aurora. The latter railway is part of an early (1900’s) electric interurban rail system, intended as part of a system linking the urban areas of Chicago and St. Louis. Both the Illinois River and the railway – and the cities that grew along them – are indicative of the region’s historic role as a transportation link serving the Chicago region. Figure 2.1 shows the Illinois Valley Transportation Study Area, as part of the Greater Chicago Metro Region. Figure 2.1: IVPTP Study Area Exhibit 1 Illinois Valley Study Area As Part of the Greater Chicago Metro Region Winnebago Boone McHenry Lake Chicago MSA Rockford MSA State Boundary County Boundary Township Boundary Ogle IVCCTS Study Area Kane DeKalb 2010 Census Places Transportation Modeling Area J u ly 2 0 1 4 P re p a re d b y A C G : T h e a l C h ala b i G r ou p , L t d . in a s so cia t ion w it h P a rs on s B r inc k er h off, In c . Cook DuPage Lee 6 0 6 12 18 M ile s Kendall Will LaSalle Porter Lake Grundy Kankakee Jasper Newton 7 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report The focus of the project study area is this chain of older small cities, settled by early French traders, located along the banks of the Illinois River, an early transportation corridor between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. These cities have matured and functioned fairly independently since their early settlement. That function was to serve as centers for their surrounding agricultural areas and points of commerce along the region’s waterways. That traditional economic basis for the area has been transitioning as agricultural employment continues to shrink and the Chicago Metropolitan Area continues to expand. River-borne traffic continues for bulk commodity shipments and parallel rail lines connect the area to the entire nation for freight transport; but, population in many of the older towns has grown slowly, but faster than local jobs. The Study Area’s transition has had several major stages: The first stage of the economic transition saw a stagnation or shrinkage in the area’s small cities. The replacement of lost jobs and employment was through moves to the State’s urban centers, primarily Chicago, either with the relocation of households or with extended work trips to the urban edges of the region. The second (current) stage of the transition is the expanding edge of the urban area moving closer to the Illinois River Valley and its principal cities. Both Kendall and Will Counties have been among the nation’s fastest growing over the past decade (20002010); and they continue to be part of the leading edge of Chicago’s metropolitan growth. However, development and growth in these two counties are very different. Will, with its more mature development, and as a beneficiary of overflow jobs from DuPage, is beginning to provide jobs as well as population; and long-range forecasts are considerable. Kendall remains a predominantly dormitory development, but with proximity to the growing, job-rich edge of both Will and DuPage Counties. LaSalle County provides adequate jobs for its population; however, that population has stagnated, although households are growing somewhat. And, job opportunities and their diversity are limited. Grundy County will grow; as will its employment, although at a slightly lower rate than its workers. These changes make the Illinois River Valley more dependent on securing jobs beyond their borders, but within the Chicago Metro Area. Figures 2.2 and 2.3, following, show the 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 population change in the Greater Chicago Region. In most instances, job growth has continued to be concentrated on the edges of DuPage and Will Counties. The transitioning economic relationship within the region was recognized, by the Federal government, in the February 28, 2013 expansion of the Chicago-Joliet Combined Statistical Area from 16 to 19 counties, by the addition of Bureau, LaSalle and Putman Counties. This expansion, by the Statistical and Science Policy Branch of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, recognizes that there is a “high degree of social and economic integration with the core 8 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report (of the Metropolitan Statistical Area) as measured by commuting ties.”1 It is, primarily, to strengthen the above “social and economic” relationship that the study client, the Illinois Valley Corridor Comprehensive Transportation Study Committee, has requested this broad look at their region’s mobility needs and the opportunities for addressing them with new or enhanced public transportation. Figure 2.2: 1990 – 2000 Historic Population Trend 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Office of Management and Budget. 1 9 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.3: 2000 – 2010 Historic Population Trend 2.2 Socio-Economic Forecasting Methodology Geographic Extent of the Forecast Model Since 2009, ACG: The al Chalabi Group has been developing and refining a mathematical model for analyzing past and current trends and forecasts of future socio-economic growth for the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Region. This model is an outgrowth of prior forecasting methodologies employed by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) and the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), now merged into the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). This Market-Driven approach was requested by several state and regional transportation agencies as a logical continuation of past regional planning approaches and as an alternative to the recently-prepared Policy-Based approach of CMAP. The mathematical model and methodology, used by ACG, is more than simply an alternative to the Policy-Based model of CMAP, affecting that agency’s seven counties. It was intended to serve as the base No-Build forecast for multiple projects in the Chicago Region. Its base geography – originally the 14-counties of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA) – 10 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report has been expanded and augmented as ACG has added projects requiring forecasts for the same, portions of, or greater geographies within the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Region. The region covered in the current ACG model is the 18-county Chicago Consolidated Area. This area encompasses: Seven (7) counties that comprise the CMAP planning region (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will). Kendall was added, to the original six counties, with CMAP’s creation, in 2005. Six (6) counties that are adjacent to the CMAP area and encompass the toll roads that serve it (Boone, DeKalb, Lee, LaSalle, Ogle, and Winnebago). Also included, are the five counties which comprise the study area for the proposed Illiana Expressway; and which make up the “commuter shed” traditionally attributed to this region (Lake, LaPorte, and Porter Counties, in Indiana; and Grundy and Kankakee Counties, in Illinois). Because of its substantial size (population and employment) and its central (core) location, Cook County is sub-divided into four units (City of Chicago and North, South and West Suburban Cook). Portions of Bureau and Putnam Counties, as necessary for the analysis of this Illinois Valley Corridor Study. The basic geographic block is the Township. Data sources for population (the U.S. Census) originate at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) or Township, level. Data sources for both land use and employment originate at the quarter-section level and are aggregated to the Township level by ACG. Socio-Economic Factors and Growth Trends As input to the forecast model, ACG has maintained extensive records of growth and socioeconomic trends in the Chicago Consolidated Region. These files include historic data on population, households, employment (jobs), workers, land use, available vacant land, income, and car ownership; in essence, all the data required as input to transportation models. Patterns of growth are maintained in intensive GIS files. Table 2.1 shows recent population growth trends (1970-2010). Table 2.2 shows trends for employment growth. 11 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 2.1: 1970 – 2010 Population County Counties within CMAP Region City of Chicago - Cook County Suburban Cook - North Suburban Cook - South Suburban Cook - West Cook County - Total (1) DuPage County (1) Kane County (1) Kendall County (1) Lake County (1) McHenry County (1) Will County (1) Seven-County CMAP Region Total Population 1970 Total Population 1980 Total Population 1990 Total Population 2000 Total Population 2010 3,369,359 3,005,061 2,783,726 2,896,014 2,694,554 805,771 657,368 661,031 5,493,529 492,181 251,005 26,374 382,638 111,555 247,825 898,870 738,199 611,525 5,253,655 658,824 278,405 37,202 440,372 147,897 324,460 974,111 744,325 602,905 5,105,067 781,666 317,471 39,413 516,418 183,241 357,313 1,047,250 789,353 644,124 5,376,741 904,159 404,119 54,544 644,356 260,077 502,266 1,062,687 793,996 642,682 5,193,919 917,084 515,650 114,760 703,882 309,000 677,936 7,005,107 7,140,815 7,300,589 8,146,262 8,432,231 28,630 35,210 30,582 102,926 112,033 36,432 46,453 250,884 30,806 40,130 32,337 96,255 106,913 34,476 46,059 252,913 41,786 47,160 37,535 103,833 111,509 36,092 51,275 278,418 54,215 105,169 50,028 113,494 113,890 36,032 53,485 295,567 Counties External to CMAP Region Boone County (2) 25,440 DeKalb County (1) 31,560 Grundy County (1) 26,535 Kankakee County 97,250 LaSalle County 111,409 Lee County 37,925 Ogle County 42,804 Winnebago County (2) 246,623 Sum of above Counties 7,624,653 7,783,965 7,940,478 8,853,870 9,254,111 Chicago MSA (3) Rockford MSA Combined Chicago & Rockford MSA's 7,846,895 272,063 8,118,958 8,013,595 279,514 8,293,109 8,144,824 283,719 8,428,543 9,057,238 320,204 9,377,442 9,461,746 349,782 9,811,528 (1) Part of the Chicago MSA. (2) Part of the Rockford MSA. (3) Includes in addition to the above Illinois counties, Jasper, Lake, LaPorte, Newton, and Porter Counties in Indiana and Kenosha County in Wisconsin. 12 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 2.2: 1970 – 2010 Employment Total Employment 1970 Total Employment 1980 Total Employment 1990 Total Employment 2000 Total Employment 2010 1,966,440 1,712,300 1,673,869 1,748,373 1,604,875 336,401 164,378 342,030 2,809,249 158,830 110,040 14,080 166,940 42,260 88,470 558,923 244,408 397,839 2,913,470 289,130 133,230 17,210 210,930 56,680 102,130 741,834 321,979 396,948 3,134,630 504,740 174,180 15,220 296,740 83,190 124,030 834,534 344,617 394,079 3,321,603 696,726 239,975 21,480 415,337 110,734 184,449 824,815 334,761 358,294 3,122,745 689,725 257,348 29,806 428,851 134,820 252,316 Seven-County CMAP Region Counties External to CMAP Region Boone County (2) DeKalb County (1) Grundy County (1) Kankakee County LaSalle County Lee County Ogle County Winnebago County (2) 3,389,869 3,722,780 4,332,730 4,990,304 4,915,611 14,433 31,560 10,670 39,710 50,300 14,842 18,788 113,186 14,433 35,214 13,280 43,030 51,320 16,259 18,717 130,406 16,778 40,128 16,180 45,560 49,980 17,667 20,580 150,569 18,864 47,154 19,850 54,100 58,304 17,959 25,385 175,310 19,849 52,772 21,873 55,231 55,170 15,456 23,090 155,293 Sum of above Counties Chicago MSA (3) Rockford MSA Combined Chicago & Rockford MSA's 3,683,358 3,748,390 127,619 3,876,009 4,045,439 4,128,845 144,839 4,273,684 4,690,172 4,745,467 167,347 4,912,814 5,407,230 5,460,257 194,174 5,654,431 5,314,345 5,381,532 175,142 5,556,674 County Name Counties within CMAP Region City of Chicago - Cook County Suburban Cook - North Suburban Cook - South Suburban Cook - West Cook County - Total (1) DuPage County (1) Kane County (1) Kendall County (1) Lake County (1) McHenry County (1) Will County (1) (1) Part of the Chicago MSA. (2) Part of the Rockford MSA. (3) Includes in addition to the above Illinois counties, Jasper, Lake, LaPorte, Newton, and Porter Counties in Indiana and Kenosha County in Wisconsin. 13 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Regional Socio-Economic Forecasts The forecast methodology employed in this study consists of two parts. The first is a forecast prepared by ACG based on a long history of preparing forecasts for CMAP, the Greater Chicago Consolidated Region, and the region’s Transportation Modeling Area (TMA). This forecast is then compared to those forecasts prepared by several public and private, national and local forecasting entities; and an adjustment of the initial forecast is made to reflect reasonable responses to observed differences. The result of this step is a 2010-2040 regional forecast, morespecifically, a compilation of forecasts for the Chicago and Rockford MSA’s, the seven-county CMAP area, and for the entire CMAP and IDOT Modeling Areas. The second step in the process is the distribution of the “recommended” regional forecasts, derived in the first step, into townships, which are then aggregated into counties. A second comparison of ACG’s and other forecasts is made at this county level. This second, distribution, step is essential due to the fact that the forecast region is quite extensive; and because it is at very different stages of development and maturity. Land available for development ranges from less than three (3) percent to more than 80 percent, depending on the township observed. Growth pressures from adjacent townships, as well as varied accessibility levels, contribute to a wide-range of development characteristics over the 30-year forecast period. This distribution influences travel demand and trip patterns which, in turn, influence development. Comparative Regional Forecasts As previously stated the first step of the analysis and forecast of the region’s socio-economic factors is the comparative analysis of forecasts prepared by several national, state and local agencies. ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd. maintains files of current and past regional population and employment forecasts generated by various national, state and local entities. The analyses of past forecasts and their comparison with actual subsequent trends provide insights into the methodologies used, as well as measuring their accuracies. The regional forecasts analyzed by ACG prior to generating its own independent forecasts are, among others: Woods & Poole Economic, Inc. (W&P). Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and its predecessor agencies, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) and Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS). State of Illinois – Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC). Rockford MSA. Kankakee County. LaSalle County. 14 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report The regional socio-economic data has been updated as U.S. Census data, Woods & Poole Annual Complete Economic and Demographic Data (CEDDS) data, and state and regional agency updates have been made available. These regional update totals are considered the baseline (No-Build) totals for major transportation projects within the region. The regional geography used for this Illinois Valley Transportation Study is identical to the 18county Transportation Modeling Area (TMA) used for CMAP and IDOT projects. It encompasses the Counties of LaSalle, Grundy, Kendall and Will. To this TMA, portions of Putnam and Bureau Counties were added. This regional geography was shown in Figure 32.1. Recommended Regional Employment and Population Forecasts – Greater Chicago Consolidated Region Tables 3 and 4 show the recommended regional employment and population forecasts, respectively, for the 18-county Chicago Consolidated Region. These tables also compare the growth rates of these recommended forecasts to those implied by past trends and both the W&P and Moody’s (2012) forecasts. The tables show the average annual growth for each of the fiveyears of the trends period, 1970-2010, and the forecast period, 2010-2040, as well as for varying past 30-year, 25-year and 20-year periods; and compare these rates to the 30-year forecast period. The recommended employment forecasts imply an average annual growth rate of 1.00 percent. This average is lower than the average for the 30-year periods of 1970-2000 and 1975-2005, which were 1.27 percent and 1.22 percent, respectively; but it is higher than the 1980-2010, 30year period, which was 0.88 percent. The recommended employment rate of growth is almost identical to that of the 0.98 percent experienced during the period 1985-2005; this is a period which may be similar, in many ways, to the coming decades. The employment in the Chicago Consolidated Region was relatively low, in 1985, having experienced limited growth in the preceding five years. The term “rust belt” was the common description for the Great Lakes Region’s economy, in general; and its manufacturing base, in particular. This manufacturing base was restructured and growth resumed. The period 2010-2040 has begun with a very severe recession and a Midwestern manufacturing base in stress. However, this manufacturing base is restructuring, as a result of both technology improvements and pressure to repatriate outsourced products. The short-term (2010-2015) rates of growth of the recommended forecasts (1.20 percent) are lower than those of both W&P forecasts (1.26 percent) and Moody’s Analytics (1.33 percent). It should be noted, that the 1970’s and 1980’s represented unique decades in the demographic history of northern Illinois. By the early 1970’s most of the “baby-boomer” generation were born. Most of this generation did not begin to have their children until the late-1980’s and 1990’s. Accordingly, the population rate of change during this period (1970-1990) was very low, averaging 0.19 percent per year. Even though the population growth rates were low, rates of 15 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report growth of workers and households were high because baby boomers and greater numbers of women were starting to enter the labor force and to establish households. The children of baby boomers are expected to start having children in the 2020’s and 2030’s. In the meantime, the Chicago Consolidated Region has high concentrations of Hispanic population. Today, this group has higher birth rates than that of the total population. This difference is assumed to shrink with time. Also, by the end of the forecast period, the anomaly introduced into the demographic pyramid, by the baby boomers, would have exited the pyramid. Population growth, except for the impact of immigration, would have stabilized; and the growth rates of population and employment would be converging. This is reflected in the forecasted growth rates shown in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, following. Table 2.3: Employment Growth Rates Year Actual Recommended W&P 2012 Moody's 2012 1970 3,875,948 3,379,720 1975 3,965,060 3,371,540 1980 4,266,949 3,727,430 1985 4,354,017 3,637,820 1990 4,886,564 4,151,670 1995 5,173,832 4,363,000 2000 5,654,704 4,735,000 2005 5,700,806 4,604,470 2010 5,556,849 4,391,330 2015 5,897,240 5,914,970 4,690,140 2020 6,237,629 6,202,914 4,821,880 2025 6,578,822 6,513,522 4,889,300 2030 6,920,015 6,848,252 4,950,520 2035 7,207,624 7,208,673 5,080,480 2040 7,495,232 7,596,401 5,230,270 Average Annual Rates of Growth for 30-Year Periods 2010-2040 - Actual / Recommended 0.46% 1.48% 0.40% 2.33% 1.15% 1.79% 0.16% -0.51% 1.20% 1.13% 1.07% 1.02% 0.82% 0.79% W&P 2012 Moody's 2012 1.26% 0.96% 0.98% 1.01% 1.03% 1.05% -0.05% 2.03% -0.49% 2.68% 1.00% 1.65% -0.56% -0.94% 1.33% 0.56% 0.28% 0.25% 0.52% 0.58% 1.00% 1.05% 0.58% W&P 2012 Moody's 2012 - - Table 2.4: Population Growth Rates Year Actual Recommended 1970 1975 8,165,850 8,257,521 - W&P 2012 Moody's 2012 - - 16 Actual / Recommended 0.22% Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 1980 8,331,455 1985 8,350,695 1990 8,487,912 1995 8,999,054 2000 9,434,267 2005 9,612,205 2010 9,811,927 2015 10,224,342 10,096,236 10,073,070 2020 10,631,021 10,381,105 10,312,090 2025 11,033,590 10,673,839 10,538,290 2030 11,437,070 10,963,729 10,768,310 2035 11,837,332 11,248,530 11,027,240 2040 12,237,418 11,536,699 11,289,170 Average Annual Rates of Growth for 30-Year Periods 2010-2040 - 0.18% 0.05% 0.33% 1.18% 0.95% 0.37% 0.41% 0.83% 0.78% 0.75% 0.72% 0.69% 0.67% 0.57% 0.56% 0.56% 0.54% 0.51% 0.51% 0.53% 0.47% 0.43% 0.43% 0.48% 0.47% 0.74% 0.54% 0.47% Distribution of Socio-Economic Forecasts to Sub-Areas (Townships) and Aggregation to Counties Whereas the regional population and employment forecasts are driven by national and international forces, their distributions within the region are driven, for the most part, by local considerations. Among these local considerations are: availability of land, transportation facilities (rail, roads, airports, ports); other infrastructure (water, sewer), government regulations (zoning, permitting), environment (landscape, woods and water, parks and recreation, community facilities), living standard preferences (density, access to education and services), and economic/market conditions (finance, interest rates, construction costs). Within the Chicago Region, the process of metropolitan area development and suburbanization is well-studied and understood. The growth of the Chicago urban area – outward from a central core, incorporating existing older towns, and creating new centers at nodes of high accessibility – follows a generally-recognizable and well-documented pattern. Working with the CMAP staff, ACG hypothesized that the standard S-Curve (a logistics curve) could describe the historic growth through take-off development and eventual maturity for any well-defined, reasonably-sized geography. The township (also known as Minor Civil Division or MCD) was selected because, with very few exceptions in Illinois and Indiana, it is of fixed size. Townships also are part of the legal land survey and recording system for which past demographic and planning data are easily available. The S-Curve, describing population, employment and developable land, provides a theoretical basis for the Market-Driven forecasts. The population and employment growth progresses through several phases: Initial farming base 17 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Take-off phase Growth period Maturity and stability Redevelopment The population and employment growth follow a logistics function formed by several factors that determine its shape and maximum size (holding capacities). An inverse S-Curve describes available developable land – measured as a percent of total land. The factors influencing the shape are: Location of the township vis-à-vis transportation facilities, and growth magnets (e.g. existing regional commercial/office centers, airports, research facilities, corporate headquarters). Technology at time of take-off. Local planning and zoning regulations at peak growth period, maturity and redevelopment phases. Land availability. A theoretical representation of the logistics S-Curve function is shown in Figure 2.4. It should be noted that the use of the S-curve to explain population growth and forecasts, within physically-defined boundaries, dates back to the mid-nineteenth century. This function has gained popular acceptance, recently, among urban planners. However, before accepting and applying this function to generate Market-Driven (i.e. trends-based) forecasts, it was tested against actual, historic long-term trends, at the township level, in the Chicago Region. 18 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.4: Standard Logistics S-Curve The equation used for generating each S-Curve is: Forecasted Population/Employment = Holding Capacity/(1+EXP(–alpha*(Year–Year0))). Where: alpha = (LN(1/Value1–1) – (LN(1/Value 2–1))/(Time 2–Time1) Year0 = (LN(1/Value1–1)/alpha+T1) And: T1 = take-off year T2 = leveling-off year Value 1 = % of peak population/employment at take-off year Value 2 = % of peak population/employment at leveling-off year The needed input for the S-Curve equation are: Holding capacity Take-off year (e.g. 1945) Approaching maturity year (e.g. 1990) 19 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Percent of holding capacity achieved (or assumed) at take-off or approaching maturity years. Growth Forecasts for Key Counties In and Affecting the Illinois Valley Corridor Region In a departure from traditional step-down, U.S. to State to County forecasting, ACG takes its step-down from the national to the regional (MSA) level. It then forecasts at the township level and assembles forecasts for each of the Counties within the 14-County Chicago MSA and 18County ISTHA region by summing its township forecasts. This is due to the observation and modeling of the development process, previously described. Urban development in the Greater Chicago region has proceeded, outward, from the Chicago Central Area and, later, from the O’Hare International Airport region. In so doing, it has created opportunities for development at major transportation nodes and has absorbed/revitalized older towns and suburbs as that outward development encounters them. As a metropolitan region growing outward from a complex and mature urban core, Chicago displays a wide range of growth characteristics. This ranges from the stability or redevelopment of core areas, to take-off, to growth at urban edges, to slow growth, beyond. In fact, Cook County, as the region’s (and state’s) largest county, is by itself, a combination of allof-the-above factors. Illinois Valley Corridor Counties Forecasts for the Illinois Valley Corridor Counties were constructed from forecasts of individual townships developed within the forecast for 18-county region. Each county – Grundy, Kendall and LaSalle, therefore, is an aggregation of individually-analyzed townships within it. This process is described more-fully in Section IV. Forecasts for each of the townships are included in the attached Appendix A. These are the same forecasts that have been used for recent IDOT projects, including the most-recent Illiana Expressway P3 Study, and Illinois Tollway studies. Shown in this section are a sample of the townships and their population, households, employment and worker forecasts to 2040. For the most part, the townships selected are those which contain the more-significant towns/cities/urban centers of the three complete counties of the study. These are the river-oriented cities. Grundy County Grundy County lies at the current fringe of the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Prior to its current edge status, it has been a predominantly agricultural area, perhaps more-known for its Mazon Creek fossil beds and the Tullimonstrum, the state fossil, as well as the Goose Lake Prairie. Between 1920 and 2000, its population grew, slowly, from 18,580 to 37,535 (a doubling over 80 years). Between 2000 and 2010, the population took a sudden spurt, to 50,035, a growth of 33.4 percent, but with a spare 12,500 persons. Almost all of this growth was concentrated in the 20 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report northeast sector of the county. At its current size, it is the smallest Metro area county and the second-smallest (Lee being smaller) county in the extended region. In spite of its major growth being in its Northeast sector, this area remains, at least partially, cut off from the burgeoning logistics complexes of Western Will County by the convergence of the Des Plaines and Kankakee Rivers into the Illinois River, protected prairies, abandoned coal mines, and nuclear power plants. Bridges are few and far between. I-80 stays north of the Illinois River; I-55 enters Grundy from Will County south of Coal City. This forces the majority of development into the northern banks of the Illinois River, in Aux Sable and Saratoga Township, and in several townships along the Will County border (Felix and Braceville). However, connections between these two major and growing logistics concentrations remain difficult; and are being addressed by current transportation improvements. Employment in Grundy County is 21,873 jobs, in 2010, up from 10,670 in 1970. Although Grundy is a rural, agricultural county, its farm employment has declined, from 1,000 in 1970, to 390 in 2010. Its major employment industries are: state and local government, retail, health care and utilities. Grundy County Outlook for Development – 2010-2040 The population of Grundy County is forecasted to grow, from 50,035 to 75,359, in 2040, a 50.6 percent growth. As in the past, this growth will be concentrated in the Northeast corner of the county, with Aux Sable and Saratoga Townships at take-off growth and Felix and Braceville and Erienna Townships at modest growth. Morris Township, consisting primarily of the City of Morris, the Grundy County seat, is likely to rebound to its 1990-2000 population, with state and local government growing as the County’s major employer. Overall, the employment of Grundy County is forecasted to increase to 36,975 from its 2010 jobs of 21,873. Transportation and warehousing is expected to more than double, to 3,700, while government continues as the largest employer, at approximately 4,150. Farm employment is expected to stabilize at its current numbers. See Figure 2.5 for Grundy County forecasts. Following, are more-detailed descriptions of several growth townships. The Aux Sable population, which grew from 4,525, in 2000 to 13,058, in 2010, is expected to increase to 29,957 by 2040. The Village of Minooka, at its northeast corner, has almost tripled in size, from 3,970 to 10,924, between 2000 and 2010; and will continue growing, as will developments in the center of the township. Aux Sable also is expected to see its employment increase, from 5,654 to 15,200, in 2040; this reflects an expected growth in transportation and warehousing, as well as in services and retail to service the growing population. See Figure 2.6. Felix Township is forecasted to grow from 4,423, in 2010, to 5,081 in 2040. Much of its old strip mine area has been, or is in the process of being, developed for single-family housing along streams and ponds left behind. The older towns of Coal City and Diamond will provide the services and job growth expected (from 762 to 1,700) to service this population increase. See Figure 2.7. 21 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 2.5 shows existing and forecasted population and employment for Grundy County and its townships. Figure 2.5: Grundy County Population & Employment Trend Grundy County 100,000 90,000 80,000 Population/Employment 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1920 Population - Historic 1930 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 22 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.6: Aux Sable Township (Grundy) Population & Employment Trend Aux Sable Township - Grundy County 50,000 45,000 40,000 Population/Employment 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 23 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.7: Felix Township (Grundy) Population & Employment Trend Felix Township - Grundy County 10,000 9,000 8,000 Population/Employment 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1920 Population - Historic 1930 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 24 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 2.5: Grundy County Population & Employment Forecasts County Township/TAZ Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Sub-Total Aux Sable Braceville Erienna Felix Garfield Goodfarm Goose Lake Greenfield Highland Maine Mazon Morris Nettle Creek Norman Saratoga Vienna Wauponsee Grundy County County Township/TAZ Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Grundy Sub-Total Aux Sable Braceville Erienna Felix Garfield Goodfarm Goose Lake Greenfield Highland Maine Mazon Morris Nettle Creek Norman Saratoga Vienna Wauponsee Grundy County 2000 4,525 4,895 1,420 4,009 1,543 392 1,784 940 314 242 1,377 7,781 467 269 4,448 638 2,491 37,535 2000 2010 13,058 6,451 2,220 4,423 1,586 376 1,669 998 288 327 1,489 7,114 503 308 6,108 688 2,429 50,035 Population 2020 17,482 7,135 2,767 4,578 1,588 382 1,660 998 290 417 1,496 7,751 536 365 6,276 729 2,446 56,896 2030 23,700 8,184 3,578 4,835 1,592 391 1,680 999 295 552 1,529 8,505 587 449 6,594 789 2,490 66,749 2040 28,957 9,065 4,340 5,081 1,594 400 1,687 997 300 678 1,553 9,286 634 536 6,872 849 2,530 75,359 BEA Employment 2010 2020 2030 5,654 8,037 11,612 1,953 2,291 2,798 598 799 1,100 762 997 1,351 548 548 548 197 197 197 403 441 498 198 224 262 65 66 68 28 43 67 716 720 727 5,676 5,832 6,066 95 107 126 58 74 97 4,233 4,487 4,867 123 138 161 566 650 776 21,873 25,651 31,321 2040 15,182 3,300 1,400 1,701 548 197 551 300 70 89 733 6,300 144 120 5,245 183 900 36,963 25 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Kendall County After 55 years using a six-county Northeastern Illinois designation for the metropolitan area of Chicago, Kendall County was added, in 2005, with the merger of NIPC and CATS into CMAP. This addition recognized the development, on the ground, as expansions from DuPage, Kane and Will County cities spread into the north and eastern sections of this once largelyagricultural county. Between 2000 and 2010, Kendall County more than doubled in size, its population growing from 54,544 to 114,760 causing it to be recognized by the U.S. Bureau of the Census among the fastest growing counties in the U.S. While the County size is smaller than a number of townships in the inner-ring of suburbs surrounding Chicago and those housing satellite cities, Kendall, none-the-less, is a legitimate expansion corridor for the rapidly-growing cities of Aurora and Joliet. Review of migration patterns reveal that most of the growth in Kendall County is from DuPage County. This growth/migration has allowed the younger families of this county to move to less-expensive and more-available housing. Employment in the County was 14,080 BEA jobs, in 1970. This has grown to 29,806 jobs, in 2010. This jobs-to-persons ratio of 0.257, is quite low, not even sufficient, to provide necessary personal and community services to the County’s residents; employment growth currently is lagging behind the population growth. The Joliet expansion, in particular, is likely to attract industrial and professional service expansions. Land availability close to growing markets is a significant inducement. Kendall County Outlook for Development – 2010-2040 Like Will County, to its east, Kendall County is forecast to more than double in population, from 114,760 to 245,829 (a growth of 114 percent). This is due to the extensive tracts of developable land available in the path of the region’s current major direction of growth. It is the recipient of as much “push” as “pull”, as DuPage County has reached maturity and as two of the region’s satellite cities, Aurora and Joliet, are growing apace. Several townships adjacent to these cities, on the County’s north and eastern border, are at take-off growth; these are Oswego, Bristol and Seward. Little Rock and Na-Au-Say Townships are approaching take-off, with moderate growth. The remainder will remain, as they are, well into the forecast period and beyond. In 2040, the Market-Driven population forecast is approximately 20 percent higher than the CMAP forecast. Economic development and job growth in the county are expected to be brisk, at 203 percent, bringing 60,422 new BEA jobs, for a total of 90,228, by 2040. This will increase the jobs-topersons ratio to 0.367, a ratio slightly below that of the 2010 Kane and McHenry Counties. The major job growth is expected to be in those townships that experience the greatest population growth – Bristol and Oswego – with modest growth in Seward, Little Rock and Na-Au-Say. The Market-Driven jobs forecast for 2040 is higher than the CMAP forecast (by 15 percent using 26 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report the BLS jobs common to both forecasts). forecasts for Kendall County. See Figure 2.8 for population and employment Figure 2.8: Kendall County Population & Employment Trend Kendall County 300,000 270,000 240,000 Population/Employment 210,000 180,000 150,000 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 Oswego, the County’s largest township, at 50,890 persons, is a direct recipient of the fast overflow growth from Aurora. Its population is in take-off mode having grown from 18,078, in 1990, to 50,890, in 2010. It is expected to grow, by 98 percent, to 100,990, in 2040. This MarketDriven population forecast is higher than the CMAP forecast. Its jobs are expected to more than triple – from 14,458, in 2010, to 43,716, in 2040. This latter forecast is higher than the CMAP forecast (using common BLS jobs). See Figure 2.9. Seward Township is a recipient of overflow growth from Joliet. Its population is expected to grow from its 4,456, in 2010, to 13,500, a 203 percent growth, by 2040. This Market-Driven growth is considerably greater than its CMAP forecast in 2040. Seward’s Market-Driven job growth is from 827, in 2010, to 3,200, a growth similar to that forecast by CMAP. See Figure 2.10. Table 2.6 shows existing and forecasted population and BEA employment for Kendall County and its townships. 27 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.9: Oswego Township (Kendall) Population & Employment Trend Oswego Township - Kendall County 200,000 180,000 160,000 Population/Employment 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 2000 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 28 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.10: Seward Township (Kendall) Population & Employment Trend Seward Township - Kendall County 50,000 45,000 40,000 Population/Employment 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 5,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 29 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 2.6: Kendall County Population & Employment Forecasts Population County Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Sub-Total Township/TAZ Big Grove Bristol Fox Kendall Lisbon Little Rock Na-Au-Say Oswego Seward Kendall County 2000 1,526 7,677 1,257 4,636 851 7,662 1,672 28,417 846 54,544 2010 1,640 26,227 1,671 7,745 899 13,085 8,147 50,890 4,456 114,760 2020 1,696 31,116 1,821 8,903 892 15,457 10,161 61,088 5,274 136,408 2030 1,816 46,632 1,937 12,002 998 21,740 15,350 82,600 8,638 191,713 2040 2,985 54,999 2,590 15,747 1,512 31,006 22,499 100,990 13,501 245,829 BEA Employment 2000 Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Kendall Sub-Total 2010 671 6,469 281 2,818 90 3,743 449 14,458 827 29,806 Big Grove Bristol Fox Kendall Lisbon Little Rock Na-Au-Say Oswego Seward Kendall County 2020 649 11,497 336 3,697 132 5,620 2,190 24,210 1,619 49,950 2030 627 16,525 391 4,576 174 7,497 3,931 33,962 2,411 70,094 2040 609 21,559 442 5,449 212 9,361 5,680 43,716 3,200 90,228 LaSalle County LaSalle County, west of Kendall and Grundy Counties and south of DeKalb County, is beyond the edge of the Chicago Metro Area. It remains primarily farmland, with many of its towns, including the county seat and largest city, Ottawa, located along the scenic Illinois River. The twin cities of LaSalle/Peru are on the river at its western edge in the County. The Illinois River is also the site of Starved Rock State Park, a National Historic Landmark and a popular host of over two million visitors, annually. La Salle County is part of the Ottawa-Streator MSA. The County population has been relatively stable since 1920 increasing, only slightly, from 92,895 to 113,890, in 2010. Its employment also has been stable, from 50,300, in 1970, to 55,170, in 2010. However, with a job-to-person ratio of 0.49, it is reasonably stable and its population adequately serviced. 30 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report LaSalle County Outlook for Development – 2010-2040 The 2040 forecast for LaSalle County is for slight growth, as the Chicago Metro Area continues to grow, and as the Illinois River towns continue to present an appealing life style. The population is expected to grow to 119,117, a modest 4.6 percent increase, by 2040. LaSalle’s farm employment will remain stable, at approximately 1,500. Employment, overall, will grow from the current 55,170 to 63,773, a 15.6 percent increase. See Figure 2.11, below, and Table 2.7. Figure 2.11: LaSalle County Population & Employment Trend LaSalle County 200,000 180,000 160,000 Population/Employment 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1920 Population - Historic 1930 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 The townships of Peru, LaSalle, Ottawa, Manlius and Bruce contain the major developed towns of the Illinois River Valley. They are described, briefly, as follows: Peru Township, at the Western edge of LaSalle County, encompasses the City of Peru (at a 2010 population of 10,715), as well as portions of the Town of LaSalle. Peru’s population grew between 1950 and 1970, and tapered off through 2000. It has had a small rebound to 2010, and is expected to grow from its current 10,715 to 11,716. Its employment is expected to grow, from that of 2010, (9,754) to 10,741, in 2040. With jobs nearly equal to its forecasted population, and nearly 1½ times its 2040 local workers, estimated at 7,254, it will remain a center of employment. See Figure 2.12. 31 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.12: Peru Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend Peru Township - LaSalle County 20,000 18,000 16,000 Population/Employment 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 2000 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 Ottawa Township, housing the City of Ottawa, (2010 population of 10,000) has a similar growth and decline history for its population, growing rapidly from 1920 to 1960. Since 1960, its population declined through 1990 and is remaining basically stable. Its population, at 11,787, in 2010 is forecast to remain stable through 2040. Its employment declined, slightly from 2000 to 2010, when it was 9,400. It is expected to grow, slightly, to 9,925, by 2040. See Figure 2.13. 32 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.13: Ottawa Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend Ottawa Township - LaSalle County 20,000 18,000 16,000 Population/Employment 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 LaSalle Township, encompasses most of the City of LaSalle (2010 population 9,214) and the City of Oglesby. The Township’s population has been declining since 1920, when it was approximately 19,200. Its decline stabilized, somewhat, in 1990 to 2010, when it was 13,542. It is forecast to stabilize at this size to 2040. The employment in the township fell, slightly, from 2000 to 2010. It is expected to remain at approximately its current size, increasing from 7,128 to 7,222, in 2040. Its workers will increase from 6,647 to 8,339 over the same period. See Figure 2.14. 33 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.14: LaSalle Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend LaSalle Township - LaSalle County 20,000 18,000 16,000 Population/Employment 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 4,000 2,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 2000 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 Bruce Township, which contains the City of Streator (11,959 in 2010), has a history similar to that of the prior townships, with population growth from 1920 to 1960, and a decline through 2010. At its apex, in 1960, it stood at approximately 18,000; it currently stands at 13,166, at which size it is forecast to remain through 2040. The Township lost employment (jobs) between 2000 and 2010; but it is expected to gain, substantially, from the current 5,466 to 6,434 in 2040. Its workers are forecasted to increase from 6,280 to 7,988 in 2040, while households remain stable at 468. See Figure 2.15. 34 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.15: Bruce Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend Bruce Township - LaSalle County 20,000 18,000 16,000 Population/Employment 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2000 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 Manlius and the much-smaller Utica Townships differ from the prior townships in that they have continued to grow over the past (1990-2010) and are expected to grow through 2040. Manlius Township contains the Villages of Marseilles and portions of Seneca, at approximately 3,100 and 2,300, respectively. The township population was 6,268 in 2010 and is forecasted to grow to 7,392, in 2040. Its employment was 1,375 in 2010; and will grow to 2,096 in 2040; forecasted workers, however, will increase from 3,261 to 4,249, indicating an increasing gap. Some of this gap may be accommodated by the jobs in the adjacent Brookfield Township, site of a power plant. (See Figure 2.16) 35 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.16: Manlius Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend Manlius Township - LaSalle County 10,000 9,000 8,000 Population/Employment 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 2000 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 Utica Township houses parts of the City of LaSalle and all of the Village of North Utica. It lies on the north shore of the Illinois River at the site of Starved Rock State Park, host to over two million visitors each year; the state park is sited to the south of the River, in Deer Park Township. Utica Township grew very slowly from 1920 to 2000; but it grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2010, from 1,638 to 2,055. Its population is forecasted to reach 2,904 in 2040. Employment is forecasted to grow from 820, in 2010, to 1,237, in 2040; workers will grow from 1,165 to 1,647, indicating a growing gap, especially if tourism grows, as desired. (See Figure 2.17) 36 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 2.17: Utica Township (LaSalle) Population & Employment Trend Utica Township - LaSalle County 5,000 4,500 4,000 Population/Employment 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1920 1930 Population - Historic 1940 1950 1960 Forecasted Households 1970 1980 1990 2000 Forecasted Emp't - BEA 2010 2020 Forecasted Workers 2030 2040 Forecasted Population Prepared by ACG: The al Chalabi Group, Ltd., in association with PB, Inc. July 2014 37 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 2.7: LaSalle County Population & Employment Forecasts County Township/TAZ LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle Sub-Total Adams Allen Brookfield Bruce Dayton Deer Park Dimmick Eagle Earl Eden Fall River Farm Ridge Freedom Grand Rapids Hope LaSalle Manlius Mendota Meriden Miller Mission Northville Ophir Ottawa Otter Creek Peru Richland Rutland Serena South Ottawa Troy Grove Utica Vermillion Wallace Waltham Other MCD's LaSalle County Population 2000 1,589 638 936 13,489 1,685 467 693 1,845 2,653 1,318 850 898 696 315 684 13,744 5,652 7,539 318 617 4,178 6,642 529 12,177 2,819 10,272 354 3,527 980 8,222 1,269 1,638 325 529 490 932 111,509 2010 1,648 583 1,058 13,166 2,279 493 738 1,696 2,595 1,474 764 917 664 335 689 13,542 6,268 7,526 324 633 3,971 7,408 508 11,787 2,973 10,715 379 3,702 1,136 8,302 1,331 2,055 387 490 447 907 113,890 38 2020 1,637 578 1,076 13,166 2,319 495 744 1,691 2,608 1,485 762 914 654 333 683 13,540 6,532 7,509 322 632 4,071 7,636 503 11,755 2,993 10,950 378 3,714 1,146 8,276 1,333 2,268 384 486 445 905 114,923 2030 1,649 585 1,116 13,166 2,413 497 762 1,702 2,659 1,507 778 925 655 334 683 13,542 6,980 7,518 325 631 4,226 8,036 507 11,773 3,047 11,338 376 3,803 1,161 8,291 1,356 2,593 386 493 451 902 117,166 2040 1,652 579 1,148 13,166 2,482 496 776 1,709 2,700 1,528 781 929 651 335 680 13,542 7,392 7,526 325 630 4,379 8,408 505 11,787 3,097 11,716 375 3,851 1,173 8,302 1,373 2,904 385 489 446 900 119,117 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report County Township/TAZ LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle LaSalle Sub-Total Adams Allen Brookfield Bruce Dayton Deer Park Dimmick Eagle Earl Eden Fall River Farm Ridge Freedom Grand Rapids Hope LaSalle Manlius Mendota Meriden Miller Mission Northville Ophir Ottawa Otter Creek Peru Richland Rutland Serena South Ottawa Troy Grove Utica Vermillion Wallace Waltham Other MCD's LaSalle County BEA Employment 2000 415 177 858 5,776 4,803 408 997 276 575 290 60 205 43 27 312 7,533 1,495 5,372 60 115 1,323 590 85 9,934 270 10,308 89 2,528 382 1,306 321 867 160 51 178 114 58,303 2010 393 168 853 5,466 4,545 386 944 261 544 274 57 194 40 26 295 7,128 1,375 5,083 57 109 1,252 558 81 9,400 256 9,754 84 2,393 362 1,236 304 820 151 49 169 103 55,170 39 2020 429 171 891 5,708 4,773 394 1,056 281 623 340 75 208 58 45 297 7,152 1,543 5,182 65 123 1,312 623 99 9,531 358 10,001 96 2,422 376 1,328 325 924 163 51 174 135 57,332 2030 484 175 923 6,071 5,114 406 1,225 312 742 439 102 229 85 73 300 7,187 1,820 5,331 77 144 1,402 720 127 9,728 510 10,371 115 2,466 397 1,466 357 1,081 180 55 181 168 60,563 2040 538 178 955 6,434 5,455 417 1,393 342 860 537 128 249 111 101 303 7,222 2,096 5,480 88 165 1,491 817 154 9,925 662 10,741 133 2,509 417 1,603 389 1,237 197 58 188 200 63,773 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Summary of IVPTP Forecasts and Conclusions The following tables presented the summary of forecasts for the Counties of LaSalle, Grundy and Kendall, as well as the portions of Will, Bureau and Putnam Counties included in the IVPTP Study Area; they are preceded by a table showing the total for the IVPTP Study Area. These tables show the ratio between workers and employment and population and households. The former indicates how well the County accommodates its resident workers. The latter shows the decline in household size expected throughout the region. A table with this data, for each township in the Study Area, is attached as Appendix A. Table 2.8: IVPTP Study Area Population & Employment Forecasts IVPTP Study Area Forecasted Growth Population (total) Households Employment Workers 2010 598,563 203,326 257,100 309,635 2020 673,758 240,424 341,693 365,069 2030 795,218 289,557 413,094 448,188 2040 898,848 332,415 473,666 519,412 Decade Growth % Population (total) Households Employment Workers - 12.6 18.2 32.9 17.9 18.0 20.4 23.8 22.8 13.0 14.8 14.7 15.9 1.20 2.94 1.07 2.80 1.08 2.75 1.10 2.70 Workers/Employment Pop/Households LaSalle County Forecasted Growth Population (total) Households Employment Workers 2010 112,983 44,970 55,067 58,616 2020 114.018 46,147 57,197 62,136 2030 116,264 47,909 60,395 66,393 2040 118,217 49,658 63,573 70,539 Decade Growth % Population (total) Households Employment - 0.1 2.6 3.9 1.9 3.8 5.6 1.7 3.7 5.3 40 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Workers Workers/Employment Pop/Households - 6.0 6.9 6.9 1.06 2.51 1.09 2.47 1.10 2.43 1.11 2.38 Grundy County Forecasted Growth Population (total) Households Employment Workers 2010 50,035 18,615 21,873 26,365 2020 56,896 21,492 25,651 30,650 2030 66,749 25,803 31,321 36,777 2040 75,359 30,095 36,963 42,498 Decade Growth % Population (total) Households Employment Workers - 13.7 15.4 17.3 16.3 17.3 20.0 22.1 19.9 12.9 16.6 18.0 15.6 1.20 2.69 1.19 2.64 1.17 2.59 1.15 2.50 Workers/Employment Pop/Households Kendall County Forecasted Growth Population (total) Households Employment Workers Decade Growth % Population (total) Households Employment Workers Workers/Employment Pop/Households 2010 114,760 38,021 29,806 60,733 2020 136,408 46,466 49,950 75,871 2030 191,713 66,636 70,094 110,861 2040 245,829 86,307 90,228 145,425 - 18.9 22.2 67.6 24.9 40.5 43.4 40.3 46.1 28.2 29.5 28.7 31.2 2.04 3.02 1.52 2.94 1.58 2.88 1.61 2.85 41 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Will County (Included in Study Area) Forecasted Growth Population (total) Households Employment Workers 2010 143,758 50,029 71,053 72,768 2020 170,277 60,800 99,527 91,085 2030 197,568 71,741 124,948 109,733 2040 218,995 80,498 138,156 124,900 - 18.4 21.5 40.1 25.2 16.0 18.0 25.5 20.5 10.8 12.2 10.6 13.8 1.01 2.87 91.5 2.80 87.8 2.75 92.6 2.72 Decade Growth % Population (total) Households Employment Workers Workers/Employment Pop/Households Putnam and Bureau Counties (partial) Forecasted Growth Population (total) Households Employment Workers 2010 11,234 4,788 4,326 5,917 Decade Growth % Population (total) Households Employment Workers Workers/Employment Pop/Households 1.37 2.35 2020 11,150 4,800 4,395 5,983 2030 11,300 4,850 4,510 6,226 2040 11,450 4,857 4,615 6,407 (0.1) 0.2 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.0 2.6 4.1 1.3 0.1 2.3 2.9 1.36 2.32 1.38 2.33 1.39 2.36 The entire IVPTP Study Area shows a moderately-growing region, fueled primarily by growth in the counties closest to the growing edge of the Greater Consolidated Chicago Region – Kendall and Grundy. As growth (primarily population) in these two counties begin to approach maturity (around 2030) growth in LaSalle County increases, somewhat. Growth in these two close-in counties continues outward from the existing urban concentrations. The growth in LaSalle County is seen, for the most part, as enhancements to the existing towns and cities along the Illinois River, with their historic small-town appeal, lower costs, and environmental amenities. 42 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report The growth of jobs and the ratio of employment to workers is more varied. While, overall, the ratio of workers to employment is quite good, it is the adjacent Will County Townships which provide excess jobs; LaSalle and Grundy Counties which meet the basic needs of their respective Counties; and Kendall County which is most dependent on outside job locations. However, access to the more varied job opportunities within the Greater Chicago Region is desirable for the long-term growth of the IVPTP Study Area, as they provide the greater-skilled, higher-income jobs needed for the region’s development. Population and employment drive the demand for transportation. For transit demand, typically the most important socio-economic variables are population density and employment density. For this study, 2000 and 2010 population data were obtained from the US Census Bureau’s Census. Due to a shift in federal policy, the 2010 Census only collected basic information on population, age, race, sex, ethnicity, and some household and housing characteristics. Other data, such as vehicle availability, income and poverty are now compiled on an annual basis by the American Community Survey (ACS), which surveys a smaller set of the population, and uses statistical methods to provide estimates. Therefore, the ACS was used as reference for specific characteristics that influence the use of transit that are no longer available through the decennial census. Employment estimates for 2010 were based on data from the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and ACS. Forecasted future population and employment estimates were developed by The al Chalabi Group (ACG), a consulting firm that specializes in the preparation of population and employment forecasts for transportation studies in Illinois and Indiana. ACG has previously prepared population and employment forecasts for development of the Illinois Long Range State Transportation Plan, as well as for major transportation projects for the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. The population and employment forecasts developed by ACG are based on 2010 Census data, historic population and employment data, metropolitan planning organization socioeconomic forecasts, land availability for development, population holding capacity, demographic data and trends (household size, migration patterns, etc.), local land use policies, and independent Woods & Poole economic forecasts. 43 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 3.0 Ridership Forecasting Approach The purpose of this section is to summarize the Illinois Valley modeling approach including the model preparation, zone system and networks, demand trip tables, 2040 forecast approach, highway and transit skim description, mode choice approach and transit assignment. 3.1 Model Approach The Illinois Valley travel model preparation involved two major areas. The first was the preparation of the input files, both geographic (zones and network), and data related to the zones (socioeconomic data). The second key area was composed of the development of a mode choice model that could test the addition of a rail or express bus extension to the Illinois Valley Study Area. This section will address the preparation of the input files to the Illinois Valley model. All preparation steps were done to enhance the capability of the model to analyze transit use in Illinois Valley. The philosophy of the Illinois Valley model can be summarized as follows: Focus on Local Conditions – To the highest extent possible, the Illinois Valley model focused on delivering results focused on the study area. A regional extent was used so that travelers to and from work destinations outside the Illinois Valley could be captured. Fidelity to CMAP Framework Elements – Because the Illinois Valley Study Area is encompassed by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) regional zone system, the framework for the Illinois Valley model utilized CMAP’s zone system, network, and skimming routine. The mode choice approach references the recently completed CMAP transit modernization model. Simplicity – The intent of the Illinois Valley model was to estimate transit boardings for three alignments and two transit modes. Thus existing model framework components, asserted mode choice constants and streamlined skimming processes were employed. Home-work movements formed the core of the assumed trip making used for demand estimation. Reliance on Existing Data – In keeping with the streamlined approach, existing data was used in lieu of generating a full four-step model approach to estimating transit use. 3.2 Study Area The Illinois Valley study area encompasses Grundy, Kendall and LaSalle Counties although it necessarily related to the Chicago metropolitan region. Figure 3-1 shows the Illinois Valley Study Area in the context of the regional transportation analysis zone (TAZ) system used by CMAP. Figure 3-2 shows a close-up of the same. The CMAP zone system was adopted for use in the Illinois Valley model. 44 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 3.1: Regional View of the Illinois Valley Model with CMAP Zone System Figure 3.2: Focused View of the Illinois Valley Model with CMAP Zone System 45 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 3.3 Highway & Transit Network In a similar fashion to the adopting of the traffic analysis zone system from the existing CMAP framework, the highway and transit networks were adopted as well. Existing approved networks were available from the CMAP models allowing focus to be put on the mode choice work required by the project. Figure 3-3 shows the highway network and transit networks used in the Illinois Valley study. The Illinois Valley model transit network is fully integrated in the highway network and includes all Metra commuter lines with drive access, CTA rail and bus service and Pace bus. The transit network allows all logical transfers within the regional system. These regional networks allow skimming of all Origin-Destination (O-D) pairs for time, cost and other elements to serve the mode choice model. Figure 3.3: Illinois Valley Highway & Transit Network 46 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 3.4 Work Trip Demand Tables In keeping with the focus on simplicity, completeness and the primacy of work trips to the Illinois Valley model, the U.S. Census product called LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) was selected for processing into trip tables. Version 7 of LODES is enumerated by 2010 census blocks while previous versions of LODES were enumerated with 2000 census blocks. 2010 Census block geography is consistent with the Illinois Valley study goals. LODES data files are state-based and organized into three types: Origin-Destination (OD), Residence Area Characteristics (RAC), and Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC), all at census block geographic detail. Data is available for most states for the years 2002–2011. The O-D data sets and the year 2011 were selected for the Illinois Valley Study. Table 3-1 shows the native structure of the O-D data2. Note that jobs within each census block are set into categories by the age of the worker, the wage scale of the job, and an industry type. Each file also contained a date stamp of the year the data was created. For the Illinois Valley estimation attribute “S000” Total Number of jobs was chosen for analysis. Note that it is fairly straightforward to process the work flow movements into Census Block-to-Census Block pairs or other geography. The LODES website also provides a geographic crosswalk allowing the Census Block geography to be summarized by other geographies including state, county, Census tract, zip code as well as the CMAP Traffic Analysis Zones. The LODES home-work demand information is understood to represent all worker flows in Illinois (or any state); as such it provides a comprehensive total OD demand in the Illinois Valley region, without the constraints of using a four-step model. Table 3.1: LODES Origin-Destination Data File Structure Memo “LEHD Origin-Destination Statistics (LODES) Dataset Structure Format Version 7.0” U.S. Census, accessed January 2015, Revision 20130606. 2 47 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report At the county level, 2040 worker and employment totals were divided by the 2010 worker and employment totals from The al Chalabi Group forecasts (described in Section 2.0). The result was a county level growth rate. To allocate the county growth to the individual zones within each county, the 2040 LODES row and column sums were adjusted using those growth rates. The resulting row and column sums were used in a matrix balancing program to get the LODES 2040 work flows table. 3.5 Socioeconomic Base and Forecasting Socioeconomic forecasting was prepared for the Illinois Valley by al Chalabi Group (ACG) at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) or township level. Table 3-2Error! Reference source not found. shows the totals by township in the entire greater model extent. Figures 3-4 and 3-5 compare the households and employment for the Illinois Valley study area in both study years. Note that the forecasts were conducted at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) or township geography and that the Illinois Valley planning area boundary is shown in on both plots. Table 3.2: Socioeconomic Totals 2010 and 2040 FIPS County Name # of Townships HH_10 HH_40 EMP_10 EMP_40 17007 Boone IL 9 18,505 27,849 19,849 31,499 17031 Cook IL 31 1,965,681 2,212,735 3,122,745 3,534,832 17037 DeKalb IL 19 38,484 52,018 52,772 70,964 17043 DuPage IL 9 337,132 385,722 689,725 851,739 17063 Grundy IL 17 18,543 27,296 21,873 36,979 17089 Kane IL 16 170,484 302,240 257,348 509,619 17091 Kankakee IL 17 41,512 53,172 55,231 75,001 17093 Kendall IL 9 38,021 89,071 29,806 94,492 17097 Lake IL 17 241,709 332,482 428,851 638,086 17099 LaSalle IL 35 44,970 48,298 55,067 66,708 17103 Lee IL 6 1,548 1,780 762 1,125 17111 McHenry IL 17 109,200 209,363 134,820 321,513 17141 Ogle IL 6 7,674 9,253 10,049 14,583 17197 Will IL 24 225,259 475,507 252,316 672,954 17201 Winnebago IL Three Illinois Valley Counties 14 115,506 140,704 155,293 194,752 61 101,534 164,665 106,746 198,179 246 3,374,228 4,367,490 5,286,507 7,114,846 Totals Source: al Chalabi Group Illinois Valley socioeconomic forecast, 2014 Between 2010 and 2040, the number of households increases from 3,374,000 to 4,367,000 in the extended region while the total employment increases from 5,287,000 to 7,115,000. In the three 48 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report county Illinois Valley study area the number of households increases from 101,500 to 165,000 with the total employment increasing from 107,000 to 198,000. Figure 3.4: Households 2010 and 2040 by Township Source: al Chalabi Group Illinois Valley socioeconomic forecast, 2014 Figure 3.5: Total Employment 2010 and 2040 by Township Source: al Chalabi Group Illinois Valley socioeconomic forecast, 2014 49 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 3.6 Transit Network Assumptions Transit service assumptions are as follows: Commuter Rail Lines – Two commuter rail lines would be tested individually. The first extends from Joliet to LaSalle-Peru Illinois using the CSX and Iowa Interstate right of way. The second line extends from Montgomery to LaSalle-Peru Illinois using the BNSF Railway, Illinois Railway, CSX and Iowa Interstate right of way. Express Bus Lines – Two express bus services were evaluated. The first express bus route is similar to the LaSalle-Peru to Joliet commuter rail line. The second express bus route follows the alignment of Metra’s BNSF proposed extension from Aurora to cover the route Aurora-Montgomery-Oswego-Yorkville-Plano-Sandwich. Rail Station Location – Station locations for the Joliet-Peru service are located at Houbolt Road, Minooka, Morris, Seneca, Marseilles, Ottawa, Utica and LaSalle/Peru. Station locations for the Montgomery-LaSalle/Peru service are located at Oswego, Yorkville, Millington, Sheridan, Ottawa, Utica and LaSalle/Peru. Express bus itineraries follow similar alignments to rail; these are described in the report “IVPTP Recommended Short & Long-Term Public Transportation Plan” of March 2015. Frequency of Service – New service for each alternatives consisted of four peak hour inbound, four peak hour outbound and one off peak run. Line Haul Speed – Line hail speeds were established using passenger rail timetables as shown in Tables 3-3 through 3-6. Access and Egress Assumptions – Walk and drive access to the proposed Illinois Valley stations and bus stops were included in the model. Cost – Cost for auto and rail modes were included in the Illinois Valley mode choice model. These included auto operating cost, auto tolls, transit fares and parking. The transit network in the Illinois Valley model is a combination of CMAP’s model transit network and the new routes in the study area. Transit networks from CMAP are built from GTFS (General Transit Feed Specification3 data from the CTA, Metra, and PACE. The new Illinois Valley transit routes were added to these transit networks. Each station was assigned a daily parking cost of $1. Parking lot capacity was not a factor in the model. Transit fares between LaSalle/Peru and Joliet or Montgomery ranged between $3 and $5, depending on distance traveled. The highway and transit networks were then “skimmed” to obtain estimates of auto and transit level of service between the traffic analysis zones in the study area and where workers are employed. The skimming procedures were borrowed from CMAP’s transit modernization model. The passenger rail and express bus proposed schedules are shown in the tables below. 3 https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/ 50 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 3.3: LaSalle-Peru to Joliet Commuter Rail Service Timetable D 1521 1529 1547 1558 1611 1625 1639 1649 1701 RI 1711 D 0547 0555 0613 0624 0637 0651 0705 0715 0727 RI 0737 HC 0705 C 0512 0520 0538 0549 0602 0616 0630 0640 0652 RI 0702 RI 0629 B 0435 0443 0501 0512 0525 0539 0553 0603 0615 HC 0625 RI 0550 A 0355 0403 0421 0432 0445 0459 0513 0523 0535 HC 0545 Miles 0.0 4.9 14.5 21.6 27.0 37.2 47.2 52.9 58.7 Stations LaSalle-Peru Utica Ottawa Marseilles Seneca Morris Minooka Houbolt Joliet UD Connecting Trains Joliet UD Table 3.4: Joliet to LaSalle-Peru Commuter Rail Service Timetable D RI 0723 0733 0745 0755 0809 0823 0836 0847 0905 0913 D RI 1724 1734 1746 1756 1810 1824 1837 1848 1906 1914 RI 1744 A HC 1752 1802 1814 1824 1838 1852 1905 1916 1934 1942 RI 1823 B HC 1827 1837 1849 1859 1913 1927 1940 1951 2009 2017 RI 1832 51 HC 1914 C RI 1923 1933 1945 1955 2009 2023 2036 2047 2105 2113 Miles Stations Connecting Trains Joliet UD 58.7 Joliet UD 52.9 Houbolt 47.2 Minooka 37.2 Morris 27.0 Seneca 21.6 Marseilles 14.5 Ottawa 4.9 Utica 0.0 LaSalle-Peru Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 3.5: LaSalle-Peru to Montgomery Service Timetable D 1444 1503 1524 1552 1600 1616 1622 1630 D 0534 0543 0604 0632 0640 0656 0702 0710 C 0519 0528 0549 0617 0625 0641 0647 0655 B 0459 0508 0529 0557 0605 0621 0627 0635 A 0439 0448 0509 0537 0545 0601 0607 0615 BNSF 1635 1640 BNSF 0717 0722 BNSF 0702 0707 BNSF 0642 0647 BNSF 0622 0627 Miles 0.0 4.9 14.6 30.1 34.8 44.6 50.8 54.0 Stations LaSalle-Peru Utica Ottawa Sheridan Millington Yorkville Oswego Montgomery Connecting Trains Montgomery Aurora TC Table 3.6: Montgomery to LaSalle-Peru Commuter Rail Service Timetable D BNSF 0726 0731 0740 0748 0754 0810 0818 0846 0907 0916 D BNSF 1743 1748 1755 1803 1809 1825 1833 1901 1922 1931 A BNSF 1757 1802 1810 1818 1824 1840 1848 1916 1937 1946 B BNSF 1840 1845 1855 1903 1909 1925 1933 2001 2022 2031 C BNSF 1908 1913 1920 1928 1934 1950 1958 2026 2047 2056 52 Miles 54.0 50.8 44.6 34.8 30.1 14.6 4.9 0.0 Stations Connecting Trains Aurora TC Montgomery Montgomery Oswego Yorkville Millington Sheridan Ottawa Utica LaSalle-Peru Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 3.7: LaSalle-Peru to Joliet Express Bus Service Timetable D 1521 1533 1547 1659 1609 1627 1639 1701 RI 1711 D 0547 0559 0613 0625 0635 0653 0705 0727 RI 0737 HC 0705 C 0512 0524 0538 0550 0600 0618 0630 0652 RI 0702 RI 0629 B 0435 0447 0501 0513 0523 0541 0553 0615 HC 0625 RI 0550 A 0355 0407 0421 0433 0443 0501 0513 0535 HC 0545 Miles 0.0 6.2 15.8 22.8 28.1 42.2 50.7 66.6 Stations LaSalle-Peru Utica Ottawa Marseilles Seneca Morris Minooka Joliet UD Connecting Trains Joliet UD Table 3.8: Joliet to LaSalle-Peru Express Bus Service Timetable D RI 0723 0733 0755 0807 0825 0835 0847 0901 0913 D RI 1724 1734 1756 1808 1826 1836 1848 1902 1914 RI 1744 A HC 1752 1802 1824 1836 1854 1904 1916 1930 1942 RI 1823 B HC 1827 1842 1904 1916 1934 1944 1956 2010 2022 RI 1832 53 A HC 1914 C RI 1923 1933 1955 2007 2025 2035 2047 2101 2113 Miles 66.6 50.7 42.2 28.1 22.8 15.8 6.2 0.0 Stations Connecting Trains Joliet UD Joliet UD Minooka Morris Seneca Marseilles Ottawa Utica La Salle-Peru Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 3.9: Sandwich to Aurora Express Bus Service Timetable D 1542 1551 1601 1610 1630 BNSF 1640 D 0624 0633 0643 0652 0712 BNSF 0722 C 0609 0618 0628 0637 0657 BNSF 0707 B 0549 0558 0608 0617 0637 BNSF 0647 A 0529 0538 0548 0557 0617 BNSF 0627 Miles 0.0 4.9 9.9 14.6 22.4 Stations Sandwich Plano Yorkville Oswego Mill St. Aurora TC Connecting Trains Aurora TC Table 3.10: Aurora to Sandwich Express Bus Service Timetable D BNSF 0726 0736 0756 0805 0815 0824 3.7 D BNSF 1743 1753 1813 1822 1832 1841 A BNSF 1757 1807 1827 1836 1846 1855 B BNSF 1840 1850 1910 1919 1929 1938 C BNSF 1908 1918 1938 1947 1957 2006 Miles 22.4 14.6 9.9 4.9 0.0 Stations Connecting Trains Aurora TC Aurora TC Oswego Mill St. Yorkville Plano Sandwich Mode Choice Mode choice models are used to analyze and predict the choices that individuals or groups of individuals make in selecting the transportation modes that are used for particular types of trips. Typically, the goal is to predict the share or absolute number of trips made by mode for each origin-destination pair. Important objectives in mode choice modeling are to predict the share of trips attracted to public transportation and to generate a trip matrix to use for traffic and transit assignments. The most commonly applied method to study mode choice is the logit model in one of its various forms. The multinomial logit model relates the probability that a decision unit (for example, an individual or household) chooses a given alternative from a set of alternatives to the utility of these alternatives, according to the following formula: 54 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report In the case of the Illinois Valley model, the mode choice captures the choice of a person to use either automobile or one of the proposed commuter rail extensions. The mode choice routine in the Illinois Valley model is a simplified implementation of the mode choice routine from CMAP’s transit modernization model. The work trip mode choice coefficients were borrowed to estimate the utility of trips made by auto and transit. Alternative specific constants were employed for each transit mode to account for behavior not explained by the coefficients. A stronger constant was used for bus compared to rail. This reflects the observed bias that transit passengers have against bus travel, particularly for long distance travel. For the rail alternatives, all passengers are assumed to access stations via park and ride. For bus alternatives, all passengers are assumed to access stops via non-motorized modes. After mode choice, the resulting transit trips were assigned to the new transit lines in the study area, again using modifications of routines borrowed from CMAP’s transit modernization model. Table 3.11 presents the mode choice coefficients used in the Illinois Valley model. Table 3.11: Mode Choice Coefficients Description In-vehicle time coefficient Coefficients or Parameters c_ivt = -0.009888987 Cost coefficient = (0.6*c_ivt)/(vot*2) c_cost = -0.000247225 First wait time coefficient c_firstWait = -0.019777973 Transfer wait time coefficient c_xferWait = -0.019777973 Number of transfers coefficient c_xfers = -0.066289786 Walk time coefficient c_walkTime = -0.018656 Drive time coefficient c_driveTime = -0.009888987 Destination walkability coefficient c_tranDestWalk = 0.022848419 Cost per mile for auto (cents) costPerMile = 50 Value of time $12/hour 55 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 3.12: Mode Choice Equations Auto Utility = c_ivt*congestedTime + c_cost*(costPerMile*distance destinationParkingCost*100) + - 0.9277 Rail Utility c_ivt*IVT + c_firstWait*firstWaitTime + c_xferWait*xferWaitTime + c_xfers*xfers + c_walkTime*walkTime + c_driveTime*driveTime + = c_cost*transitFare + c_cost*PNRcost + c_tranDestWalk*DestinationWalkability + tripToCBD*1.3408 + - 4.579526755 Bus Utility c_ivt*IVT + c_firstWait*firstWaitTime + c_xferWait*xferWaitTime = c_xfers*xfers + c_walkTime*walkTime + c_cost*transitFare c_tranDestWalk*DestinationWalkability + tripToCBD*1.3408 + - 5.427 56 + tolls*100 + + + Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 4.0 Capital Cost Estimation Approach This section documents the development of concept-level capital costs for the rail corridor improvements proposed for the Illinois Valley Public Transportation Plan. The previous capital cost estimates from the Illinois Valley Commuter Rail Feasibility Study were prepared in mid2003, using 2002 dollars. Since that time, the rail freight traffic picture has changed dramatically throughout the country, as well as along both the corridors being considered for improvement to accommodate commuter rail service as part of the Comprehensive Public Transportation Plan assignment. Recent industry analysis indicates that rail traffic has risen sharply in the past decade, with the railroads having presaged the economic recovery compared to the rest of the country. Certain commodity markets have seen steep increases in traffic levels during this decade, as well. For example, crude oil shipments by rail totaled 5,912 carloads in 2007. In 2014, they were expected to reach 650,000 carloads, an increase of nearly 1100%. The particular point for this project is that all rail lines – short lines and regionals, as well as the Class I railroads, are far-more protective of timetable paths and capacity on their rail corridors. For an agency or a community seeking to implement commuter or intercity rail service, this means that the rail carriers will expect to be made whole in terms of corridor capacity, in order to continue to be able to handle the growing freight traffic along their routes. Another particular pressure for the Illinois Valley is the explosive growth in sand traffic on the roads and rail lines radiating out of Ottawa. Recent activities in the area, including new and/or expanded sand facilities in LaSalle, Utica and Peru (among others), show how this demand is growing. Industry sources estimate that the market for U.S. sand doubled between 2011 and 2012. The construction of new sidings on the Illinois Railway in Serena, and the extent of the activity around Wedron Silica are further proof of the immediate impacts to this study. The condition of the Illinois Railway corridor to the south of Yorkville had a noticeable increase in the number of observable defects compared to the northern portion. This may be explained by an increase in the number of higher-tonnage movements generated due to sand mining activities. Still another significant cost driver for this project’s rail corridor upgrades is the need to provide Positive Train Control (PTC) to provide for safe separation of passenger and freight trains. The final rule requiring this infrastructure investment was implemented in 2010, as part of the Rail Safety Improvements Act of 2008. Rolling stock for the proposed services are based on the use of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant Diesel Multiple-Unit (DMU) cars. Because they are FRA-compliant, this means they can be operated in mixed service (passenger together with freight on the corridor). This is a more cost-effective operation and more likely to be accepted by the host railroads, compared to temporal (time-based) separation of traffic flows, etc. Under separate cover we 57 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report have prepared sample timetables for both routings (IR-CSX-IAIS and CSX-IAIS). Both timetables require four trains in service plus one train to cover maintenance requirements. At a unit cost of $7.4 million per DMU, the five trainsets will cost $37 million (without any contingencies). These points all serve to explain why the proposed capital improvements for either the Illinois Railway or the CSX corridors are considerably more expensive than those prepared in 2003. The 2003 estimate totaled $161 million (2002 dollars); this effort estimates the upgrade costs to be $438 million for the Illinois Railway routing (from Montgomery to LaSalle) and $443 million for the Joliet to LaSalle (CSX-IAIS) alternative. As shown below, these most recent capital cost estimates are based on unit costs the study team has used on several previous rail corridor improvement assignments, and draw directly from capital cost databases, which were agreed-upon with Amtrak, Metra and many of the Class I railroads. In addition, the 2014 estimates include a 30% contingency, a 16% allocation for design and construction management and a $410,000 allocation per route-mile for related capacity improvements. This last item specifically addresses a point made in the preceding paragraphs about the railroads’ being protective of their physical plant and the capacity these represent, as well as demonstrating that our approach in estimating recognizes the need to make the railroads whole from a capacity standpoint, in order to accommodate the proposed commuter rail operation. In review of the 2003 work, it was not apparent if any of these allocations had been included. The percentages and dollar amounts allocated for each are reasonable for a project at this preliminary level of development and are consistent with the allocations the project team has used on other similar projects in the past. 4.1 Rail Corridors Analyzed Figure 4.1 shows the corridors that were examined as part of this study for possible passenger rail service. These include: the 2.6 miles of the BNSF Chicago Subdivision between Aurora and Montgomery; the 40.7 miles of the Illinois Railway’s Fox River Line between Montgomery and Ottawa; the 58.7 miles of CSX New Rock Subdivision between Joliet and LaSalle and the portion of Iowa Interstate Subdivision 1 immediately west of the end of the CSX New Rock Subdivision in LaSalle-Peru. 58 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Figure 4.1: Freight Railroad Corridors Joliet – Peru Corridor: CSX Transportation (CSX) and Iowa Interstate (IAIS) Overall length of the corridor is approximately 60 miles (this extends to the location of the old Rock Island station in LaSalle-Peru; to be determined if a new facility would be located on this site or elsewhere). The first 54.4 miles extending west from Joliet Union Depot are the CSX New Rock Subdivision. The remaining 5 miles are the IAIS Subdivision 1. Operating conditions on this corridor vary widely, including sections of severely-restricted speeds on leaving Joliet, as well as sections of considerable freight activity in and around Seneca, Ottawa and Utica. The CSX and IAIS line sections are freight-only operations today and the maximum speed for freight trains is 40 mph, though the sections in which this speed limit is in effect are limited. These lines are predominantly single-track though there are sidings or other secondary tracks in some sections, which are used to increase the fluidity of the corridor. Aurora – Peru Corridor: BNSF Railway, Illinois Railway, CSX and IAIS The first 2.6 miles of this route comprise a portion of the BNSF Railway (BNSF) Chicago Division, Chicago Subdivision between Aurora and Montgomery. This section of line consists of two main tracks and is under Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). Illinois Railway (IR) 59 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report ownership begins at Montgomery and extends for the next 40.7 miles to the at-grade crossing with the CSX New Rock Subdivision in Ottawa. From the at-grade rail crossing, the CSX New Rock Subdivision would be used for about 10.1 miles. The final 5 miles of the rail corridor in this study would comprise the IAIS ownership (the same Subdivision 1 trackage, as was included in the previous section). The BNSF line section is in very good condition, and passenger trains (Amtrak corridor and intercity services) can run up to 79 mph on this section. By contrast, the IR, CSX and IAIS sections are in good to fair condition, with commensurately-lower maximum speed limits (these three lines are freight-only operations today). Considerable freight activity is evident on the IR from Serena south into Wedron, where there is a major industrial activity center extending for some distance and to either side of the main rail track. The IR approach into Ottawa is decidedly a low-speed operation, with alignment and safety issues. 4.2 Corridor Rail Capital Cost Estimation This section explains how the unit costs were determined and how the quantities for each capital cost line item were ascertained. The study team maintains a unit cost database, which has been used on projects for Amtrak, Metra and IDOT (among others). This database is continuously updated and we periodically review the individual line items with rail carrier and/or agency engineering staff to ensure that the data is up-to-date. New cost elements, such as PTC, are reviewed with PB-signal engineering staff to ensure that costs adequately reflect all required elements. In the case of this study, our discussions with the signal engineers were related to ensuring that the $1.44 million per mile PTC cost was adequate to cover both field and back-office installations required for a complete, working system. Joliet – Peru Corridor The capital cost estimate for this corridor covers the entire 58.7-mile corridor from Joliet to LaSalle (as noted elsewhere, for the purposes of this estimate, the passenger rail service was proposed to terminate in the vicinity of the former LaSalle-Peru Rock Island Railroad station). Two miles of new track, suitable for passenger train use were included for terminal station sidings and yard layup tracks to hold the commuter rail consists clear of the main tracks. As the design progresses, this quantity can be revised. The cost for this element (about $1.6 million per mile) was taken from previous capital cost estimating work on a variety of Metra assignments and escalated to 2014 dollars. Five miles of new siding/holding tracks, suitable for use by either freight or passenger trains have also been included for this corridor. This is included to increase corridor fluidity, in order to better accommodate the additional trains per day. As the design progresses, this quantity can be revised. The cost for this element ($2.2 million per mile) was taken from previous capital cost estimating work on a variety of Metra assignments and escalated to 2014 dollars. 60 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Upgrade of all 58.7 miles of mainline track and five miles of existing sidings to allow passenger trains to run at 60 mph (where safe/practical) has been included in the estimate. The source of the unit cost for this $510 thousand per mile) was derived from previous Metra assignments and has been escalated to 2014 dollars. It may be that not all 63.7 miles of track will require the full Class 3 upgrade – this quantity should be revised as engineering investigations progress. A total of 24 new turnouts, each with hot-air switch heaters, have been included in this estimate. These switches will be installed at terminal sidings, entrances to yard holding tracks, either end of mainline sidings and at on-line universal crossovers. The crossovers and additional sidings will increase corridor fluidity and provide additional flexibility for the dispatcher to stage meets/overtakes between trains. Provision of new switches with hot-air heaters will increase reliability of this equipment, and recognizes the challenging environment in which this corridor exists. Source of the unit cost data is previous cost estimating work for Metra and Amtrak, and these unit costs have been escalated to 2014 dollars. All 58.7 route-miles will be equipped with PTC to provide for safe separation of passenger and freight train operations. The unit cost of $1.44 million per mile is based on recent work for IDOT and other clients, and was specifically reviewed with PB Signal Engineering staff to ensure its adequacy (properly reflecting the required wayside and back office equipment) for this project. In a similar context, we reviewed line item costs for single- and double-track interlockings with PB Signal Engineering staff. The quantity and distribution of these are based on the expected track configuration. These may be adjusted as the engineering design advances. Cost for these elements has been escalated to 2014 dollars. Costs for new grade crossing surfaces and for grade crossing warning equipment were derived from previous work for Metra and escalated to 2014 dollars. Allocation of crossings between single- and double-track configurations was made on a preliminary basis and can be revised as the engineering effort progresses. Similarly, it may be found that not all crossing surfaces require complete replacement. This quantity can be revised as engineering advances. Bridge and culvert upgrade costs were derived from previous cost estimating work for Metra. Aerial maps and other resources were used to tabulate the number of bridges and culverts on this corridor. Major bridges include the lift bridge in Joliet. Extent of rehab required can be revised as the engineering effort progresses. To be conservative, it was presumed that significant grading and excavation would be required for all seven miles of new sidings/holding tracks, terminal station sidings and yard layup tracks. Environmental mitigation was also included in the estimate for these seven miles of new tracks. Sources for the unit costs include recent work for IDOT and Metra, escalated to 2014 dollars. As with the other cost estimate line items, quantities can be revised as the engineering design effort progresses. 61 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Eight basic stations, including waiting shelters, lighting, audio-visual announcement systems and complying with ADA requirements have been included in the estimate. As the project advances, the project team should consider allowing on-line communities to augment the station budget in order to reflect local input/enhancements. This method of engaging and involving the on-line communities has been employed by IDOT and Metra on past projects. The cost for the stations is based on work done for Ann Arbor, IDOT and Metra; escalated to 2014 dollars. In the case of the rolling stock proposed for this corridor, DMUs were felt to be better-suited to the service plan than the traditional locomotive-hauled consists. A review of industry data for DMU products was undertaken. Procurement costs for the products of three manufacturers were reviewed. However, of these three, only one offered an FRA-compliant DMU, which was selected for this application for the operating flexibility it offers. Unit prices from 2010 were escalated to arrive at a price of $7.4 million per DMU, which was used in this estimate. Given the preliminary nature of these investigations, the estimate includes a 30% contingency and a 16% allocation for design and construction management services. These percentages are based on our practices for other rail implementation projects at the preliminary stage. In addition, the estimate includes a $410 thousand per mile allocation for related capacity improvements the host railroads may require. This inclusion realizes that the rail carriers may need to make physical plant changes outside the limits of the proposed commuter rail territory, in order to hold or stage freight trains while waiting for the peak period to conclude, or other operating allowances required to better allow them to manage their traffic. The allocation is based on a practice begun 20 years ago on Metra implementation projects and has gained industry acceptance. The unit cost has been escalated to 2014 dollars. No property acquisition costs are included in these estimates, nor are any utility relocation costs included. In part, the higher contingency is included to allow for these costs to be covered by the project as the engineering design effort advances. Total capital cost for improvements to the LaSalle-Peru to Joliet passenger rail corridor is $425 million (2014 dollars). 62 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Table 4.1: Joliet to LaSalle Rail Capital Cost Estimate 58.7 Miles - Joliet to LaSalle Line No. 1 2 3 5 7A 7B 7C 8 10A 10B 10C 12A 13A 13B 14A 14C 15A 16A 16B 17 18 19 Cost Category Units Unit Cost Quan. mile $1,563,000 2.0 Frt/Psgr (136# CWR) mile $2,200,000 5.0 Upgrade to Class 3 mile $510,000 63.7 Upgrade to Class 4 mile $807,000 TURNOUTS - New - #10 to #15 each $163,000 8 New - #20 each $300,000 16 Rehab existing turnouts each $70,000 SWITCH HEATERS - Hot Air each $37,000 24 SIGNALING - Mainline, New mile $1,440,000 58.7 New Interlocking - Single-Track each $2,220,000 4 New Interlocking - Double-Track each $3,700,000 12 HWY XINGS - Surface, New 2-lanes $45,000 44 WARNING EQ. - New, Single-Track each $370,000 34 New, Double-Track each $520,000 10 BRIDGES - Rehab, Major Span l.f. $3,700 400 Rehab l.f. $1,850 1800 CULVERTS/DRAINAGE - Upgrade each $4,400 59 EXCAVATION & GRADING - Major mile $1,790,000 Significant mile $1,260,000 7.0 STATIONS - New each $1,500,000 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL - Mitigation mile $104,000 7.0 ROLLING STOCK - New DMUs each $7,400,000 5.0 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY 30% OF SUBTOTAL RELATED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ALLOWANCE - $410,000 PER MILE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGMT., ETC. 16% OF SUBTOTAL TRACK - New - Psgr (115# CWR) TOTAL Total Cost Remarks $3,126,000 Terminal station sidings; yard layup tracks 5 miles of new sidings/holding tracks $11,000,000 $32,487,000 Main track and 5 miles of sidings $0 Main track and sidings south of West Chicago $1,304,000 $4,800,000 $0 $888,000 $84,528,000 Positive Train Control (incl. back office) $8,880,000 $44,400,000 $1,980,000 $12,580,000 $5,200,000 $1,480,000 Two structures at 200 l.f. each $3,330,000 Twelve structures at 150 l.f. each $259,600 One per mile presumed $0 $8,820,000 New sidings/holding/yard tracks $12,000,000 $728,000 New sidings/holding/yard tracks $37,000,000 Four required for service, one spare $274,790,600 $82,437,180 $24,067,000 $43,966,496 $425,261,276 NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS: All new track presumed to be on railroad-owned land - no property acquisition required. No utility relocation costs included in this estimate. All costs are in 2014 Dollars Aurora – Peru Corridor The capital cost estimate spreadsheet for this corridor covers the entire 51.8-mile corridor from Montgomery to LaSalle (as noted elsewhere, for the purposes of this estimate, the passenger rail service was proposed to terminate in the vicinity of the former LaSalle-Peru Rock Island Railroad station). Connection to the proposed extension of the Metra-BNSF commuter trains is proposed to be made at a new, suitably-located facility in Montgomery, as opposed to adding additional train movements to the congested BNSF mainline between Montgomery and Aurora. Two miles of new track, suitable for passenger train use were included for terminal station sidings and yard layup tracks to hold the commuter rail consists clear of the main tracks. As the design progresses, this quantity can be revised. The cost for this element (about $1.6 million per mile) was taken from previous capital cost estimating work on a variety of Metra assignments and escalated to 2014 dollars. 63 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Four miles of new sidings, suitable for use by either freight or passenger trains, and a new onemile connection between the IR and CSX in Ottawa are included in this estimate. The sidings will increase corridor fluidity, in order to better accommodate the additional trains per day. The new connecting track between the two railroads is included to expedite the flow of the commuter trains between the two rail lines. As the design progresses, this quantity can be revised. The cost for this element ($2.2 million per mile) was taken from previous capital cost estimating work on a variety of Metra assignments and escalated to 2014 dollars. Upgrade of all 50.8 miles of mainline track (the 51st mile mentioned above is the new connecting track) is included in the estimate, in order increase passenger train speeds to 60 mph (where safe/practical). The source of the unit cost for this $510 thousand per mile) was derived from previous Metra assignments and has been escalated to 2014 dollars. It may be that not all 50.8 miles of track will require the full Class 3 upgrade – this quantity should be revised as engineering investigations progress. For example, as noted in the description of existing conditions (under separate cover), the IR approach into Ottawa is not conducive to fast operation of the passenger trains. Curves, grade crossings and other conditions mean this line section will probably never be suitable for anything faster than a 30 mph passenger train speed limit. This would correspond to FRA Class 2 track, which could be improved at a lower unit cost than the Class 3 upgrade currently included. Once again, this refinement can be made as the project progresses. A total of 22 new turnouts, each with hot-air switch heaters, have been included in this estimate. These switches will be installed at terminal sidings, entrances to yard holding tracks, either end of mainline sidings and at either end of the connections to the IR and CSX in Ottawa. The additional sidings will increase corridor fluidity and provide additional flexibility for the dispatcher to stage meets/overtakes between trains. Provision of new switches with hot-air heaters will increase reliability of this equipment, and recognizes the challenging environment in which this corridor exists. Source of the unit cost data is previous cost estimating work for Metra and Amtrak, and these unit costs have been escalated to 2014 dollars. All 51.8 route-miles will be equipped with PTC to provide for safe separation of passenger and freight train operations. The unit cost of $1.44 million per mile is based on recent work for IDOT and other clients, and was specifically reviewed with PB Signal Engineering staff to ensure its adequacy (properly reflecting the required wayside and back office equipment) for this project. In a similar context, we reviewed line item costs for single- and double-track interlockings with PB Signal Engineering staff. The quantity and distribution of these are based on the expected track configuration. These may be adjusted as the engineering design advances. Cost for these elements has been escalated to 2014 dollars. Costs for new grade crossing surfaces and for grade crossing warning equipment were derived from previous work for Metra and escalated to 2014 dollars. Allocation of crossings between single- and double-track configurations was made on a preliminary basis and can be revised as 64 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report the engineering effort progresses. Similarly, it may be found that not all crossing surfaces require complete replacement. This quantity can be revised as engineering advances. Bridge and culvert upgrade costs were derived from previous cost estimating work for Metra. Google Earth and other resources were used to tabulate the number of bridges and culverts on this corridor. Extent of rehab required can be revised as the engineering effort progresses. To be conservative, it was presumed that significant grading and excavation would be required for all seven miles of new sidings/holding tracks, terminal station sidings and yard layup tracks. Environmental mitigation was also included in the estimate for these seven miles of new tracks. Sources for the unit costs include recent work for IDOT and Metra, escalated to 2014 dollars. As with the other cost estimate line items, quantities can be revised as the engineering design effort progresses. Eight basic stations, including waiting shelters, lighting, audio-visual announcement systems and complying with ADA requirements have been included in the estimate. As the project advances, the project team should consider allowing on-line communities to augment the station budget in order to reflect local input/enhancements. This method of engaging and involving the on-line communities has been employed by IDOT and Metra on past projects. The cost for the stations is based on work done for Ann Arbor, IDOT and Metra; escalated to 2014 dollars. As in the case of the Joliet-Peru corridor, a review of industry data for DMU products was undertaken. Procurement costs for the products of three manufacturers were reviewed. However, of these three, only one offered an FRA-compliant DMU, which was selected for this application for the operating flexibility it offers. Unit prices from 2010 were escalated to arrive at a price of $7.4 million per DMU, which was used in this estimate. Given the preliminary nature of these investigations, the estimate includes a 30% contingency and a 16% allocation for design and construction management services. These percentages are based on our practices for other rail implementation projects at the preliminary stage. In addition, the estimate includes a $410 thousand per mile allocation for related capacity improvements the host railroads may require. This inclusion realizes that the rail carriers may need to make physical plant changes outside the limits of the proposed commuter rail territory, in order to hold or stage freight trains while waiting for the peak period to conclude, or other operating allowances required to better allow them to manage their traffic. The allocation is based on a practice begun 20 years ago on Metra implementation projects and has gained industry acceptance. The unit cost has been escalated to 2014 dollars. Total capital cost for improvements to the LaSalle-Peru to Montgomery passenger rail corridor is $421 million (2014 dollars). 65 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report No property acquisition costs are included in these estimates, nor are any utility relocation costs included. In part, the higher contingency is included to allow for these costs to be covered by the project as the engineering design effort advances. Table 4.2: Montgomery to LaSalle Rail Capital Cost Estimate 51.8 Miles - Montgomery to LaSalle Line No. 1 Cost Category TRACK - New - Psgr (115# CWR) Units mile Unit Cost $1,563,000 Quan. 2.0 Total Cost $3,126,000 Remarks Terminal station sidings; yard layup tracks 4 miles of new sidings/1 mile connection 2 3 5 7A 7B 7C 8 10A 10B 10C 12A 13A 13B 14A 14C 15A 16A 16B 17 18 19 mile $2,200,000 5.0 Upgrade to Class 3 mile $510,000 50.8 Upgrade to Class 4 mile $807,000 TURNOUTS - New - #10 to #15 each $163,000 6 New - #20 each $300,000 16 Rehab existing turnouts each $70,000 SWITCH HEATERS - Hot Air each $37,000 22 SIGNALING - Mainline, New mile $1,440,000 51.8 New Interlocking - Single-Track each $2,220,000 11 New Interlocking - Double-Track each $3,700,000 11 HWY XINGS - Surface, New 2-lanes $45,000 60 WARNING EQ. - New, Single-Track each $370,000 54 New, Double-Track each $520,000 6 BRIDGES - Rehab, Major Span l.f. $3,700 425 Rehab l.f. $1,850 2400 CULVERTS/DRAINAGE - Upgrade each $4,400 36 EXCAVATION & GRADING - Major mile $1,790,000 Significant mile $1,260,000 7.0 STATIONS - New each $1,500,000 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL - Mitigation mile $104,000 7.0 ROLLING STOCK - New DMUs each $7,400,000 5.0 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY 30% OF SUBTOTAL RELATED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ALLOWANCE - $410,000 PER MILE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGMT., ETC. 16% OF SUBTOTAL Frt/Psgr (136# CWR) TOTAL between IR and CSX $11,000,000 $25,908,000 Main track $0 Main track and sidings south of West Chicago $978,000 $4,800,000 $0 $814,000 $74,592,000 Positive Train Control (incl. back office) $24,420,000 $40,700,000 $2,700,000 $19,980,000 $3,120,000 $1,572,500 Fox River Bridge $4,440,000 Sixteen structures at 150 l.f. each $158,400 $0 $8,820,000 New sidings/connection/yard tracks $12,000,000 $728,000 New sidings/connection/yard tracks $37,000,000 Four required for service; one spare $276,856,900 $83,057,070 $16,687,000 $44,297,104 $420,898,074 NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS: All new track presumed to be on railroad-owned land - no property acquisition required. No utility relocation costs included in this estimate. 66 All costs are in 2014 Dollars Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 5.0 Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimation Approach This section describes the development of concept level O&M cost estimates for the commuter rail alternatives. Cost data from similar or peer transit properties were used to develop a $34.18/vehicle-mile O&M cost estimate in 2015 dollars. This translates to $5.1 million in annual O&M costs for the Illinois Railway routing (from Montgomery to LaSalle) and $5.5 million annually for the Joliet to LaSalle (CSX-IAIS) alternative. The previous Illinois Valley Commuter Rail Feasibility Study had estimated $9.8 million annually in 2002 dollars for O&M costs, but had different assumptions for operating service that included direct service to downtown Chicago versus a transfer to Metra services in Joliet or Aurora that is assumed in the Illinois Valley Public Transportation Plan, and different train level assumptions. In order to develop concept level operations & maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for the Illinois Valley commuter rail service alternatives, a review of 2013 National Transportation Database (NTD) Section 15 reporting was undertaken. The 2013 data is the most recent available; 2012 data was examined to determine trends for the peer properties. Of the potential peer properties, four of the FTA-funded agencies operate DMUs – these are Capital Metro in Austin, TX, Dallas TRE and Denton County Transportation in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and Tri-Met in Portland, OR. Unfortunately, none of the current DMU operators are in harsh climates, however, their O&M cost data for DMUs was considered to be beneficial in developing the Illinois Valley cost model. Of these four operators, Denton County was reporting data only for the year 2013, each of the other three operators had operated their DMUs in the preceding years. Two other commuter rail operators were also used to develop the O&M cost model for the Illinois Valley. These were Virginia Rail Express (two lines out of Washington DC) and Metro Transit (one line operating north/northwest from the Twin Cities). The choice of these operators was made to give some experience with snow/ice and other winter conditions, as well as operations with only one or two lines in service, so there were no network economies. Both of these operations use only loco-hauled trains, however, given that the predominance of the peer properties were reporting DMU operating cost data, these results were not felt to bias the outcome. Table 5.1 presents the 2012 and 2013 operating cost results for the peer properties, as well as developing the unit cost to be applied to the Illinois Valley alternatives. This table shows that the general trend was for costs to increase from 2012 to 2013, corroborating the escalation of the 2013 average costs to arrive at theoretical cost per mile in 2015 dollars. The reported cost per mile for Denton County is noticeably lower than what any of the other properties reported for 2013. This is doubly-interesting, since the 2013 data was the first reporting year for this property and generally O&M costs tend to be higher in the first full year of a new operation, 67 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report owing to exceptional expenses. However, using these data in combination with the other five properties is felt to mitigate the impact to a large extent. Operating schedules for the two IV routing alternatives were developed. Both provided five round trips per weekday. Revenue miles per day were estimated from these schedules and a 10% non-revenue/deadhead factor was added on top of this to give an approximation of daily miles operated. Table 5.1: Peer Property O&M Cost Data Property – Location Capital Metro – Austin, TX Dallas TRE – DFW area Denton County – DFW area Metro Transit – Twin Cities Tri-Met – Portland, OR VRE – Washington DC area Average 2012 Cost per Vehicle-Mile $47.90 2013 Cost per Vehicle-Mile $49.09 DMU + Locohauled DMU $23.31 $23.55 n/a $18.93 Loco-hauled $31.84 $33.07 DMU n/a $43.41 Loco-hauled $30.29 $29.17 Equipment DMU Remarks Data only for 2013 $32.87 Escalated to 2015 dollars $34.18 4% escalation For operation between Joliet and LaSalle via CSX and IAIS, the total daily operating miles expected are 639 miles. When the $34.18/vehicle-mile cost is applied, this results in a daily operating cost of $21,840. Based on 251 operating days per year (no Saturday/Sunday or Holiday operations), the annual O&M cost for this alternative would be $5.5 million. In the case of the Montgomery to LaSalle (via IR, CSX and IAIS) alternative, the daily operating miles would be 594 miles. The daily O&M cost would be $20,300; on a 251 days per year basis, these costs would come to $5.1 million. 68 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 6.0 Conclusion and Next Steps This Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report documents the methodologies used to: Develop future 2040 population and employment forecasts for the region Develop transit ridership forecasts for commuter rail and express bus alternatives Develop capital costs for the commuter rail corridors Develop operating & maintenance costs for the commuter rail corridors The next steps in the IVPTP study are to use the methodologies contained in the Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report, as well as public input to develop recommended short and long-term transit improvement plans. 69 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report Appendix A: Express Bus Speed Runs Speed test runs were made in the evening after making a connection from a Metra train. All speed limits were observed, and routes were determined by following the quickest route (according to Google Maps) that would also replicate intermediate stops along a potential commuter rail route. In the case of the Joliet to La Salle-Peru run, this required the use of destinations along US 6, although routing opportunities using Interstates 55 and 80 were taken where time savings and route reliability could be realized while still attending the desired intermediate stops. The results were approximately 7 minutes faster than predicted by Google Maps for the overall trip. It should be noted that at the time of the trips, weather was not a factor and there were few situations where travel was impeded by slow vehicles on a 2-lane road, etc. The intermediate stop locations were arbitrary and for demonstration purposes only, but were chosen to be representative of a typical pull-off area for this type of service. Note: The Kendall County Mill Street Park & Ride lot is currently in service with the Kendall Area Transportation Metra connection service. Joliet to La Salle-Peru – connection to Metra (test run 2/16/15) Joliet Metra Station to Jewel/Osco parking lot, US 6 and Ridge Road, Minooka Via Art Schulz Dr., Clinton Street, Ottawa St (IL-53), I-80, I-55 and US 6 21 minutes travel time Jewel/Osco parking lot to Wal-Mart parking lot, US 6 near IL 47, Morris Via US 6 10 minutes travel time Wal-Mart parking lot to BP parking lot, US 6 and IL-170, Seneca Via US 6, IL-47, I-80, and US 6 16 minutes travel time BP parking lot to D&S Foods parking lot, US 6 & Main Street, Marseilles Via US 6 8 minutes travel time D&S parking lot to Walgreens parking lot, Wake Drive and US 6, Ottawa Via US 6 and US 6/71 10 minutes travel time Walgreens parking lot to vacant parking lot, IL-178 and US 6, Utica Via US 6 12 minutes travel time Visitor Info Center parking lot to Westclox parking lot, Walnut Street and US 6, Peru Via US 6 70 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report 10 minutes travel time 87 minutes total running time; add 1 minute for wait time at each intermediate stop Aurora to Sandwich – connection to Metra (test run 2/17/15) Aurora Transportation Center to Mill Road Park & Ride lot, Station Drive, Oswego Via Broadway St. (IL-25), New York Street, Lake Street (IL-31), US 30, Orchard Road, and Mill Road 19 minutes travel time Mill Road Park & Ride lot to Yorkville Marketplace parking lot, US 34 and Marketplace Drive near IL-47, Yorkville Via Mill Road, Orchard Road and US 34 8 minutes travel time Yorkville Marketplace parking lot to BP parking lot, US 34 & Hale Street, Plano Via US 34 9 minutes travel time BP parking lot to city parking lot, Wells and Railroad Street, Sandwich Via US 34 and Wells Street 8 minutes travel time 44 minutes total running time; add 1 minute for wait time at each intermediate stop 71 Socioeconomic, Ridership & Costing Methodology Report