I —— 711.75 Un38f FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Rail Rapid Transit Extension to Chicago O’Hare Airport UMTA PROJECT NO. IL-03-0046 WJGl8 197S UBRARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION August 1978 -* . » -/• t r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 RECEIVED AUG l6 1978 * a wj© Illinois Natural History Survey Natural Resources Building Urbana, Illinois 61801 The Chicago Department of Public Works (DFW) proposes to construct a rail rapid transit extension to 0 s Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois with Federal capital grant assistance. The proposed project includes a 7.6 mile extension of the Chicago Transit Authority's(CTA) Milwaukee Line which runs in the median of the Kennedy Expressway. In addition, three intermediate stations each with adjacent park-and-ride facilities and a station at O'Hare Airport would be constructed. The project will require capital assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. The total project cost is estimated to be $152.5 million. The Federal share of this project is proposed to be $122 million. Pursuant to applicable laws, the enclosed Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed project has been prepared. The UMTA review process has taken into account comments of various agencies, organizations, and individuals on the Draft EIS which was circulated starting in May, 1978. The Draft EIS was revised where necessary to address issues which were raised. The Final statement is being sent to appropriate agencies, as well as those who commented on the draft. UMTA will wait a minimum of 30 days, ending on $f f 71 , before reaching a decision on implementation of this project. Peter Benjamin^ Director Office of Program Analysis DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Pail rapid transit extension to o'hare airport Chicago, Illinois UMTA Project IL-03-0046 This transportation improvement is proposed for funding under an Urban Mass Transportation Administration capital grant. This statement is submitted pursuant to Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; Sections 3(d) and 14 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966; and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. AUG 8 1978 Date Associate Administrator for Transit Assistance 1 PREFACE The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by.the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) in cooperation with the City of Chicago Department of Public Works (DPW) to document the environmental impacts of a proposed rail rapid transit project in the Metropolitan Chicago Area. The Draft EIS for the project was circulated to various Federal, state, and local agencies and to interested organizations and individuals in accordance with guide¬ lines of the Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. UMTA received comments on the Draft EIS for sixty (60) days after the official start of circulation on Friday, May 12, 1978. The Department of Public Works held a public hearing on the Draft EIS for the proposed project on Thursday, June 15, 1978 in Chicago, Illinois. UMTA and the Department of Public Works have addressed all substantive comments received on social, economic, and environmental issues in this Final EIS. Changes from the Draft EIS are indicated by vertical margin lines in this final text. Copies of the Final Statement may be obtained, as supplies permit, or inspected at: Urban Mass Transportation Administration Region V 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 City of Chicago Department of Public Works Research and Development Division Room 810 - City Hall Chicago, Illinois 60602 Copies of the Final Statement may be inspected at: Municipal Reference Library Room 1004 - City Hall Chicago, Illinois 60602 Statement can be purchased from: Environmental Law Institute 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 1 in . 75- (Jy'K a f c 1 SUMMARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration 1. Name of Action : Administrative Action 2. Description of Proposed Action : This project involves the extension of the Kennedy Rail Rapid Transit Line from its present terminus at Jefferson Park to O'Hare International Airport. The two track extension of the existing line would be constructed in the median of the Kennedy Expressway from Jefferson Park to the Northwest Tollway. At this junction, the extension would cross under the inbound roadway of the Tollway, and continue in the median of the O'Hare access road. Upon approaching the terminal area, the extension would go into a subway to be constructed beneath the existing parking garage. The transit line would terminate in a stub-end station which would service the major airport terminals and facilities adjacent to the airport. Along the 7.6 mile length of the extension, there would be four stations -- three intermediate stations with adjoining park-n-ride and kiss-n-ride facilities, and a station at O'Hare. The intermediate stations, located at Harlem Avenue, Cumber¬ land Avenue, and Des Plaines River Road (Rosemont Station) would be constructed totally within expressway right-of-way. The provision of park-n-ride structures would necessitate the relocation of a total of four existing expressway access ramps. Reconstruction of intersections at the three station locations would re- di rect traffic movements of expressway and station oriented vehicles while retaining the availability of all existing traffic movements. Directly west of the Rosemont station, the Rosemont yard, including storage facilities, extension trackage, and a repair shop, would be constructed. The project would involve no property acquisition. The O'Hare extension of the Kennedy Rapid Transit line will provide service to a portion of the city which presently is unserved by rail transit facilities. Not only will all airport user groups benefit from the direct access provided by the extension, but also, significant social and economic benefits will accrue to residents in neighborhoods within the corridor. The project will require capital assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Assuming the midyear of construction is 1980, the total project cost for the 7.6 mile extension is $152.5 million. The Federal share, calculated at 80% of the total amount, would be about $122 million, which if approved by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, would probably come largely or totally from Section 3 discretionary capital assistance funds. Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in Fall, 1978 and continue until Fall, 1981. 3. Summary of Effects : A. Long-Term Beneficial Effects 1. The O'Hare Rail Rapid Transit Extension will increase the airport ground access system capacity and increase the Kennedy Expressway Corridor's capacity without increased reliance on the automobile. 1 1 11 2. The extension will benefit various airport user groups: airline passen¬ gers, airport employees, and airport visitors, by providing fast, con¬ venient, reliable, and economic rapid transit service to and from the airport. The extension will likewise benefit CBD commuters, reverse commuters, expressway drivers, and the transit dependent through the pro¬ vision of intermediate stations with park-n-ride facilities. 3. The O'Hare Extension will benefit the economy of the Metropolitan Area by improving the efficiency of the Loop as a transfer point for access to other sections of the City and suburban areas. The extension will main¬ tain the CBD as a highly attractive business area, and will strengthen the area's role as a regional hotel and convention center. 4. The extension will have regional air quality benefits as auto drivers are diverted to rapid transit for trips to and from the CBD. 5. Regional energy consumption efficiency rates for transportation will be improved. 6. The extension will support the development of underutilized land located near intermediate stations. Long-Term Adverse Effects 1. The O'Hare Extension will not be able to meet its operating expenses from farebox revenue. Operational subsidies from the Regional Transportation Authority will be required. 2. The operation of the extension will increase ambient noise levels in areas near the transit stations and surrounding the transit corridor. 3. Patron's access trips to the intermediate stations will increase bus and auto traffic and on-street parking in the areas near station sites and thus increase vehicular emissions and noise. 4. The extension and three intermediate stations will create visual impacts. 5. Existing access points to the Kennedy Expressway at Harlem Avenue, Cumberland Avenue, and Des Plaines River Road will be relocated in order to provide space for transit facilities, thereby creating potential traffic conflicts. Short-Term Effects During Construction 1. Major regional transportation arteries, the Kennedy Expressway and the Northwest Tollway will be affected by lane closures and detours. 2. Construction activity will cause traffic disruption on arterial streets in the vicinity of the Rosemont Yard, and on the overpass bridges at the three intermediate station locations. 3. Unavoidable physical environmental effects as a result of construction activities will include increased noise and vibration levels, exhaust emissions from construction machinery, and construction dirt, dust, and debri s. A1ternatives: SCHEME B-l - THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No-Build Alternative represents the existing operation of CTA Bus Route 40, the O'Hare Express, from the Jefferson Park terminal of the Kennedy Rapid Transit Line to the airport terminals and airport cargo areas and includes all other existing airport access servies. SCHEME B-2 - MODIFIED NO BUILD Scheme B-2 is identical to Scheme B-l except that the cargo area stops at O'Hare are eliminated. SCHEME B-3 - CTA BUS FROM C&NW This Scheme provides CTA express bus service from station to O'Hare Airport. Buses would use local way to O'Hare, making stops only at the passenger the Park Ridge C&NW commuter streets and the Kennedy Express- terminals. SCHEME B-4 - CTA BUS FROM MILWAUKEE ROAD In this Scheme, CTA bus service to O'Hare is provided from the Franklin Park Station of the Milwaukee Road commuter line. SCHEME B-5 - EXCLUSIVE BUS LANES The operational aspects of this Scheme are the same as in Scheme B-l and 3-2, except that buses would use exclusive lanes in the expressway median over most of the distance to the airport. Buses would operate in local traffic in the Jefferson Park area and at the airport. SCHEME R-l - CTA RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSA With this Scheme, the existing CTA Rapic Expressway would be extended to O'Hare / structed along the length of the extens' adjoining park-n-ride facilities, and a the airport parking garage. SCHEME R-2 - CTA RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSION This Scheme represents identical service except that the three intermediate stati Airport are eliminated. 1 Transit in the median of the Kennedy \irport. Four stations would be con- on - three intermediate stations with tub end airport terminal station beneath WITH NO INTERMEDIATE STATIONS characteristics to those in Scheme R-l ns between Jefferson Park and O'Hare SCHEME R-3 C&NW SPUR WITH 3 INTERMEDIATE STATIONS The existing Chicago & Northwestern (C&NW) Commuter Line right-of-way would be used by C&NW trains from the Central Business District (CBD) to Jefferson Park where a spur would connect with the median of the Kennedy Expressway. Trains from the CBD would run non-stop to Jefferson Park, serve the intermediate stations and proceed to the airport. SCHEME R-4 - MILWAUKEE ROAD - S00 LINE SPUR This Scheme entails the non-stop operation of Milwaukee Road commuter trains between the CBD and O'Hare using existing Milwaukee Road tracks to the Western suburb of Franklin Park. A spur would be constructed from Franklin Park to O'Hare via right-of-way of the Soo Line Railroad. No intermediate stations would be constructed. 5. C omments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received from th e following Federal , state, and local agencies and other sources: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. Office U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lakes Regional Office U.S. Department of .Transportation, Federal Highway Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics Illinois Department of Transportation, Bureau of Location and Environment Illinois Archeological Survey Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Chicago Area Transportation Study Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Chicago Transit Authority DuPage County Regional Planning Commission vi p. Will County Regional Planning Commission Q. Chicago Plan Commission R. City of Chicago, Department of Planning, City and Community Development S. City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control T. Alderman Roman Pucinski U. DesPlaines Publishing Company V. Greater North Michigan Avenue Association w. Norwood Park Citizens Association X. Norwood Park Chamber of Commerce Y. Northwest Cumberland Association Z. Northwest Municipal Conference AA. Resurrection Hospital BB. Airport Ground Transportation Association, Inc. CC. Franz Miller DD. David 0. Taylor Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement have been sent to all agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft and to all those on the distribution list for the Draft EIS. 6. Circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement began May 12, 1978 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement is being made available in August, 1978. vi i REVIEW AND FINDINGS This Final Environmental Impact Statement represents a detailed statement, as required by Section 14 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, on- (1) the environmental impact of the proposed project, (2) adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (3) alternatives to the proposed project, and (4) irreversible and irretrievable impact on the environment which may be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented. Based on the information contained in this Environmental Impact Statement and on consideration of the written and oral comments offered on the draft document, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration has determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Act that- (1) adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views by all parties with a significant economic, social, or environmental interest, and fair consideration has been given to the preservation and enhancement of the environment and to the interest of the community in which the proposed project is located, and (2) all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize adverse environmental effects of the proposed project and where adverse environmental effects remain, there exists no feasible and prudent alternative to avoid or mitigate such effects. vi 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES. xiii LIST OF TABLES. xv I. THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE. 1-1 A. THE REGIONAL SETTING. 1-1 1. Physical Characteristics. 1-1 2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics. 1-3 B. THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. 1-3 1. Historical Development. 1-3 2. Current Network Components. 1-4 II. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION. II-l A. DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA. II-l B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA. 11-2 1. Land Use Patterns. 11-2 2. Social and Economic Characteristics. 11-8 C. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. 11-10 1. Commuting Facilities.. 11-10 2. O'Hare Airport Access Facilities. 11-15 3. Demand Projections. 11-17 D. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. 11-20 1. Air Quality. 11-20 2. Noise. 11-27 3. Geology and Topography. 11-38 4. Water Resources. 11-39 5. Biological Resources. 11-42 III. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. III-l A. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. III-l 1. Bus Alternatives. III-l 2. Rail Alternatives. 111-10 B. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS. II1-14 1. Bus Alternatives. 111 -17 2. Conclusions. 111-20 3. Rail Alternatives. II1-20 4. Conclusions. 111 - 24 C. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES. 111-24 1. Construction. 111 - 25 2. Transit Service. Ill-25 3. Vehicular Traffic. III-27 4. Land Use and Development. Ill-27 5. Air Quality. II1-27 i x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 6. Noise Levels. Ill-28 7. Energy Conservation. Ill-28 8. Social Effects. 111-28 9. Economics. Ill-29 10. Costs. 111-29 11. Conclusion... 111-30 D. AIRPORT TERMINAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES. 111 - 30 1. Single-Level Terminal Loop Subway. Ill-32 2. Double-Level Terminal Loop Subway. 111-32 3. Stub-End Station. 111 - 32 4. Single Track Elevated Loop. 111 - 32 5. Double Track Elevated. 111 - 34 6. _Semi-Loop Subway. . ... . 111 -34 7. Analysis...C. . ...... .. III - 35 E. INTERMEDIATE STATION DESIGN ALTERNATIVES... T HI-38 1. Harlem Avenue No Park-n-Ride. Ill-39 2. Harlem Avenue'Park-n-Ride. Ill-39 3. Cumberland Avenue No Park-n-Ride. Ill-39 4. Cumberland Avenue Park-n-Ride. Ill-40 5. Rosemont Station No Park-n-Ride. 111-40 6. Rosemont Station Park-n-Ride. Ill-40 7. Analysis. 111-42 IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE . IV-1 A. ROUTE. IV-1 B. STATIONS. - IV-1 1. Harlem Avenue. IV-1 2. Cumberland Avenue. IV-10 3. Rosemont. IV-13 4. O'Hare. IV-13 5. Traction Power Substations. IV-18 C. MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITIES. IV-18 D. TRACK, ROADBED, AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. IV-18 E. TRANSIT OPERATIONS. IV-19 1. Airport Service. IV-19 2. Commuter Service. IV-19 3. Feeder Bus Service. IV-19 4. Airport Employee Shuttle. IV-22 5. Patronage and Revenue. IV-22 F. CIRCULATION AT O'HARE AIRPORT. IV-24 G. COORDINATION IMPROVEMENTS. IV-25 V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE . V-l A. CONSTRUCTION. V-l 1. Disruption to Vehicular Traffic. V-l 2. Solid Waste Disposal. V-5 3. Effects on the Physical Environment. V-6 4. Employment During Construction. V-7 5. Energy. V-8 B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. V-8 C. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY. V-8 D. FLORA AND FAUNA. V-ll x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. E. TRANSIT SERVICE. v _ 12 1. Accessibility and Patronage. V-12 2. System Interface. V-12 3. Travel Time. V-14 F. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. V-15 1. O'Hare Airport Traffic. V-15 2. Expressway Traffic. v-17 3. Local Traffic at Park-n-Ride Sites. v-19 4. CBD Traffic. v-27 G. LAND USE. V-28 1. Local Impacts. V-28 2. Regional Impacts. V-30 H. AIR QUALITY. V-30 1. Regional Air Quality Effects. V-30 2. Local Air Quality Considerations. V-31 3. Health Effects. v-35 I. NOISE. V- 36 1. Impact on Rapid Transit Users. V-36 2. Impact on Rapid Transit Employees. V-39 3. Impact of Areas Adjacent to the Expressway/Transit Corridor. V-40 4. Health Effects. V-43 J. ENERGY CONSUMPTION. V-45 K. SOCIAL EFFECTS. V-47 1. Accessibility to Jobs, Services, and Institutions. V-47 2. Safety and Security. V-48 3. Social Cohesiveness. V-49 4. Relocation and Displacement. V-50 5. Transit Dependent and Disadvantaged. V-50 L. ECONOMIC IMPACTS. V-50 1. Capital and Operating Costs. V-50 2. Employment. V-52 3. Land Values. V-52 4. Fiscal Impacts on Carriers. V-53 M. AESTHETIC IMPACTS. V-53 N. AIRPORT PLANNING . V-54 O . OVERALL IMPACT. .............- .7.77 .7.*.*.777.7.7.7 V-63 VI. EFFECTS ON PARKLAND AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES. VI-1 A. EFFECTS ON PARKLAND. VI-1 B. EFFECTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES. VI-5 VII. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. VII-1 VIII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. VIII-1 IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETREIVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES. IX-1 xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. A. INTRODUCTION. X-l B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY TOPIC. X-2 1. Transit Operations. X-2 2. Transit System. X-4 3. Patronage and Ridership. X-9 4. System Construction. X-12 5. Accessibility. X-l 3 6. Congestion. X-14 7. Air Quality. X-20 8. Noise. X- 21 9. Energy. X- 22 10. Recreation and Historic Properties. X-23 11. Safety and Security. X-25 12. Economics. X- 30 13. Airport Planning. X-30 14. Project Planning. X- 31 15. Maintenance. X-32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 1-1 The Six County Chicago Region. 1-2 I- 2 Existing Transportation . 1-5 11 -1 Study Area Subareas. II-3 II- 2 Study Area Transportation Facilities . 11-12 II-3 1977 Noise Level Contours for Aircraft Operations at O'Hare. . 11-30 II-4 Wayside Noise Levels for 2000 Series Transit Cars . 11-33 11-5 Typical Transportation Vehicle Noise Levels .. 11-34 II- 6 Chicago Area Waterways and State Water Use Clarifications . 11-40 III- l Alternative B-l No Build. 111-2 111-2 Alternative B-2 Modified No Build. III-5 111-3 Alternative B-3 CTA Bus from C&NW. III-6 111-4 Alternative B-4 CTA Bus from Milwaukee Road. II1-8 111-5 Alternative B-5 Exclusive Bus Lanes. Ill-9 III-6 Alternative R-l CTA Rail Extension with 3 Inter¬ mediate Stations . III-ll 111-7 Alternative R-2 CTA Rail Extension with No Inter¬ mediate Stations . III-12 III-8 Alternative R-3 C&NW Spur with 3 Intermediate Stations . . . 111-13 III-9 Alternative R-4 Milwaukee Road - Soo Line Spur. III-15 111-10 O'Hare Airport III-31 III-ll Single Level Terminal Loop Subway. 111-33 111-12 Double Level Terminal Loop Subway III-33 111-13 Stub-End. III-33 111-14 Single Track Elevated Loop. 111-33 111-15 Elevated with Double Track. 111-33 III- 16 Semi-Loop Subway. 111-33 IV- 1 O'Hare Extension Route . IV-2 IV-2 A to G O'Hare Extension Plan and Profile. IV-3 to 9 IV-3 Harlem Avenue Station . IV-11 IV-4 Cumberland Avenue Station . IV-12 IV-5 Rosemont Station . IV-14 IV-6 O'Hare Terminal Station. IV-15 IV-7 O'Hare Terminal Station. IV-16 IV-8 O'Hare Terminal Station Profile . IV-17 IV-9 A & B Typical Sections. IV-20 and 21 IV- 10 O'Hare Extension Feeder Bus Routes . IV-23 V- 1 Typical Construction Zone. V-2 V-2 Soil Profile - East River Road Tunnel. V-9 V-3 Typical Soil Boring. V-10 V-4 Harlem Avenue Station Site - Local Traffic. V-21 V-5 Cumberland Avenue Station Site - Local Traffic. V-23 V-6 Rosemont Station Site - Local Traffic. V-26 V-7 CTA Train Noise. V-41 V-8 Daily Bus Movements. V-44 xi i i LIST OF FIGURES CON'T Figure No. Page No. V-9 Kennedy Expressway Median . V-55 V-l0 Kennedy Expressway Median . V-56 V-11 Harlem Avenue Station Site. V-57 V-12 Harlem Avenue Station. V-58 V-l3 Cumberland Avenue Station Site. V-59 V-l4 Cumberland Avenue Station. V-60 V-l5 Rosemont Station Site. V-61 V- l6 Rosemont Station. V-62 VI- 1 Forest Preserve District - Indian Boundary Division .... VI-2 VI-2 Use of Forest Preserve Land. VI-3 xrv LIST OF TABLES Table n-i 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 11-7 II-8 II-9 11-10 11-11 11-12 11-13 11-14 III-l 111-2 111-3 III-4 III- 5 IV- 1 IV- 2 V- l V-2 V-3 V-4 V-5 V-6 V-7 V-8 V-9 V-10 V-l 1 V-12 V-l 3 V-14 IX-1 IX-2 IX-3 Page No. O'Hare Ground Access Demand. 11-18 Modal Distribution for Departing Air Passengers - 1969. ... 11-18 Air Pollutant Emissions Tons/Year 1975. 11-21 Adjusted Pollutant Mass Value . 11-22 Study Area Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data. 11-24 US EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards . 11-25 US EPA Significant Deterioration Criteria. IIr-26 Typical Overall Sound Levels. 11-28 Noise Study of Kennedy Expressway . 11-31 Common Arterial Street Noise Data . 11-32 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels for Construction Equipment. 11-37 Vehicular Noise Limits at 50 Feet for Posted Speed Limits. 11-38 Limits for Noise from Buildings. 11-38 Summary of Pollutant Concentration Ranges in Chicago's Surface Water Systems. 11-43 Bus Alternatives Comparison . Rail Alternatives Comparison. Final Alternatives Comparison . Airport Station Design Alternatives Comparison. . . Intermediate Station Design Alternatives Comparison O'Hare Extension Patronage - 1982 . Cost and Revenue Data . O'Hare Extension Patronage - 1982 . Daily Vehicle Volumes at O'Hare Airport. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at O'Hare Airport .... Kennedy Expressway Traffic Volumes - West of the Northwest Toll way Junction. Kennedy Expressway Traffic Volumes - East of Harlem Avenue . Air Quality Analysis Results at Intermediate Station Locations. Noise at Irving Park CTA Station. Noise at Belmont CTA Station. In-car Transit Noise. Employee Noise Exposure . APTA Goals for Maximum Airborne Noise from Train Operations . Maximum Airborne Noise from Train Operations. . . . Annual Energy Savings by Trip Group . Cost and Revenue Data . Materials Involved in the Construction of the O'Hare Extension. Human Resources Committed . Economic Resources Committed. 111-17 111-21 111-26 111-36 111-41 IV-22 IV-24 V-13 V-16 V-16 V-l 7 V-18 V-34 V- 36 V- 37 V-39 V- 39 V-40 V-42 V-46 V-51 IX-1 IX-1 IX-2 xv I. THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE A. THE REGIONAL SETTING 1. Physical Characteristics The Chicago region, at the southern end of Lake Michigan, is situated about one-third the distance from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts and lies in the northern one-third of the nation. Although geographically located in the northeast quadrant of the country, the Chicago area is and has been through¬ out most of its history the transportation hub of the country. This has resulted from its location at the convergence of the two most important in¬ land waterway systems, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, and has spurred its evolution as the national center of both rail and air traffic. The Chicago area also serves as the commercial and industrial center of the North Central "plains" states. Chicago's history and present status are closely tied to both the agricultural activity of the Great Plains and the natural resources of the North Central States which feed its industry. Located midway between the Continental Divide and the Atlantic Ocean and some 500 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico, the State of Illinois is reflected in a Continental climate. Cold winters, warm summers, and frequent short fluctua¬ tions in temperature, humidity, cloudiness, and wind direction are characteristic. Lacking the protection of natural barriers such as mountain ranges, Illinois experiences the full sweep of winds bringing weather conditions from other areas. Since prevailing winds are westerly and storm systems move from the same direc¬ tions, the influence of Lake Michigan on Illinois weather, as a whole, is not great. However, the area under the Lake influence includes the Chicago area and other communities where approximately one-half of the State's population lives. The wind blows from the lake toward the shore approximately one-fourth of the time during fall and winter resulting in a moderation of temperature. The area has an average summer temperature of 72° and an average of 20 days with temperatures of 90OF or higher. During the winter, snows are frequent and temperatures average 29 °f but drop below zero several times each winter. Annual rainfall averages approximately 33 inches, while snowfalls annually average about 30 inches. 1-1 2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics The Chicago region is one part of a heavily populated strip along the south¬ western shore of Lake Michigan which extends from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Michigan City, Indiana. The Chicago region which encompasses six counties (See Figure 1-1.) accounted for 75% of the South Lake Michigan "megalopolis" population of 9.3 million in 1975. The urbanized area population is 7.0 million. The Chicago region, itself, is a fair cross-section of the national population. Significant differences do exist, however, among the individual counties, especially between Cook County, which has Chicago as its county seat, and the remaining five counties. Cook County exhibits demographic characteristics more closely associated with contemporary cores of urban regions, such as declining population, greater minority populations, and a greater percentage of rental dwelling units. The remaining five counties are less typical of core cities, having younger populations and showing a strong population growth. The primary employer in the region is manufacturing, followed by service, retail, and government activities. These four industries account for 75% of the wages and salaries paid in the region. Median family income in the region is higher in every case than the national median. B. THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 1. Historical Development Chicago developed initially as a port facility at the confluence of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. The early location of the economic core of the City on the lakefront caused a radial pattern of ground transportation routes to develop outward from this point. Land use patterns were, and still are, dictated by the location of these trans¬ portation routes. Prior to 1920, the railroads and public transit system promoted radiality in land use development as residents located near their means of transportation to work. The dramatic increase in automobile ownership in the 1920's allowed new areas in the suburbs to develop enabling people to live farther and farther from commuter rail terminals. With additions to the roadway system and the advent of expressways, roadways were constructed between the rail lines and the auto became a major commuter mode. The familiar star shaped pattern of settlement was not only extended but began to fill in near the boundaries of the city. Presently, development in the metropolitan area is continuing to expand outward, with the rail line and expressways forming radi¬ ating central features around which the densest settlement occurs. Until the 1860's, waterways and railroads were the dominant components of Chicago's transportation network linking it with other commercial centers. The economic and population boom during this period, however, created the need for an intra- 1-3 city transportation component to carry people to jobs and services in the central area. Mass transit systems were formed and, by 1910, carried 750,000 people to the CBD every day. The popularity of mass transit waned with the increase in the use of private automobiles and massive street improvement programs became necessary during the period following World War II, culminating in the construction of the expressway system in the 1960's. Chicago's early establishment as a transportation center included air transportation as well as the surface network. Since the 1930's, Chicago has maintained the busiest airport activity in the world with three major functioning fields. O'Hare Airport, which opened in 1955, currently serves most commercial air traffic in the region, although Midway and Meigs Field are still used by smaller aircraft. 2. Current Network Components The transportation network in the Chicago region provides a variety of means for moving both people and goods. Six major transportation corridors radiate outward from the CBD to connect with the outer portions of the region. They contain four primary types of ground transportation: expressways, commuter rail service, CTA rapid transit, and freight rail lines. Coupled with the facilities for air travel, these components carry the majority of the high- volume traffic in the region. a. Expressways The expressway system of the six county Chicago region, shown in Figure 1-2, includes some 360 miles of roadway. The expressway network amounts to only about 4% of the region's total highway mileage, but accounts for over 26% of its highway capacity. The importance of this network can be further emphasized by noting that it carries over 34% of the region's motor traffic on an average weekday.' The Chicago area expressway system has two basic functions: combining to form a radial network tunneling traffic into and out of the metropolitan area, and providing a circumferential route around the city connecting the radial routes. The expressway system is essential to both private automobile and commercial traffic. About 90% of all expressway trips are made by auto, while motor freight carriers benefit from the integration of the expressways with the national Interstate highway system. The expressways' capacity and radial geometry contribute to rapid inter and intraurban goods movement. Well over 90% of motor carrier terminals in the region are located in the Chicago Commercial Zone, an area generally bounded on the west and south by the 1-294 Tri-State Tollway. 1-4 1-90 I!_, , .. C-ftl SPA P ^ VCook Co. \ \ VsP V V w, \ % * xV*' L % \ Figure 1-2 -X \ Skokie Swift V\ '--DuPage Co. i \(\ a®, \ V CL'O ! \ vr~ 1 (tHarell* Howard North-South Route Ravanswood I MiiwauKee * West-Northwest Route __v Lake I _ West-South Route j 1-90 Chicago Congress West-Northwest Route 1.5 Douglas ^/> West-Northwest Routed Will Co. !| w Lake Michigan Meigs \ Englewood North-South Route. X X X X' X /I ± / Midway j I x f/// / x i r 7 Jackson Park -South Route /,i //JU! /r ■ ■■ J Dan Ryan f J ^/ocl.^Anth Rm X r-i._ /, / / I Expressways Major Airports ▲ CTA Rapid Transit Commuter Rail ****“■ West-South Route, ■Ml /. ^« 9 h- s cc CO to < a UJ z z z CO —1 < LU •—* cc z a. to 1 — o CL 3 CzC. •—« < 3 : CQ Q 1- cc ►—* < o Z UJ a. z I- H - < f— 3 o 00 OC 03 a; 21 h“ cc UJ 3 2T < < o u. 03 O (— ►— LU UJ 3 CJ c_> CO H— ac CO M *lN* 0 in *3 0 r" Awmoi 3iwis-iai avoa 3NI1 A1NOO0 GO LU LU A3 £Z3 LU _l LA Cd Q- Cd < Q_ <5 a_ QC LA LU > 2T LU GO QC LU _1 _1 LA GO QC GO i—• . r* CN £ r- o *4 oi o • • « f"4 a. *4 vO i-4 CO CD \ u vO cn cn © o 0 0 0 JJ © > jj 4J jj 0 JJ c a JJ 3 a o o cn i—4 0 • • • O' —4 y vO O' o CN «T w 31 ^4 •-4 > N \ i-4 i—4 **4 O' O' \ i—4 £ as £ £ o \ £ £ O' a JJ o o cn CO o © 4J • • m m ^4 s 01 O' r* *-4 m \ 3 >- o cn ^4 w 0 0 0 0 4J (B ■u jj Jj 0 JJ c U JJ 3 O' i—4 n CN 0 • • • CN in y cn B* i-4 i—4 i—4 I e 1 « JJ *-4 «-4 u 43 01 \ \ \ i-4 © C > O' O' o i—4 o £ > iB 01 £ £ £ \ o •H O' O £ >. ^4 r» (N CN £ o IB • • • CN i—4 0 43 *-4 O' X •-4 £ ^4 > 0 z r—4 u 0 X ««■» 0 0 — 0 r-4 a 01 cn U-l iB o IB •-4 43 U 03 43 rH 41 •H 41 0 > £ IB 43 u i-4 4) 43 •H 0 £ C c 3 1—♦ 01 y iB 0 Q. CB 01 0 £ £ 7) u •—4 ••4 41 £ " 3 41 a a 43 01 11-43 Aquatic life in the rivers and streams of the area is currently limited to pol1ution-tolerant or hardy species. Poor water quality conditions of these waterways have reduced the numbers and types of aquatic life. The major species of fish in the watershed includes: central mudminnow, white sucker, carp, goldfish, stone-rol1er, creek chub, bluntnosed minnow, fathead minnow, golden shiner, black bullhead, largemouth bass, green sunfish, bluegill, pumpkinseed, sunfish (lepomis), and Johnny darter. The relative purity of Lake Michigan water supports a much broader range of aquatic life, including some species introduced by man accidently, as the alewife and sea lamprey, or purposefully, as the coho salmon. Other fish species in the Lake include: lake whitefish, lake herring, lake sturgeon, lake trout, yellow perch, bloater, Chinook salmon, rainbow smelt, atlantic smelt, atlantic salmon, brook trout, brown trout, walleye, rainbow trout, carp, white sucker, round whitefish, and small mouth bass. The vegetation normally found in the natural tracts of the study area con¬ sists of a modified form of the beech-maple forest in more moist areas and oak-hickory forests in the more open areas. The transitional flora between these two forest types include maple-basswood and maple-basswood-red oak forest. The natural vegetation common to wetland areas along area streams and rivers is comprised mostly of cottonwood, poplar and willow with occasional oak, maple and mulberry. Smaller plant types such as forbs, cattails, arrowheads, nettles-and various grasses are also common. 11-44 ttf .—IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES A. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES As O'Hare Airport was assuming the role of the region's commercial air traffic center, its environs experienced dramatic population increases. This area also became a major employment center as commerce, industry, and hotel/conven¬ tion facilities located near O'Hare and in proximity to the expressways. These phenomena have created increasing stress on the ground access system between O'Hare and the Chicago CBD, especially on the Kennedy Expressway. In response to projections of continued growth, the City of Chicago commis¬ sioned several studies to identify possible means of alleviating current and expected access problems. The City Departments of Aviation, Public Works, and Streets and Sanitation have worked with consultants in designing and evaluating alternative access schemes. The planning process has also included the other regional transportation agencies and the public, with input from all parties regarding project design and operation. Nine alternatives are included in this section for evaluation, representing both bus and rail modes. For convenience,- they are labelled B-l through B-5 and R-l through R-4, as described below. 1. Bus A1ternatives a. No-Build Scheme B-l The No-Build Alternative represents the combination of existing public and private mass transportation services to O'Hare Airport. These include: CTA O'Hare Express Bus, Continental Air Transport, suburban bus lines, taxi, and transportation to and from the airport via private buses operated by airport area hotels. (See Figure III-l.) The CTA service to the airport, the O'Hare Express Bus (Route 40), operates between the Jefferson Park terminal of the Milwaukee Rapid Transit Line and the airport. The total trip from the CBD to O'Hare involves boarding the rapid transit line and transferring to the bus at Jefferson Park. The bus uses local streets to access the Kennedy Expressway for the trip to O'Hare, where stops are made on the Lower Level Roadway at each terminal building and at the airport Cargo Area. Between the CBD and Jefferson Park, the rapid transit trains make 9 intermediate stops when A and B service is in operation and all 13 stops in the evening and on weekends. Peak hour headways are minutes, base headways are 5 minutes, and night service headways are 15 min¬ utes. At the transfer point, passengers must walk from the train platform to a bus loading island to wait for a bus. The O'Hare Express buses provide service at all times, with daytime headways of 15 minutes, early morning and evening headways of 30 minutes, and night headways of 60 minutes. Total trip time between the CBD and O'Hare is 59 minutes west bound and 64 minutes east- bound, because the Cargo Area at O'Hare is served on the return leg of tne crip. III-l Alternative B-1 No Build The CTA's fare for this service is $0.75, which includes the base fare of $.50, transfer cost of $0.10, and a surcharge of $0.15 which is collected on the bus. Continental Air Transport operates an airport access bus service from the Central Area of Chicago to the airport and from suburban communities to the airport. The trip from the Central Area to the airport is made non-stop, though a number of stops may be made within the Central Area itself. An estimated 450 trips are made between the Central Area and the airport each weekday between 4:45 a.m. and midnight with service provided as frequently as every 15 to 20 minutes. The Central Area routes serve eighteen hotels and the Sears Tower. In 1976, about 4,000 passengers used the downtown airport service on an aver¬ age weekday. The current fare for this trip is $3.50. The five suburban Continental Air Transport airport access routes carried about 500 daily pas¬ sengers on 36 bus trips in 1976. Suburban service fares range from $3.50 to $10.00 depending on the suburb served. Travel times on Continental Air Transport routes to the airport vary depending on the trip's origin. Travel time from hotels in the southern section of the Central Area average 40 minutes (55 minutes or more during the evening rush hours). Trips from hotels in the northern and western sections of the Central Area average 50 to 55 minutes (70-75 minutes or more during the evening rush hours). Travel times on the suburban routes vary from 50 to 95 minutes depend¬ ing on trip distance and the number of intermediate stops. Two suburban bus companies operate routes to the 0 1 Hare Airport terminal area. Nortran operates Route 220 providing access to the airport from the suburban communities of Glenview, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, and Rosemont. Route 220 also serves the Glenview station of the Milwaukee Road North Line and the Des Plaines station of the C&NW Northwest Line. The combination of commuter train lines and Route 220 allows access to the airport from any point along either commuter line, including the Central Area. (These service combinations are rarely used for the Central Area-airport trip as they are much more circuit- uous than other options.) Nortran operates Route 220 from approximately 5:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Saturday service operates between approximately 7:00 a.m. and 6:40 p.m. No Sunday or holiday service is provided. A $0.50 one-way fare is charged. Daily ridership to and from the airport in 1976 was about 325 persons. West Town's Bus Company operates Route 330 from the southwest suburb of Summit north to O'Hare Airport, serving the study area suburbs of Franklin Park and Schiller Park. Route 330 also serves suburban stations of the following commuter rail lines: Burlington Northern, Chicago and North-. western West Line, and Milwaukee Road West Line. (Again, these bus-rail combinations do not provide a high level of service from the CBD to the airport.) Route 330 operates every half hour between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. Saturday operation extend over the same period but at one hour inter¬ vals. No Sunday or holiday service is provided. The one-way fare is $0.50. 111-3 Taxi service to O'Hare Airport is available on demand from any point in the City of Chicago and surrounding suburbs. Taxi service from points within Chicago is provided by taxicabs licensed by the City. A total of 4,600 taxicab licenses have been issued by the City of Chicago, Department of Con¬ sumer Sales, Weights and Measures. Chicago licensed taxicabs are also per¬ mitted to transport passengers from the airport to suburban destinations. Taxi service from suburban locations is provided by suburban taxicab companies. The average fare for a one-way taxi trip from the Palmer House Hotel in the CBD to O'Hare Airport is $10.50. Free shuttle services are provided by hotels in the O'Hare area. These ser¬ vices are limited to trips between the hotels and the airport. b. Modified No-Build Scheme B-2 The Modified No-Build includes all services mentioned in Scheme B-l, with a slight change in the CTA service. Under this alternative, CTA O'Hare Express Bus service to the airport cargo area is eliminated. Faster bus turnaround would result and three buses would be required during peak hours instead of the current four. Off-peak travel time from the Central Area to the airport would be 59 minutes in each direction. All characteristies of this service, other than travel time and airport stops, are identical with Scheme B-l. (See Figure II1-2.) c. CTA Bus from C&NW Scheme B-3 This scheme provides CTA express bus service from the Park Ridge C&NW commuter station to O'Hare Airport. For the CBD-O'Hare trip, passengers would board trains at the Northwestern Station just west of the CBD and transfer to buses at the Park Ridge station. Buses would use local streets and the Kennedy Expressway to O'Hare, making stops only at the passenger terminals. (See Figure The C&NW commuter trains make 1 to 3 intermediate stops on the express ser¬ vice and 6 stops on the local service. Inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening, headways vary between 5 and 20 minutes. Off-peak and reverse direction headways are 1 hour on weekdays; Saturday headways are 1 hour; and Sunday headways are 2 hours. Buses would have 15 minutes headways during peak hours, 30 minute base headways, and 1 hour Sunday headways. No service would be available when trains are not operating. Access time westbound is 88 min¬ utes and eastbound is 103 minutes. The total one-way fare for this service would be $1.70, which includes $1.20 for the CBD to Park Ridge portion plus $0.50 for bus service. Currently, joint bus-commuter rail fares are not available. The capital costs associated with this scheme are for a bus shelter and signs at the Park Ridge Station. 111-4 i Alternative B-3 CTA Bus from C&NW z o ■ MBH 3 <0 CO CC co ■ ■■■ LL IS Z 08 p o o y l«Vd ''▼ 8 - 1*3 0 s 3 *iS 0 * a a * VI >tUU*UMlUWI i ittmmii f 3 HSO«in 3 ''OiaO« mw N» 70 05 awnnaww Aianoi jms-iai CM ■H 0*330 - 3 i**avi u GO co- 0 ^9 3a a 3 a. a *.$▼ 3 atca d 3 Mn Sj^ivid S 3 a :a i 3 i 4 S 0 a* - i* CO in CD UJ *—— > 5 cto o —— 1 cr: o UJ _ 1 Q_ UJ _ 1 UJ GO _1 zr GO Qd CO 3^ — — n*0*3 3* 4 3 * d » * 0 Q3 33.* 13 3 V oo in CD UJ ai > csl cr: —. -1 O HI « y / / 1 / // **/ / jr I / / f / J X X. 4 . •«»,«/ >s^. ( 'O * - <*r—1/ / Z jp * SV * O ►- V. — > 3 - f / y # L V rY, /i <-'» n- yi «?' -.JUVIOI 3W15-ISI c#ca 3un unno3 oo UJ UJ LlJ _1 cn Q£ >——■ _ 1 cn o UJ _1 o_ UJ _i UI uc: S-U OO _i 211 oo d oo T** «—• ">:r s$! a - * -' Qt 5Ss / r H / / u CD h A iJ\ T/ y J 1 b 1 il J < !j «• r~ <*. *■' V#' X o X z a> O 3 iaoi ^ -j 3 (}]ai|J v i HI 52 A*«noi nvis-iai c*ca wn unood CO 1— d CD LlJ >—- D> Csl —• CD zo uJ __i UJ _1 uj CO i co ~Q’ —* O CC ld QC <=c Q— Q UJ LU LU nr a o O ca o LU QC O ——• o 2C cn QC —— • —) o <=X ~T~~ cn LU 111 LU CO 0) O r- A ° C Hi « Hi3HNWYH Atfrnoi JiViS* !3i cvca 3Mi AiNno: GO LU LU LU _1 UZ cn C£ i—* _1 QZ O UJ _1 Q_ LU _1 jz UZ CZj GO _1 zz GO QZ GO *—• < 3 : UJ t a. o < IE 1 u uj < x « ^ t X z LU UJ Q *” U Z 2 £ x < X o w xx lz? o “ I CD 3 O) ■ ■■■ LL I ~a c CO c co CL IV-4 o ( 1 ) IV-5 V < V : -■ y y w* * ftfUva Alio 08OIM3 i % % 2 3 S !l, " n 09 «'-3 iO iU3 3Hn HoiTm _ _ 1Af AHrfOMf qNy~IW3BW'Wy^ k rf I! ! »! I ^- inn «oi»" Z o co z X Ui CO z < < UJ (T z < o Q CO < UJ o as a. n2 5 — 2 — 5 — 3 —ar—a—5 f V f • f ? T _ wnivo up oovoiMQ D CM a) 3 O) ■ ■■B LL 0) ■ ■■■ O Q. TJ C c/5 CO LU ac 0. 2 O u Q LU Z u. Z o u z 3 o C/5 ac CO z O 3 a £ 77 1985 WITH RAPID TRANSIT 1985 WITHOUT RAPID TRANSIT AVERAGE PEAK MAXIMUM PEAK AVERAGE PEAK MAXIMUM PEAK AVERAGE PEAK MAXIMUM PEAK INBOUND ACCESS ROADWAY 2210 2700 } 2700 3300 3000 3700 UPPER LEVEL TERMINAL ROADWAY 1200 1 1400 | 1500 1700 ! 1700 1900 LOWER LEVEL TERMINAL ROADWAY 1300 1600 j 1500 1900 ! —- -4 1700 —J 2200 V-16 2. Expressway Traffic The provision of rapid transit service in the Kennedy Expressway median will give airport users and employees as well as commuters an alternative to auto¬ mobile travel. In 1985, the project design year, the expected change in mode split will have impacts on both the Kennedy Corridor's ability to satisfy total transportation demand and the Kennedy Expressway's ability to provide adequate levels of service. i The demand for travel to O'Hare Airport is expected to increase by 36% between 1977 and 1985, while commuter trip demand in the Kennedy Corridor increases about 4% over the same period. The O'Hare Extension will provide the additional travel capacity required to satisfy this demand while keeping vehicular traffic demand within the capacity of the expressway. Higher levels of activity at the airport will increase both person and vehicular trip demand by 1985, which must be satisfied over the capacity constraints on the Kennedy Expressway. The expressway narrows to two lanes in each direction between its junction with the Northwest Tollway and its interchange with the Tri-State Tollway. This expressway segment is presently operating at a "C" level of service during the peak hours. Although, as indicated in the table below, the level of service will worsen in 1985, the traffic load on the express¬ way lies within acceptable limits. If the transit option were not available, however, travel demand would exceed the expressway's capacity during peak periods of travel. TABLE V-4 KENNEDY EXPRESSWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WEST OF THE NORTHWEST TOLLWAY JUNCTION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1977: ADT : 35,700 37,400 Peak 2,700 2,800 1985 - with Transit: ADT 43,900 46,400 Peak 3,300 3,500 1985 - No Transit ADT 48,800 51,100 Peak 3,700 ! 3,900 V-17 Traffic increases would result in expressway operation at a "D" level of service during a 1985 peak hour. Without the transit option, expressway level of service would be reduced to "F" during peak hours. Expressway segments located closer to the CBD will also accrue benefits from the diversion opportunities created by the transit line's three intermediate stations. The cumulative effect of diverting both airport users and employees and commuters will he significant. To illustrate this impact, traffic volumes on the Kennedy Expressway east of Harlem Avenue, the O'Hare Extension station closest to the CBD, have been projected. Traffic volumes for both with and without transit conditions are included, as well as volumes for 1977. TABLE V-5 KENNEDY EXPRESSWAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES EAST OF HARLEM AVENUE EASTBOUND WESTBOUND (3 Lanes) (3 Lanes) 1977: ADT 87,000 82,600 Peak (AM or PM) 5,800 5,400 1985 - With Transit: ADT 90,500 84,400 Peak (AM) 5,200 5,800 Peak (PM) 6,300 4,700 1985 - No Transit: ADT 97,500 91,600 Peak (AM or PM) 6,500 6,100 The 1985 "with transit" figures assume that during a given peak hour no traffic would enter the expressway to "replace" those vehicles removed through the mode switch to transit. If this replacement did occur, peak hour traffic volumes would increase. Since overall travel demand is not expected to fluctuate greatly, the Average Daily Traffic would remain the same. As a result, if the "replacement" did occur, a larger part of the "peak traffic period" vehicle load would be moved during each peak hour, thereby shortening the "peak traffic period." V-18 Levels of service do now, and will after project completion, ranqe from "D" to "F" during peak hours. Although the level of service may~not show a marked improvement, the capacity of the Kennedy Corridor will be significantly increasedby the addition of the transit mode. Thus, a greater number of daily trips will be made in the corridor with no significant deteriora¬ tion of traffic conditions on the expressway. Figures for the 1985 "no transit" condition indicate that the demand for travel on the expressway would be well above capacity if no transit service were provided. 3. Local Traffic at Park-n-Ride Sites One of the impacts associated with the three Park-n-Ride structures is increased vehicular traffic in areas surrounding these garages. The traffic increases are expected to occur in the morning rush period when garages fill and in the evening when they empty. Off-peak use is not expected to generate significant traffic. In order to assess the impact of garage use on local traffic, traffic patterns with and without the Park-n-Rides have been investigated. It should be noted that in order to best indicate park-n-ride traffic patterns, traffic volumes for the "without park-n-ride" situation were developed by deleting projected park-n-ride movements. All analysis was done using 1985 as the design year. Also, for all analyses, the garages are assumed to fill within two hours on a workday morning and empty within two hours during the evening. These periods correspond to the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. a. Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride The Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride, a three level, 685 vehicle capacity garage, will be located in the area bounded by Harlem Avenue, Higgins Avenue, and the Kennedy Expressway. The bottom level will be at the same level as the express¬ way roadways, and the top level will be at ground level. In order to accommodate this facility, alterations to the existing expressway ramps will be required. The exit ramp from the eastbound expressway lanes will be grade separated to better handle this traffic movement. The existing entrance ramp from southbound Harlem to the eastbound expressway lanes will be eliminated. These ramp move¬ ments will be channeled to the entrance ramp off Gregory Street via a new signalized intersection at Harlem Avenue and Gregory Street. Entrance to the garage will be made from Higgins Avenue with the primary access routes being from the eastbound Kennedy Expressway via eastbound Higgins Avenue, and north and southbound Harlem Avenue. This discussion will assume that the garage has a capacity of 680 cars, and a Kiss-n-Ride capacity of 52 cars. (Refer to Chapter IV, Figure IV- 3 for the Harlem Station Site Plan.) V-19 In each of the two morning hours during which the garage fills, about 62% of the traffic will access from eastbound Higgins Avenue, with 80% of that amount coming from the eastbound Kennedy Expressway. These traffic move¬ ments will not create any interference to vehicles exiting the expressway at Higgins Avenue. The relocated exit ramp, 700 feet long, will be located 400 feet west of the garage entrance. This 400 foot distance is more than sufficient to accommodate vehicle queues on Higgins Avenue at the garage entrance. The remaining garage traffic and the bulk of Kiss-n-Ride and bus traffic will originate north, south, and east of the facility. The auto traffic will pass through the Harlem Avenue-Higgins Avenue intersection, adding about 130 cars to the intersection 1 s approach volumes. Buses will enter the station complex from either Higgins road, adjacent to the Kiss-n-Ride entrance, or from Harlem at Gregory Street. The additional vehicular traffic generated by the Park-n-Ride, Kiss-n-Ride and bus routes will not result in a vehicle volume exceeding the intersection's capacity. Traffic exiting the Kiss-n-Ride drop-off area and buses entering the station area at Gregory Street will necessitate the placement of traffic signals at the HarlemAvenue-Gregory Street intersection. Although the addition of this signalization will require the use of a more complex signal series, the Harlem Avenue-Gregory Street and Harlem Avenue-Bryn Mawr intersections will both carry traffic volumes within their capacities. Traffic movements in the evening will be similar to morning traffic movements with some exceptions. About one-half of the existing vehicles will use a direct access bridge to move from the garage to the westbound expressway ramp, thereby avoiding the use of local streets for access to the expressway. Additionally, in the evening rush fewer vehicles will use the eastbound lanes of Higgins Avenue west of Harlem, and more traffic will travel westbound on Higgins and southbound on Harlem Avenue. Nonetheless, all signalized inter¬ sections will be operating below their capacity at a "D" level of service. A comparison of traffic with and without the garage and Kiss-n-Ride shows that the greatest traffic increase will occur on Higgins Avenue west of the garage. Harlem Avenue will carry substantial traffic with or without the project, but the placement of an additional traffic signal between Higgins and Bryn Mawr Avenues is required to accommodate the higher traffic volumes and help alleviate potentially increased congestion. Harlem Avenue north of Bryn Mawr, and Bryn Mawr Avenue, will be affected least by the addition of garage and Kiss-n-Ride oriented traffic. (See Figure V-4.) The elimination of the free flow ramp providing access to the eastbound Kennedy from southbound Harlem Avenue reduces the number of access points to the expressway. The construction of a signalized intersection at Harlem Avenue and Gregory Street, however, will provide access to the eastbound expressway lanes via Gregory Street with enough capacity to effectively mitigate the loss of the entrance ramp from southbound Harlem Avenue. V-20 Figure V-4 The addition of station oriented traffic will increase the approach volumes of nearby intersections, thus bringing these volumes closer to the inter¬ sections' capacities then they would be if the station and its ancillary facilities were not present. As a result, these intersections will be more susceptible to congestion caused by bad weather, holiday traffic, or other unusual conditions. The levels of service at the two existing intersections will be slightly improved over what they are at present due to improved signalization. Station oriented traffic is not expected to use residential streets for access. The layout of local residential street is not conducive to such use. Most areas adjacent to the Harlem Avenue station site are residential with a significant amount of street parking available within walking distance to the station. The provision of a Park-n-Ride at Harlem will substantially increase the number of parking spaces available adjacent to the station itself. Since the Park-n-Ride will be a more convenient location for rapid transit users, on-street parking pressure will be minimized. Significant on-street parking would occur only during periods of very heavy use when the oarkinq demand would exceed the garage capacity. On-street oarkinq could be substantially reduced throu a permit parking program, similar to other programs which have proven successful in other areas of too city. b. Cumberland Avenue Park-n-Ride The Cumberland Avenue Park-n-Ride, a two level, 850 car capacity garage, will lie in the southwest guadrant of the Cumberland Avenue-Kennedy Expressway cloverleaf interchange. In order to accommodate the garage, Kiss-n-Ride, and bus terminal facilities, alterations to the existing interchange ramp arrangement will be required. The existing ramp providing entrance to the eastbound Kennedy from southbound Cumberland will be eliminated. This move¬ ment will be accommodated by the reconstructed entrance ramp in the inter¬ change's southeast quadrant. The latter ramp and the exit ramp in the south¬ east quadrant of the interchange will be reconstructed to intersect with Cumberland Avenue and will combine to form a new signalized intersection. Entrance to the garage from the eastbound Kennedy will be handled by the re¬ constructed exit ramp which now provides access to northbound Cumberland from the eastbound expressway lanes. These changes are depicted schematically in Figure V-5. As was the case with the Harlem Avenue facility, one half of the Cumberland Park-n-Ride's spaces will be filled during each of two morning peak hours. The garage will likewise empty in two hours during the evening peak. One half of the garage's spaces will be filled by autos from the eastbound Kennedy Expressway. These vehicles will use the reconstructed exit ramp for access to the garage through the signalized intersection at the expressway ramp-Cumberland Avenue intersection. As a result, these vehicles will not use local streets for garage access. The remaining garage traffic will originate in local areas north, south, and east of the facility. Entrance to the garage will be made from Cumberland Avenue, at the same location used by expressway drivers. V-22 Kiss-n-Ricie traffic, 75 vehicles per hour, will also originate from the Kisfn R?HoV2 d S 2 S J’ 25 aut0S fr0m each direction - Entrance to both the for garage aicess ^ W1 '” b ® ™ de Wa the same road ^ d Vehicles exiting the Park and Kiss-n-Rides in the evening will use the same streets used for access in the morning, except for expressway drivers who will travel a short distance on northbound Cumberland to the westbound Kennedy Expressway entrance ramp. westDouna The greatest increases in local traffic attributable to station oriented travel will occur on Cumberland. One hunderd seventy autos will travel to th^ K rea TT b0th the n0rth and south durl ' n 9 a morning peak! and the same number will exit to the north and south during an eveninq peak and' - %l U Tl "'I 1 be , 9reat r the short stretch of northbSind Cumber¬ land a^ 215 autos travel to the westbound Kennedy entrance ramp. Intersections in the vicinity of the station will all operate below their interim**’ bu -ii a >5 WaS the case at Harlem Avenue, an additional signalized intersection will be required. This intersection, located where ga?aqe and throuah^rV^-if^ ^' h Cumberland Avenue, will slow traffic moving through it, but will not interrupt traffic flow on the expressway. Since exit ramp w 1?“™? tlT' ^ iS availab1e 1 ’ b ™ffic ^eues on the si nalizec exit ramp will not back up onto expressway lanes. Although the Bryn Mawr-Cumberland, Park-n-Ride-Cumberland, and Higgins- Cumberland intersections will all be operating within their traffic capacitie brine ?ntr^ f - Stat T 9e " 6rated traffic wil "’ as tba Harlem Avenue' area! Hn,,n 9 H ln ^ erSe k tl0nS i?l° ser t0 capacity, resulting in greater chance of break- be the U r^P ^ norma11 ^ heav y traffic or adverse weather conditions than would be the case if no park-n-ride were present. The planned roadway and siqnaliz uon improvements will, however, result in levels of service after project completion being generally the same as they are at present. Residential areas in the vicinity of the Cumberland Avenue station are not within easy walking distance. As a result, the presence of the Park-n-Ride s.expected to have little effect on on-street parking in these areas. A private Peking lotis located adjacent to the northwest quadrant of the h ^ be l an : Kenn , edy . inte - hange from which access t0 the station will be avail¬ able via the pedestrian bridge over the expressway. This lot serves a"" J ntereStS 1n ^ th u area north of the expressway, west of Cumberland of*thIc e i P r e K en f of . the Cumberland Avenue Park-n-Ride will minimize the use of this lot by transit patrons since it is located farther from the thai \ the ? arl <-n-Ride and access to it is much less direct. Without IrLlnt a \ eaSy a ? C ? SS Pdrking facl ' lit y» this commercial lot would , resent a very aUractive solution to transit patrons' parking problems. V-24 E H XPr6S ^ Way Change will This ramp now provides access from^nnthhn Ifr^t’ 3 ' 1 ? 6 s sout hwest quadrant. Kennedy/ The adverse e?fec? crewed bv ! ^^erland to the eastbound compensated for by the aforementioned reionst^ction oTthe P °* nt Wil1 be in the southeast quadrant. ^construction of the entrance ramp provide h the e same t access andeqress ariTn^^^H *; xpresswa y interchange will design with sufficient capacity for al tra?^> ed by the ex1stin 9 interchange garage oriented trafficmovements wi? be!l£ C movements - addition, all expressway ramps, avoiding the use of reliSInlia? ^reetfinlhl vanity!"' C. Rosemont Park-n-Ride s s s: skiiv' ■<"»«i.c„« interchange, between the expressway anrAh eS M Rl +!! r Road ~ Kenned y Expresswav require removing the two ramps which currentyr^ovidp 1 ? 1 1Way ’k Station work will westbound lanes of the exDres w^ Lh nil: Y P^vide access between the Road. In order to accommodate traffic 3neS ? f ^ Des Plaines River will be made to the ramps between fhp wpcthn^ ellminated ramps, modifications River Road, and a sigrtzel^rL^t^^wtlTbl^rla 5 ?^ ^ S ° Uthb0U " d o??g?^f^ y a^^[ dS t ^ .^tKtSW? 9 ^ total' n ~ Rlde "1" Trill fi parkingfacility Tnl ?"•"!" P°aines°River^Road west of the stationVeaInd^ill^teaT]? 1 ?^^ 1 '^ 1 ' 1 ° rigins Kennedy via northbound Des Plaines River Road Traffit^ 0 ^ ane ;i ° f the schematic representation of the TLfiEi ??c^io^ C p^ P ^ d a ? d a Figure Sn7L t added r t n o n Des an pia, r nel n RiSe e r k RSad Ur so appr ? x i™ tely 215 cars per hour Ri"ver S Road-Park-n-Ride E ^ he --/ p - hour" Sh^P^es a shopping development piann^^a^ef north’of thfs^t^ traffic from congesti'on^and a delay t at a this r intersecti , on° Pm Thls CO '?d e1 ^ ™ ®'f r ®duent r ^»i^s% si? r 7 - n, »Wfz StS’ss a p r ds may occur relate more clLr 5 tn thfn Ctl a nS , near the station site that traffic than to traffic generated by ?h r e OP pro P osed OP s P L n t 9 ion d co°mp f ]e C x. deVelOPment V-25 Rosemont Station Site Local Traffic The reconstruction of the Des Plaines River Road-Kennedy Expressway inter¬ change will result in the loss of two ramps in the interchanges northeast quadrant, one entrance ramp and one exit ramp. Although expressway access and egress facilities will be eliminated, the traffic movements presently provided for by these ramps will be transferred to ramps in the northwest quadrant. As a result, all interchange movements presently provided for will be available with the new interchange design. The capacity of the new design and its associated signalized intersection will be large enough to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The Rosemont station and Park-n-Ride are located in an area that is well removed from residential development. In addition, on-street parking is not available on nearby segments of Des Plaines River Road in the vicinity of the station. As a result, neither neighborhood disruption nor traffic congestion will occur from CTA patrons attempting to park in areas close to the Park-n-Ride. 4. CBD Traffic Vehicular traffic volumes in the CBD are not expected to change substantially due to the O'Hare Extension. The Extension will absorb much of the traffic increase expected in the Kennedy Corridor, both airport and commuter oriented, but will not result in an overall reduction in vehicular trips originating in or destined for the CBD. In 1985, the O'Hare Extension segment of the CTA rapid transit system will have the capacity to absorb a larger share of CBD trips over time. The O'Hare Extension with its associated Park-n-Ride structures would be an integral part of any future plan to reduce vehicle volumes in the CBD, as it will provide a viable alternative to the automobile, taxi, and airport bus for the trans¬ portation of people in and around the Kennedy Corridor from O'Hare Airport to the CBD. G. LAND USE The primary land use changes as a result of the project will occur within the median of the Kennedy expressway. The median will accommodate three transit stations, three passenger platforms, storage facilities, and the extension trackage. In addition, three park-n-ride facilities will be constructed wholely on expressway right-of-way adjacent to the Harlem Avenue, Cumberland Avenue, and Rosemont stations. The proposed rapidtransit extension will have no direct effect upon exist¬ ing uses of land within the project study area other than the affected ex¬ pressway right-of-way. The extension will, however, have the secondary effect of increasing the development potential of both vacant and under¬ utilized land located in close proximity to the proposed transit stations. Land use impacts near the Harlem Avenue station will be minimal due to the extent of existing development in the area. Greater development potential exists in areas surrounding the Cumberland Avenue and Rosemont stations where numerous large vacant sites currently exist. The rapid transit extension to O'Hare will, in addition, have indirect impacts on development potential within the CBD and throughout the study area as a result of the expanded economic and social opportunities afforded by the project. 1. Local Impact The Comprehensive Plan of Chicago suggests that areas in the outlying sections of the city close to transit and commuter stops, or to expressway access points, be developedgradually with housing of higher density than that of the surround¬ ing area. With a general adherance to this plan concept, existing and proposed development along the expressway would be highly serviced by the rapid transit extension. The area immediately surrounding the proposed Harlem Avenue station is currently developed with moderate density residential uses. Due to the extent of existing development in the area, increased residential development in the vicinity of the Harlem Avenue station is expected to be minimal. The area surrounding the proposed Cumberland Avenue station exhibits the greatest potential for new residential development. Several high density projects have been constructed near the interchange within the past 15 years. The largest development in the area is located south of the expressway and is comprised of rive 15 story buildings containing 1000 rental units. Adjacent to this complex are several smaller residential developments with lower densities. ihe largest parcel of vacant land in the area is a tract located south of the expressway and west of Cumberland Avenue. Although current plans for a large percentage of the area call for office and commercial development, several acres of land would still be available for further residential development. Fast and efficient transit service would be provided to the greatest number of V- 28 people with the continued construction of high density residential build¬ ings in the area surrounding the proposed Cumberland Avenue station. Major hotel concentrations are also located at Kennedy Expressway inter¬ changes at Cumberland Avenue and Rosemont. Direct transit access from the airport to stations at both interchanges will greatly enhance the hotel and convention market in the O'Hare area. The Hyatt Regency 0 Hare located southeast of the expressway-Des Plaines River Road interchange recently embarked on an expansion program which will, when completed, add 400 new rooms and 10,000 square feet of meeting space to the existing facility. The O'Hare International Trade and Exposition Center located directly south of the hotel is the largest convention facility in the country next to a major airport. The greatest potential for continued commercial and office development in the Kennedy corridor also exists at the Cumberland Avenue and Rosemont interchanges. Several developments are currently being planned for large parcels of vacant land which surround the Cumberland Avenue interchange. An eight story office building with an adjacent parking structure has been proposed for a site south of Higgins Avenue between the Marriott hotel and the O'Hare Plaza bank. The same developer is also considering the development of a lower rise office structure north of Higgins in suburban Park Ridge. Several developments have also been proposed for a site south¬ west of the interchange. Two major proposals for the site are the Shriner National Headquarters building and a commercial development. A multi-story enclosed shopping mall has been proposed for a 15% acre site north of the Kennedy Expressway/Des Plaines River Road interchange in suburban Rosemont. Located at the southeast corner of Des Plaines River Road and Higgins Avenue, the mall will eventually contain two major retail outlets and several smaller stores. Due to the location of the proposed project within the median of a high capacity urban expressway, contact with and effect upon recreational land uses will be minimal. The only significant recreational area through which the highway and rapid transit corridor passes is a section of the Cook County Forest Preserve. Portions of the Forest Preserve were granted as a perpetual easement for highway right-of-way in 1956 and 1958. These adjacent easements combine to vary in width from approximately 300 feet at East River Road and the Kennedy Expressway to approximately 1200 feet just west of the Des Plaines River. Within this area, which is approximately % mile in length, is the junction of the Northwest Tollway and the Kennedy Expressway. One of the most significant effects of the proposed extension in this area will be one of increased accessibility to the Forest Preserve facilities. The proposed station and park-n-ride at Des Plaines River Road in Rosemont is less than % mile from the Preserve and will provide significantly improved access to nearby facilities for public transportation users. V-29 2. Regional Impact As air traffic increases at O'Hare, developers will continue to capitalize on the commercial power of the world's busiest airport which has stimulated the growth of retail trade, industry, hotel and convention facilities, office space, and residential developments in northwest Chicago and surrounding suburbs. Increased accessibility to the O'Hare area via public transportation will attract persons from other areas of the city, thereby adding to the area's economic activity. The proposed rapid transit extension will strengthen the position of Chicago's Central Area as the heart of the region. Direct access to O'Hare Airport via the Kennedy rapid transit line will have positive impacts on existing land uses and development potential with the Central Area and will further strengthen the Central Area's position as the transportation hub of the region. Existing hotel and convention facilities within the Central Area will also benefit from more direct accessibility to the airport. H. AIR QUALITY Air quality impacts associated with the proposed O'Hare CTA Extension may be grouped into two major categories: regional or macro-scale effects and local or micro-scale effects. In the former case, primary concern centers around uhe relationship of the proposal to air quality control plans for the Chicago area, while micro-scale analyses concentrate upon effects within the areas immediately adjacent to the project. Each is considered in detail below. 1. Regional Air Quality Effects The regional air quality effects of a proposed transportation improvement may be interpreted in terms of the relationship of the proposed action to the area's air quality control plans and policies. The Chicago area has been designated an Air Quality Control Region by the US EPA, and as such, is subject to a ransportatTon Control Plan (TCP) which is intended to assure attainment and maintenance of the primary national ambient air quality standards. Three specific air quality control strategies are defined in the TCP: - prohibition of parking on one side of selected arterial streets in the Chicago CBD, - implementation of a Cook County vehicle emission testing program, - installation of a computerized traffic signal control system in the Chicaqo CBD. V-30 These strategies are required in addition to the existing controls provided under the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and the City of Chicago Vehi¬ cle Emission Testing Program. Extension of transit service to O'Hare Airport and implementation of a Park- n-Ride program for transit users constitutes a transportation control measure designed to modify commuters' mode choice decisions. Park-n-ride strategies were specifically considered by US EPA for incorporation into the TCP, although such action was not formally taken. The US EPA study, "Evaluation of Trans¬ portation Control Strategies for Chicago" (June 1974) indicated that park-n- rides constitute one of the more effective candidate strategies for reducing carbon monoxide emissions in the downtown Chicago Transportation Control Area (TCA). Based on the study's findings, the 2600-car capacity of the proposed facilities, alone, could result in a 1.5% decrease in TCA auto related emis¬ sions. Diversion of drivers to bus and kiss-n-ride access to the stations would only increase the beneficial effects, as would the diversion of airport passengers, employees, and visitors to transit usage. 2. Local Air Quality Considerations Among the major air quality concerns in the local areas surrounding the project are effects due to Park-n-Ride activities, feeder bus routes,and other changes in traffic volumes and/or patterns. Since these effects are mostly concentrated and predictable in the vicin.ity of the proposed stations, an air quality analysis of each of the station locations was carried out. The methodologies used in the analyses were drawn from the FHWA Air Quality Manual (April 1972), the Illinois Department of Transportation Air Quality Manual (Revised December 1976), the US EPA Mobile Source Emission Factors Interim Document (June 1977), and the US HEW Workbook of Atmospheric Dis¬ persion Estimates by D. Bruce Turner (Revised 1970). Application of the procedures and data contained in these documents permitted the calculation of non-reactive air pollutant emissions (carbon monoxide) from motor vehicles traveling on roadways near the proposed Park-n-Ride facilities. Air quality at selected sites was then calculated based upon dispersion of the pollutants downwind in accordance with Gaussian diffusion equations. Carbon monoxide was selected as the pollutant best suited to study since it is a primary pollutant from motor vehicles; is. relatively non-reactive; produces signi¬ ficant adverse health effects in exposed individuals; and is subject to stringent US EPA regulations. The other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate materials are far less amenable to mathematical forecasting techniques. Completion of the air quality analyses required that case study conditions be established for analysis time frame, traffic conditions, meteorology, and receptor sites. In this study, "worst case" conditions for each of these areas were selected in order to provide both a conservative result and to permit comparison of analysis results with the US EPA ambient air quality standards. V-31 Three specific years were selected for analysis - 1977, 1981 and 1985. Conditions in the year 1977 were considered to represent the existinq* situation and provide a baseline against which future actions may be com- pared. The year 1981 represents the earliest date on which the system cou d be operational, while 1985 represents a design year by which time full operational status should be achieved. In each of the analysis years the worst case time frame used was an 8 hour interval. This period was selected to correspond to the most stringent US EPA air quality standard for carbon monoxide, i.e. 9 parts per million averaged over 8 hours. It is this standard which has often been violated in the Chicago Air Quality Control Region. A total of 63 such violations occurred in 1977. I rc conc ^'^ ons f° r a worst case are based upon an hourly average of the tu^ ^“* 10ur t°tal traffic volume which includes the PM peak period The PM peak was used since the greatest potential for pollution at the sites fol S ! S 'f^ en vehlc1es . are starting up and leaving the Park-n-Ride. Speeds for traffic were assigned on the basis of a weighted averaqe over thp 8 hour period. Included in traffic considerations wire volume and paUern changes due to park-n-ride and kiss-n-ride activities and “oJlslK™ servlce '. under both the build and no-build conditions are used for comparison of relative impacts. per ^orst case meteorology includes factors such as wind speed, atmospheric stabi1ity,and wind direction. For this study, a wind speed of 1 meter second (about 2 MPH) was used since it is the lowest speed which can be considered by the available pollution prediction techniques. A stable urban atmospheric condition. Class D, was utilized in accordance with directives from the Illinois Department of Transportation. Wind direction was manipulated so as to result in the greatest pollutant concentration at a selected receptor site. Receptor sites selected for analysis represent the closest locations to the proposed station areas where non-employment-related human activity could reasonably be expected to occur during the 8-hour peak traffic period. Such sites could include private residences, hotels, hospitals, schools, recrea¬ tional facilities, etc. The receptor sites selected for study include: Harlem Avenue Station Cumberland Avenue Station Rosemont Station A multi-story apartment building on Higgins Avenue directly south of the proposed Park-n-Ride structure. A hotel located on Cumberland Avenue at its intersection with Bryn Mawr Avenue and lying adjacent to the south¬ east quadrant of the Cumberland-Kennedy interchange. A hotel located on Des Plaines River Road adjacent to the southeast quadrant of the River Road-Kennedy interchange. V- 32 In :*L U l tS -°V he i 0Cal air quality analysis are presented in Table V-6 In all cases, implementation of the proposed project will result in some deteri oration of the air quality in the immediate vicinity of the palk-n-Hde Itlt In ieS c ? mpared t0 _ the no-build case. Both the Cumberland and Rosemont station complexes are clearly able to meet the US EPA ambient air quality ride fa'clmf I 6 ° P Ti n 198 I: In the case of Harlem Avenue par^-n- t ® faC j 1^’ a y c l ua,lt y predictions indicate the potential for CO levels to exceed the ambient air quality levels in 1981. However,meteorologies analyses indicate that ambient conditions for such episodes are unlikelv to m Bv e !985 n °Z e P6r year ' ThS US EPA standards P permU one such excu^- hl° t.u- • ^ maxl mum expected CO level at the Harlem Avenue site will be w th,n air quality standards. Also, the projected 1981 level is below the level calculated for 1977 conditions. L h ^,- ar V 0 ^ s P ecial a1r quality issues which need to be addressed in addition to the local effects considered above. Use of the Kennedy Express- of y hnth lan t° r . the Proposed rapid transit route will result in ^exposure expresswav P ira?f?r S F USer$ a " d CTA emplo * ees to air pollution generated by peak hours of travel °r passen 9 er ^’ the greatest exposure will occur during „ “ rs .° travel. Employees will be exposed throughout their daily duty periods. Appropriate air quality analysis time periods have, therefore Finallf thl HaH 8 hours , f ° r Passengers and employees respectively.’ inally, the Harlem Avenue and Cumberland Avenue park-n-rides are multi-deck structures for which internal levels of vehicularemissiSns are of concern regarding motorists using the facilities. Estimated air quality levels for the station platform areas and the park-n-ride interiors are given below: CTA Station Platform Harlem Park-n-Ride Interior (1-hour) Cumberland Park-n-Ride Interior CO LEVELS IN PPM 1981 1985 (1-hour) 25 16 (8-hour) 10 6 (1-hour) 12 10 (1-hour 31 28 priate US EPA and OSHA criteria Z v,u,aui “ r,b f, re expected to result from implementation of the proposed de^inn^rTr Nonethe l ess > investigation will be undertaken during final ?s required mechanical ventilation in the park-n-ride faci’lity V-33 TABLE V-6 V-34 INCLUDES GARAGE CONTRIBUTION. US EPA NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE (Not to be Exceeded More Than Once Per Year) PRIMARY STANDARD 10 mg/m 3 _(£jhr.) 9ppm 40 mg/m 3 (1 hr.) 35ppm mg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter ppm = parts per mill ion SECONDARY STANDARD 10 mg/m 3 (8 hr.) 9ppm 40 mg/m 3 (1 hr.) 35ppm OS HA PERMISSIBLE LEVEL FOR CARBON MONOXIDE 50 ppm (8hr.) 3. Health Effects rn P fu^ enta1 exposure of healthy adults to low levels (1 ppm - 25 oom) of CO evokes an increased blood flow to certain vital organs P (heart Tunas brain) to compensate forthe reduced oxygen carrying capacity of’the blnnd heart^i 1 ^^ 0 ^ mechan ! sm ma ^ be hindered in patients ill with severe heart disease, however, it is unlikely that persons with heart dispasp nf d?cItld eV ?n ri ^e W ?a U ^e be SuMeCted t0 lon * P ^ods ° f ?„ f . V-35 I. NOISE 1. Impact on Rapid Transit Users a. Intermediate Station Noise In order to estimate the noise impact on Kennedy Extension patrons, noise at the proposed intermediate stations was compared with existing noise levels at stations on the Milwaukee line. An assessment of CTA rapid transit noise was conducted in 1975 under an UMTA grant in which the noise at a number of station platform sites was measured.* Included in this study was the Irving Park station on the Milwaukee line which is representative of the three intermediate stations on the Extension. These stations share the characteristics of being located in the Kennedy Expressway median, having welded rail, and having platform between tracks. The situations measured in the Noise Assessment are shown in Table V-7. The noise levels recorded are for two car trains of both the 2000 series and the 6000 series transit cars. Although two car trains operate only at night and on weekends on this line, the Assessment indicates that train length is an important noise consideration only for trains in tunnel. Thus, this data can be considered representative of the noise to which transit users will be exposed for all train lengths on non-tunnel segments of the Wr?"sion. The transit noise goals of the American Public Transit Association (APTA) are shown on the Table for comparative purposes. TABLE V-7 NOISE AT IRVING PARK CTA STATION ** TRAIN CONDITION AVERAGE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM APTA GOALS dB(A) dB (A) dB(A) Entering 80 80 75-80 Door Opening - - None Stationary 76 76 68 Door Close - - None Departing 82 82 75-80 Pass Through 89 92 N/A Station Ambient 81 81 None *Bachus, R., R. Priemer, and M. Silver. Noise Assessment of ■ Transit Authority Rail Rapid Transit System. UMTA - II - 11 - 1975 0007-2. **The Irving Park Station platform centerline is 11 feet-7 inches from the transit track centerline and 31 feet-7 inches from the centerline of the nearest expressway lane. V-36 As can be seen, existing train operations meet or exceed the APTA goals except for the stationary train condition. It should be noted that this measurement category is meant to reflect the noise created by the operation of the transit cars' auxiliary equipment. At the Irving Park station location, this measure¬ ment actually indicates noise from Kennedy Expressway traffic, as shielded by the transit cars, which masks the noise of the auxiliary equipment. Expressway noise affects overall noise levels at platform locations. During peak hours when the O'Hare Extension intermediate stations are most heavily used, expressway traffic will generate considerable noise. The proximity of * station platforms to expressway roadways allows little dissipation of traffic generated noise which, in turn, results in noise from passing trucks generating noise levels often in excess of noise generated by train operations. The platform noise at the Harlem, Cumberland, and Rosemont intermediate stations on the Extension will be very similar to that indicated in the Table above with three exceptions. First, if any station on the Extension is designated an A/B" stop, all trains will serve the station and no pass through noise will occur. Similarly, during night and weekend operations, 5 ra iu S 5 ? erve stops on the line, thus eliminating pass through noise. Third, the Assessment measurement of station ambient noise is for off-peak hours. A separate study of Kennedy Expressway traffic along the Milwaukee Transit line shows that this measurement varies rather markedly depending on Expressway traffic conditions. The L 5 Q, or noise level exceeded 50% of the time, was 82dB(A) at 3:00 p.m. and 78dB(A) at 5:00 p.m.; and the Lin, or noise level exceeded 10% of the time, was 86 dB(A) and 81dB(A) at these respective times. During periods of light traffic, expressway noise can be up to 10dB(A) lower. b. Airport Station Noise The Noise Assessment study also gives data from the Belmont station on the Milwaukee line, which is similar to the Extension's airport terminal station in design. Both of these stations are in-tunnel, have bi-level station configura¬ tions, welded rail track, and between track platforms. Table V -8 gives Belmont Station data. TABLE V -8 NOISE AT BELMONT CTA STATION TRAIN CONDITION AVERAGE MAXIMUM* dB(A) MAXIMUM** dB (A) APTA GOAL dB(A) Entering 82 86 80-85 Door Opening 71 75 None Stationary 62 66 68 Door Closing 68 72 None Departing 79 84 80-85 Station Ambient 53 58 55 The Belmont Station platform centerline is 13 feet-7 inches from the transit track centerline ** 2 -car trains, 2200 series and 6000 series cars V-37 The table indicates that current CTA operations at the Belmont station meet or exceed the APTA goals for the train conditions listed. In this case, Pass-Through noise is not included because the airport terminal station will be a stub end station where tracks dead end and trains reverse direction for the trip from the airport. Noise levels at the airport station are expected to be similar to those at the Belmont station when two car trains are operating. At other times, as was indicated earlier, noise in s.ubway stations increases with train length. To supplement the Noise Assessment measurements of 2-car train noise, the City of Chicago, Department of Public Works (DPW*) undertook a smaller scale train noise study. The noise resulting from the arrival and departure of eleven six-car trains was measured. The results for cars of both the 2000 and 6000 series cars at the Belmont: Station are as follows: TRAIN CONDITION AVERAGE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM APTA GOAL dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) Entering 90 92 80-85 Departing 86 87 80-85 (The centerline of the Belmont Station platform is 13 feet-7 inches from the track centerline.) The noise resulting from operation of 6-car trains presently exceeds the APTA goal for noise in subway stations. Three measures are being implemented to control noise at the O'Hare terminal subway station. A. Resilient track fastening will be employed to reduce structure- borne vibration due to wheel-rail interactions. B. A permanent speed restriction of 25 MPH will be enforced in the station and tunnel as a safety and noise control measure. High subway noise levels are associated with high speed train operation. Operation at speeds below 25 MPH will result in drastically lower noise levels. C. A noise control consultant, Wilson-Ihrig and Asso., is being retained to develop specifications for sound absorbing materials usage in the station proper. c. In-Car Noise Passengers will also be exposed to noise during rapid transit trips. In order to quantify this effect, primary data from the Noise Assessment were used. As part of the Assessment, in-car noise levels generated on a trip from the CBD, Jackson Boulevard Station, to the Jefferson Park terminal of the Milwaukee Transit Line were recorded and analyzed. From this data, the durations of exposure to various noise levels were calulated. Noise exoosure projections for the O'Hare Extension were derived from observed noise levels on comparable segments of the existing line by a ratio method. The projected exposure dura¬ tions for the new transit segment were then combined with those observed on the Milwaukee Line of the West-Northwest route to yield a noise profile for a rapid transit trip between the CBD and O'Hare Airport. The results are summarized in'Table V-9. V-38 TABLE V-9 IN-CAR TRANSIT NOISE NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A) DURATION OF EXPOSURE CBD-JEFFERSON PARK PROJECTED DURATION OF EXPOSURE CBD-O'HARE AIRPORT 80+ 8 rain. 37 sec. 14 rain. 36 sec. 85+ 3 rain. 44 sec. 5 min. 06 sec. 90+ 1 rain. 01 sec. 1 rain. 12 sec. 95+ 0 rain. 00 sec. 0 min. 00 sec. 2. Impact on Rapid Transit Employees Motormen and conductors operating trains on the entire West-Northwest Rapid Transit Route, of which the O'Hare Extension will be a part, will be subjected to longer durations of noise exposure than will passengers. These personnel make a maximum of eight trips over the length of the West-Northwest route per day. To quantify this effect, data from the Noise Assessment were again used. In- car noise measurements made over the entire route were used to calculate existing daily noise exposure durations. Projections of in-car noise generated on the O'Hare Extension were derived in the same manner as described earlier in this discussion. The existing and projected noise exposure durations are compared to standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor, and presented below, in Table V-10. TABLE V-10 NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A) EMPLOYEE MAXIMUM EXISTING EXPOSURE TIME IN HOURS PER DAY NOISE EXPOSURE MAXIMUM PROJECTED EXPOSURE TIME IN HOURS PER DAY OSHA NOISE EXPOSURES* STANDARDS IN HOURS PER 1 80+ 2.40 3.20 85+ 1.20 1.40 90+ 0.40 0.43 8 92+ 0.27 0.29 6 95+ 0.00 0.00 4 *Under Part 1910.95 "Occupational Noise Exposure," (Department of Labor) of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chao. XVII of Title 29 (39 F.R. 7006). Ref: Federal Register, Vol. 36 No. 105, May 29, 1971. V-39 3. Impact on Areas Adjacent to the Expressway/Transit Corridor a. Wayside Community Noise To provide a basis for evaluating the noise impact of the O'Hare Extension, the expected wayside noise levels have been determined. The information used to estimate the expected noise levels includes noise data obtained at the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Test Track and noise data obtained from measurements of CTA rapid transit operation in the Kennedy Expressway median. The follow¬ ing Figure shows the expected maximum pass-by noise levels from operation of a two-car train at average operating speed, 35 MPH. Noise generated by transit operation will be compared to the appropriate APTA goals. These goals apply to nighttime operation because the sensitivity to noise is greater at night than during the daytime hours. As has been stated before, the CTA operates 2-car trains during the night on this line. (It should be noted that the 2-car noise levels will approximate noise levels from longer cars as well. In the previously cited Noise Assessment conducted by the University of Illinois, train length was not found to be a significant variable in transit car noise generation as long as speed remained constant and trains were not operating in tunnel.) The APTA goals appear in Table V—11. TABLE V-ll APTA GOALS FOR MAXIMUM AIRBORNE NOISE FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS SINGLE EVENT MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL DESIGN GOAL COMMUNITY AREA CATEGORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTI¬ FAMILY DWELLINGS COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS I Low Density Residential 70 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 80 dB(A) II Average Residential 75 75 80 III High Density Residential 75 80 85 IV Commercial 80 80 85 V Industrial/Highway 80 85 85 Land use and ambient noise level information indicate that APTA Land Use Categories II and V are appropriate for this study. The area under the Category V includes an 800 foot wide corridor with the transit tracks as V-40 S6 its center line. The area under Category II is that part of a 2000 foot wide corridor, again with the transit tracks as the centerline, not included in Category V. In the following table the relationship between CTA transit car noise and appropriate APTA Maximum Airborne Noise Goals are shown. TABLE V-12 MAXIMUM AIRBORNE NOISE FROM TRAIN OPERATIONS Transit car'"Noise APTA CRITERIA AT GRADE PROFILE DEPRESSED PROFILE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MULTI FAMILY DWELLING COMMERCIAL Land Use Category II Average Residential at 400' from transit tracks 75 dB(A) 72 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 75 dB(A) 80 dB(A) Land Use Category V* Industrial/Highway at 150' from transit tracks 84dB(A) 81 dB(A) 80 dB(A) 85 dB(A) 85 dB(A) As is evident, the APTA goals are not exceeded in Land Use Category II, Average Residential. In Land Use Category V, Industrial/Highway, the single family dwelling goals are exceeded for both transit line profiles. Since no single family dwellings are located near at-grade segments of the transit line, no such dwellings will lie within the 84 dB(A) impact zone. The APTA single family dwelling goal is expected to be exceeded by 1 dB(A) in developed areas closest to the transit line, which are at least 150 feet from the transit tracks. Noise from transit operation is expected to be generally lower in the vicinity of rapid transit stations than that for other wayside areas due to lower operating speed. As was the case with noise on intermediate station platforms, expressway noise will have a significant effect on the perception of transit noise in the wayside community. During peak hours, expressway noise will mask much of the noise generated by train operations. During off-peak hours, expressway traffic will be lower, but train operations will generate noise no greater than that generated by large trucks passing on the expressway. *APTA definitions allow residential and commercial land uses within the Industrial/Highway Land Use Category. V-42 b. Park-n-Ride and Yard Related Noise Use of Park-n-ride facilities will produce increased traffic noise during the morning and evening peak traffic hours in areas proximate to the three inter¬ mediate stations. This impact will not be significant at either the Cumberland or Rosemont stations, since park-n-ride structures at these stations are located well away, 600 and 1000 feet respectively, from residences, hotels, parks or other areas where noise sensitive activities take place. At Harlem Avenue, the noise impact from park-n-ride use will be noticeable, but will occur at times of the day when other transportation related noise levels will be at a maximum and will impact areas which are presently exposed to high levels of traffic noise from the Kennedy Expressway. Operations at the Rosemont Yard will add to noise levels in the area. This effect will be comparable to the effect created by train operations in station areas. The effect is not expected to create a significant impact due to the yard's distance from noise sensitive sites. c. Feeder Bus Noise Noise increases will occur along streets which will be served by feeder buses that are not so served at present. The streets along which bus service will be provided will all be major thoroughfares, Primary or Secondary Arterial Highways. Arterials presently designated as bus routes may experience an increase in bus traffic, and some streets not so designated will be. In either case, given the volumes of traffic normally using Primary and Secondary Arterials, the increased bus traffic is not expected to have a serious noise impact. The following exhibit, Figure V-8, shows the changes in total daily bus movement on arterials in the feeder bus service area. The noise impact of bus operation will decrease over time. The City of Chicago has a noise ordinance that controls the sale of new vehicles. The heavy vehicle category applying to buses allows 84 dB(A) as of January, 1975, with a reduction to 75 dB(A) by January, 1980. 4. Health Effects Daytime transit noise levels will have little or no impact on residential receptors. The transit tracks are located within the median of a high volume expressway and within a relatively high aircraft noise zone. Other daytime transportation noises are expected to essentially mask the transit noise. Transit noise is more likely to be problematic in the late evening hours, during times of quiet recreational or sleep periods. The APTA goals are specified for nighttime operations due to sensitivity to transportation noise during nighttime hours. Given the transient nature of train noise and the short duration of noise exposure, no negative health impacts are expected, although transit noise could be at times intrusive in areas closest to the transit line. V-43 Mt. Prospect Daily Bus Movements JEFFERSON PARK J. ENERGY CONSUMPTION Efficient use of scarce energy resources is a prime concern in contemporary transportation planning. Over 25% of all energy consumption in the U.S. is related to transportation activities, with the automobile accounting for over one-half of transportation energy use and 55% of the total demand for scarce petroleum based fuels. As is demonstrated below, the implementation of the proposed Kennedy Rapid Transit Extension will result in a reduction in both total trip-related energy consumption and total trip-related con¬ sumption of petroleum based fuels in the Kennedy Expressway corridor. The energy intensiveness of a transportation mode may be described in terms of the passenger-miles traveled for a given expenditure of energy as expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU). Three major modes are identifiable in the project corridor: auto, bus, and rapid transit. For the purpose of this analysis, a 1985 passenger-mile/BTU ratio has been calculated for each mode based upon annual average performance within the corridor and projected average automobile fuel efficiency. AUTOMOBILE* 18 Vehicle-Miles x 42 Gal. Gasoline x 1.4 Passenger-Miles 1 Gal. Gasoline 5.9xl0 6 BTU (Crude 1 Vehicle-Mile Oil) = 179 Passenger-Miles/10 6 BTU BUS (O'HARE EXPRESS) ** 4.33 Vehicle-Miles x 38 Gal. Diesel Fuel x 16.8 Pass.-Miles 1 Gal. Diesel Fuel 5.9xl0 6 BTU (Crude 1 Vehicle-Mile Oil) =468 Passenger-Miles/10® BTU RAPID TRANSIT (CTA SYSTEM-WIDE AVG.) ** 1 Pass.-Mi. x 1 DC. KWH x 1 AC KWH x 1 BTU (elec) 0.234 DC KWH 1.1 AC KWH 3410 BTU 3 BTU (therm.) (elec.) = 380 Passenger-Miles/10 6 BTU *Derived from information provided by the American Public Transit Association and the Chicago Department of Public Works. **Derived from information provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Regional Transportation Authority and the Chicago Department of Public Works. V-45 Expressing energy use in BTU allows comparison of the energy use of the auto and bus modes, which rely on energy from petroleum products, with the rapid transit mode, which relies on electric power generated from coal burn¬ ing and/or nuclear energy. To evaluate energy consumption changes due to implementation of the proposed transit extension, a comparison was made of the modal split patterns for trip types affected. Five categories of trip-makers were considered: o Airline passengers Airport visitors Airport employees Park-n-Ride commuters Other conmuters. Total annual energy consumption for each group was determined on the basis of the number and length of trips by auto, bus and rapid transit modes summed over 250 weekdays/year. Adjustments were incorporated for the transfer of trips between mass transportation modes such as commuter railroad, bus and the proposed rapid transit. A conservative result was assured by alowing for dead¬ head moves, sharp curves, owl and weekend service, and short station spacing in the rapid transit energy efficiency ratios. Similarly, exclusion of energy savings due to decreased expressway traffic congestion is a conservative feature. The results of the analysis are as follows: TABLE V-l3 ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS BY TRIP GROUP TRIP GROUP 1985 ANNUAL PASSENGER MILES AFFECTED (MILLIONS) 1985 ANNUAL ENERGY USE (1010 BTU) BUILD NO-BUILD 1985 ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS (10 10 BTU) Airline Passengers 159.0 65.02 70.56 5.54 Airport Visitors 23.4 7.69 11.86 4.17 Airport Employees 48.7 12.81 24.11 11.30 Park-n-Ride Commuters 16.0 4.21 7.29 3.08 Other Commuters 8.6 2.27 4.82 2.55 TOTAL 255.7 92.00 118.64 26.64 V-46 Operation of the proposed rapid transit extension will require a total annual electrical energy commitment of 3.1 Oxl Cr kilowatt-hours, which is equivalent to 35x1010 BTU of thermal energy, considering losses during power generation and transmission. Expenditure of this non-critical resource based energy results in saving 61.64x101° BTU of petroleum based energy annually. This is equivalent to the conservation of 104,500 barrels of crude oil each year. It should be noted that the power needs of the O'Hare Extension can be satis¬ fied without the construction of new electric power plants or the expansion of existing power plants. In addition to the operational aspects of the project, energy will be required for system maintenance. Although no data is available to quantify the level of expenditure for this activity, it is not expected to constitute a significant impact upon regional energy consumption. In any case, maintenance is essential for the upkeep of the proposed transit extension, which in turn, is required tosatisfy existing and future needs for the movement of people in the Kennedy Corridor. No alteration in the energy efficiency of O'Hare Airport itself, can be foreseen in connection with this project. Airline operations are expected to achieve the 30 million emplanement leyel in any case and overall airport- oriented ground travel will increase accordingly. The presence of the rapid transit line may, however, affect the pattern of urban development so that additional residential and business activities locate along the rapid transit corridor and around the airport complex. The economic and social benefits of such development will be accrued at the expense of the energy required to construct and support it. K. SOCIAL EFFECTS The Kennedy extension will have a number of social impacts, the most signifi¬ cant being accessibility of jobs, services, and institutions; safety and security; and the effects on the transit dependent and disadvantaged. 1. Accessibility to Jobs, Services, and Institutions The proposed rapid transit extension will provide greater accessibility to job opportunities. Not only will the three intermediate stations provide needed accessibility between the O'Hare, Chicago Neighborhood, and Chicago Central subareas, but greatly improved access to jobs within the far northwest portion of the study area will be available from all sections of the metropolitan area. Numerous and varied public and private human service facilities are located throughout the study area. The impact of the extension on accessibility to human services in the three subareas will be greatest on those residents in the area immediately east of the airport where, because of its recent development, such facilities are either few or nonexistent. V-47 The proposed extension will promote increased patronage of the numberous educational and cultural facilities located in the Central Subarea. Educa¬ tional institutions include Roosevelt University, the Loop YMCA College, and Loop branches of Loyola University, Depaul University, and the University of Chicago. There are also seyeral technical schools and teachers colleges in the Central Subarea. The University of Illinois at Chicago Circle and a larqe medical complex comprising five major hospitals, three schools of medicine, nursing, and allied health sciences lie in the southwest portion of the Central Subarea. The Field Museum of Natural History, the Adler Planetarium and Astro¬ nomical Museum, the John C. Sheed Aquarium and the main branch of the Chicago Public Library also serve as educational facilities. The cultural interests of Chicago area residents are served by the Civic Opera House, Orchestra Hall, and Auditorium Theatre. The Art Institute of Chicago and the Museum of Contemporary Art offer lectures, classes, films, and exhibits of painting and sculpture from around the world. The Goodman, Blackstone, Shubert, Civic, and First Chicago Center Theaters present a variety of first-run plays and popular returning productions. Extended public transit will provide easier access to these cultural facilities from the O'Hare Subarea and the Northwest Section of the Chicago Neighborhoods Subarea. Use of the O'Hare Extension and its associated bus lines will provide improved access to the Cook County Forest Preserves in the northwest portion of the study area. 2. Safety and Security Operational safety has been increased within the CTA rapid transit network by the installation of a fail-safe overspeed and train control system insuring safe train speed and separation of trains. Safety and security in intermediate stations and at O'Hare Airport is expected to be very high and significantly greater than the CTA rapid transit systemwide average. A recent transit security study conducted for the CTA compiled crime/ ridership indices* at CTA rapid transit stations as a measure of in-station safety and security. The crime/ridership index for stations on the newly con¬ structed rapid transit segment which will lie adjacent to the O'Hare Extension, that is from Logan Square to Jefferson Park on the Milwaukee Line, is 0.5 crimes per 1,000,000 entering passengers. This compares with the CTA systemwide average of 7.2 crimes per 1,000,000 entries. The transit security study also indicated that transit crime rates are usually related to local non-transit crime rates. *The crime-ridership index measured robbery, battery, assault, and crimes against persons which include murder, manslaughter, rape, and indecent exposure. V-48 ofTh/rra D T ension wil1 be a continuation of a yery low crime seqment of the CTA transit system and that the Extension will pass be u hVZ jJsrs.’t'ScS.wijfcS! rs.'ss.s ^ fe M^i dnd . secun ' t y in the Dearborn Street subway, the downtown seampnt nf the Milwaukee Line, is presently high. The Dearbornltree? subway as w?th other subway stations within the Central Area, is heavily patroled’by nolice during both rush hour and non-rush hour periods; and is as safe or safer than H e 6 T^nce^inT* 1 ^ ' j" cludi "9 ^hose located^ Chicaao Mq 7 R? rRn d l V h report " Improvement of Mass Transit Security in the entire raiid ^ansit’s^stem. ” lWee line among the safest within The design of the proposed station complexes will provide transit users with *iaht^a r a ndTho tl0n -° T safety and security through the use of sufficient lighting and the minimum use of center columns on all station olatfnrm^ Police emergency telephones will be installed on all nlw staSion platforms. Current security practices throughout the CTA transit network include frenuent ffirer V" °" °V? hl ' Cl * by Chicago Police Department district 5^? ' Division Ch wp! 9 ° th hI® ° e P artm< r" t,s Maa s Transit Unit, and CTA Security Jivision. New methods of transit security are currently being studied. The proposed improvements are expected to have no adverse effect on access to Resurrection Hospital from O'Hare Airport via the eastbound expressway lanes. The designated exit from the Kennedy Expressway, and hence from O'Hare, to Resurrection Hospital is at Harlem Avenue. Exiting from the westbound expressway lanes, access to Harlem Avenue is made via Bryn Mawr Avenue, which will incur no change in peak hour traffic volumes due to the proposed park-n- ride at Harlem Avenue. Exiting from the eastbound lanes, the route from O'Hare Airport, ambulance and emergency vehicle traffic would access Harlem Avenue via Higgins Avenue. The exit movement from the eastbound expressway lanes to Higgins will be significantly improved by the proposed exit ramp modification. This modification will allow free flow movement off the expressway, avoiding the present stop-sign controlled, three way, expressway exit ramp - Higgins Avenue intersection. Movement through the Harlem-Higgins intersection will be somewhat improved after project completion due to addition of turn bays, channelization, and improved signalization. 3. Social Cohesiveness Because t the Kennedy Extension will be located in the expressway median, exist¬ ing social patterns within the study area will not be disrupted. Although park- n-ride facilities in the Harlem Avenue, Cumberland Avenue, and Rosemont stations will have an influence on the immediate neighborhoods during peak hours, they will not change in any way the existing social patterns which developed as a result of the barrier previously created by the Kennedy Expressway. V-49 4. Relocation and Displacement Construction of the transit line within the median of the Kennedy Expressway will necessitate no residential or business displacement or relocation. The proposed extension will allow the communities located in the project area to retain their moderate-density character and wide housing mix and will promote high-density development at available locations near the mass transit corridor. 5. Transit Dependent and Disadvantaged The transit dependent include not only those who do not have the physical abilities to operate an automobile but also those who cannot afford or choose not to have one. The proposed extension will provide increased accessibility to employment and human service organizations in all the sub- areas and in other areas served by the CTA rapid transit system. The proposed rapid transit extension to O'Hare will be planned and designed to accommodate the needs of the handicapped and elderly. Walkways will be provided which can connect to elevators for access by the handicapped. Escala¬ tor service will be provided at all stations to reduce stair climbing to a minimum. Although no other CTA stations are presently equipped to accomo¬ date the needs of the handicapped and elderly studies are being conducted to determine what improvements can be made at existing stations to better serve their needs. L. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 1. Capital and Operating Costs The capital cost of the O'Hare Extension will total approximately $136 million (1978 prices), including engineering and contingency costs. A breakdown of the major construction item costs is as follows: Track $ 12,897,914 Bridges 4,820,580 Track bed preparation 7,877,904 Tunnels 32,196,469 Train control & communications 9,790,255 Electrification 3,988,600 Harlem station & park-n-ride 11 ;277i051 Cumberland station & park-n-ride 10,582,607 Rosemont station & park-n-ride 8,312,642 Rosemont yard 4,272,430 O'Hare station 3,779,870 Substations 5,954,223 $115,750,545 Engineering & contingencies 19,929,394 Construction Total $135,679,939 V-50 The impact of inflation will affect the costs of the O'Hare Extension. Under the assumption that material and labor cost increases average 6% per year, the cost of the extension in dollars inflated to 1980 (the assumed midyear of construction), would be approximately $152,450,000. The operation of the O'Hare Extension will create impacts on the operating cost, revenues, and operating deficits of both the CTA and suburban bus companies. These impacts are due to the extension of rapid transit service and the modification of bus routes to serve new rapid transit stations. The.changes in costs and revenues and the resulting changes in operating deficits are presented in Table V-14. TABLE V-14 Cost and Revenue Data (1977 dollars) Feeder Bus Operations Current Costs Revenues Operating Deficit $ 7,598,000 $ 3,562,000 $ 4,036,000 Projected 6,313,000 3,402,000 5 2,911,000 Net change - 1,285,000 - 160,000 - 1,125,000 Rail Operations Current (O'Hare Extension) $ 0 S 0 $ 0 Projected 9,080,000 4,840,000 4,240,000 Net change + 9,080,000 + 4,840,000 + 4,240,000 Total Current $ 7,598,000 $ 3,562,000 $ 4,036,000 Projected 15,393,000 8,242,000 7,151,000 Net change + 7,795,000 + 4,680,000 + 3,115,000 In 1977 the system wide public funding requirement, i.e. deficit, for CTA operations was $127.4 million. V-51 The transit cars required to operate the O'Hare Extension will be provided by the CTA. These cars will likely beamix of the older 6000 series cars and new cars presently being procured by the CTA. The method in which cars will be supplied for O'Hare Extension operation has as yet not been fixed One possible method is to use the new transit cars presently being procured non -P eak operating hours and supplementing them with re¬ habilitated 6000 series transit cars to fill the peak-hour operating needs of the line. In any case, the^transit cars required for operation of the O'Hare Extension will be supplied by the existing transit car stock of the CTA, as it exists at the time tne O'Hare Extension opens. 2. Employment The direct employment impacts associated with the O'Hare Extension project are attributable to construction work force requirements and additonal CTA personnel required to operate the West-Northwest Rapid Transit Line upon com¬ pletion of the Extension. As mentioned in the Construction section of this chapter, the number of construction employees involved in building the new section of line will be variable over the life of the project, with an estimated 1000 to 1200 fulltime positions created during peak construction. The economic impact of this pro¬ ject will be to add approximately $55 million to the region’s waqe base over the construction period. The gther direct employment impact of the Extension project will be lonq term, and involves the additional employees needed by the CTA for operation of the extended West-Northwest line. Current estimates are that an additional 88 people will be required for operation of the O'Hare Extension, includinq 13 motorman/conductor crews, 30 maintenance workers, is ticket agents, 9 switchmen am janitors. The annual wages paid to these workers will total approximately $1.83 million. Indirect employment benefits may also result from the Extension project, as a function of increased accessibility of jobs in the O'Hare and Central areas, where employment opportunities are among the best in the region. 3. Land Values Transit systems or extensions generally precipitate an increase in property in areas through which they pass because of the heightened access¬ ibility they afford. This is especially true of commercial and industrial property, while residential land values are more influenced by other factors. Count nH^Hpf/oi n the °' Har ® area are currently among the highest in Cook County, and development has been extensive in recent years. Studies of IndicateTthat T ^ Vicinit ? ° f the Jefferso " Park ™ teSnll have tn thot “ I ked lncrease ln Property values occurred, possibly due rot exner^eTL^^ 1 ^'! A l tho ^ h construction of the O'Hare Extension is ' 7 nnin^ P nfT d 1 f ! 1 and values significantly, it could prompt the re- zoning of some undeveloped residential areas particularly near station locations, which would increase the local tax base V-52 is e not e exiec?L fe ^ hi 018 ^ te !? si ° n on land values in the Kennedy corridor ca?!^ al^ivl freal ^the regi^ economi- S ?^M 8 sg A D “ B l ?» '« vaiues and general S^lges. 4- Fiscal Impacts on Carrie rs in%hf d Jf™ 1 '!i Ut r 0n 0f travelers expected from iraproyed public transit service -^“TS.'SSS' c °"‘ ,ao '' r * s '" t iS ,,sc ' ! xsx; xrtt.'^ss six™ Neither taxi companies nor Continental Air Transport, the private airport Exte s^n^’Bv T*? patr0nage as a result of the O'hZ Extension. By 1985, the total number of weekday person trips to the airnnrt will increase from the 1976 level of 172,500 to 248,900. H is proiecied that patronage on the O'Hare Extension will not equal the difference accesfw ll 6 hl nd 19 ? 5 P !u S ° n tn ’ PS ‘ As a result ’ the demand for highway access will be greater than at present. The share of the airport ground markSd captured by taxi and a i>Port bus is not expected that e ?r?dfig 9 rh er ? te - f< T , a - r P^sengers' trips to O'Hare Airport indicate o t f a thI 1 n r 1 ? 9 8 76 t StIon X I ge a : d r^^^l^(y COaCh m ° dSS Wil1 «"* a " d M. AESTHETIC IMPACTS Construction of the Extension will visually alter the Kennedy ExDresswav and the P aHHiH CeS % r0adWa h medians and ttle Proposed station complex sites with tne addition of a number of new structures. win 9 ^ 6 6 ? Pre ^ S u ay / nd ? irport acc ess road, what is currently a grass median in a i rep ] ace( ? by transit tracks and a concrete barrier wall. This will result " Pleasing view, especially when trains are passing; however the aesthetic changes within the medians are not inappropriate for their location. V-53 ihe intermediate stations will also constitute a visual change in the Express¬ way median. Designs for the stations indicate a low profile configuration that will not be overly intruding. The removal of greenery in the median will nonetheless, be a negative aesthetic impact. The fact that transit structures’ will be underground at the airport will result in no visual changes at this location. The proposed Park-n-Ride structure at the Harlem Avenue site will be more visually intrusive than the other two facilities due to its location adjacent to residential areas. The areas near the Cumberland Park-n-Ride are either vacant or primarily of a business/commercial nature, and the visual impact ?L a c? arkln9 s 5 ruc t’ u 'T e wi " 11 be ] e ss at this site. At Rosemont, the Park-n-Ride and storage and maintenance facilities will convert rather large areas of what is presently grass or roadway to transit related structures. The inmediate visual impact of these structures will not be great due to the undeveloped nature of surrounding areas. The ultimate visual and aesthetic impact of the Cumberland and Rosemont facilities will depend upon the kind of development undertaken near them. To mitigate the visual effects of the intermediate stations and parking facili¬ ties, low profile, modern designs and landscaping will be used. Aesthetic impacts will also occur in the Forest Preserve, but will be minimized y p; cing the transit tracks partially in tunnel and new bridae structurp^ hp- parti tween existing roadway bridges, and by confining already used for transportation purposes. tunnel and new bridge structures be- new structures to areas Figures VII - 9 through V - 16 are schematic representations of the visual changes that will result from the construction of the O'Hare rapid transit extension. N. AIRPORT PLANNING Although the Master Plan for O'Hare Airport is not yet complete, the extension of rapid transit to the airport is fully expected to be an element of the plan as finalized. airlin^traffwi 0 !]-!! 111 !^ Ve n ° effect . on the City's effort to divert some alLL • Midway Airport. Midway Airport is a potentially valuable to thl r region s transportation network; and efforts to revitalize the southwest side facility will continue regardless of increased access bilitv to ? ”* r t e ,? rovlded ^ the extension. The Civil Aeronautics Board recently q^ed “ oper,t * V-54 Kennedy Expressway Median View East from Harlem Avenue Figure V-9 ^TV f; 9 j '' fan ** 1 l -•/. 4-tl lJ / * -w a * 7 f W : * *i:\/ •■ r c« ■»I 'k'«J ; >tj. imwW (&?ft ■tfl&r ■ 4 * J * 4 >■•-■? '■» v 3 **- *f v. v >j ■' ' , v-^jr-v i'U : <• :&> i . £4 4 gS mmi : i I| 3%,a j..a 1 f * ” s * '“fe/l *.7J : j. : jp^ra 1 .. a 1 ! ,; "* f-A -apl *r yt I ■ -i' "-•' ;4'4m :s£ai 7< i * : ' a’ * Vi. ; .*»■>•- _ . T : ’ ^ *»:*%?, . L** rV. s \v $ 7*4 4 ft**w .£& - ■ : ,^4 * ¥-4 w : r >T| S: | i». , : iM ' J Vv at ' #r4 *V*! ' ' * -. 13 & i’ it* ? I fc '/ ... «L,* « ' V CtJ • :; J- ¥ > ... <>\ *■ <■•■••:« 4 * * t v \ ; - » i* : S I i ss? r ^ ■•- >0—■ •>-?*' . ,., J? S^W s ~ A ;f- »• ; f i '+t (A ' i W' 3 f? 1 sr 1 vV ^#V •o ) ’> ' :< i i « •;// */ ^?1 X ' 4 ; • t *r '* -• j i. f|4 * i ;! f i * ' ? 4 ^ v'fc. J * i •M" V I. » 4 |%-V: ® fViTki **' : ; %vl^ • * 'S ■ M in v-57 Hariem Avenue Station Site ^ * * 4 ■ { P* if* Mi . v 4 r-p ^t* CO j tj i|g||gi£j .■*••' IV. v. ’ * *$£• *. ■1 . ~%:^s 4 rf ' *1 /£ 3v ■ ' v.»idf-.ss ss , i; iWfc&SUP. -T , ** r * 1T>, ' Sf !„V * #1 ^ ■&** : *>* «-4 7 »1 * 7 *V •* r ”20P : ! P t, } ‘ Jr? «t,i .■» 4!{■; \ 'V'tPMl T-, * ‘4 * »• . \ ^ ,i . > t#i Ml ■,> *■" . % • «- t* 1 >-v . 4 ; . 1 ->, 1 y *» *.-• |\*o< ,V< 7 it r* rt V-58 Harlem Avenue Station Figure V-12 0. OVERALL IMPACT Us effects °'- Har ? E ^ e ? si0 ? ? a " de defitled ^ the combination of . ... ct l at both tbe re QTonal and local levels. The extension will have significant regional and local benefits, whereas the majority of the oroiect's negative impacts will be felt on the local level. Project s The primary regional benefit will be improved transportation in the Kennedy Expressway Corridor.. The addition of the rapid transit mode will increase the corridor s capacity without increased reliance on the motor vehicle. The fhf n pRn Wil1 1 iean faster ar ] d more reliable transportation between the CBO and the airport as well as increased capacity for commuter trios from the Northwest section of the city and its adjacent suburbs to the CBD Regional land use patterns will be reinforced by the extension O'Hare Airport will be provided withthe ground transportation suppori it needs to continue to operate effectively as the region's commercial air traffic center. The Central Area of Chicago will be strengthened as the most accessible place in the region and as the region's cultural, commercial and retail center. Additionally, the Central Area's role as the region's m *l° r and conv p n tion center will be reinforced with increased accessibility.from the airport. The region's economy will benefit from the ongoing.vitality of O'Hare Airport and the continuing strength of the Chicago region as the convention capital of the nation. switch a to a transit 1ty Wi11 56 improved by ai> P° rt users ' an d commuters' mode Regional energy consumption for transportation in 1985 will be lowered by the mot^ e vph?ri 1 p tra ?h it H eXtenSi0 - a 2 d the consec ! uent ^sser reliance on the motor vehicle. The decrease in transportation related energy use, how- ^ n e m r ' mus f be balap ced against the increase in energy consumption resulting from development induced or supported by the extension. y The region's transit dependent will find the Northwest section of Chicago and adjacent suburban townships much more accessible. Thus iobs service ' and institutions in this area will be more available to thole^ho’rlly in ’ public transportation. These regional benefits will be accrued at the expense of regional disbenefits resulting from construction and operation of the O'Hare Extension. The short¬ term construction effects will be significant. Over the two to three year construction period, major regional transportation arteries, the Kennedy Expressway and the Northwest Tollway, will be affected by lane closures and detours, resulting in traffic delays at construction sites. The second disbenefit of regional scope is the O'Hare Extension's inability to meet its operating expenses with its operating revenue. The operating V-63 deficit will need to be met by subsidies from the Regional Transportation Authority. Deficits for the O'Hare Extension are, however, expected to be approximately the same percentage of total operating costs as for the rest of the CTA rapid transit system. Benefits at the local level include a significantly improved public transportation service for people living in the vicinity of the O'Hare Extension. The three intermediate stations will provide improved access to the rapid transit system and will eliraate the present lengthy bus rides required to reach the Jefferson Park Rapid Transit terminal by public transportation. This will be especially important to the transit dependent, those who must rely on public transportation. No significant increase in crime or decrease in personal safety will result from the transit extension. The transit extension will support the development of underuti1ized or vacant land located near intermediate stations. This impact will be most substantial at Cumberland Avenue where large parcels of developable land lie along expressway right-of-way.. Development of such land will increase job opportunities and could indirectly increase land values in surrounding areas. Local disbenefits will result because traffic movements on local streets near station sites will be disrupted during construction. In addition, construction at these locations will create impacts, i.e. noise, dust, and dirt, normally associated with such activities. Once construction is completed, the use of the intermediate stations and their associated Park-n-Rides and Kiss-n-Rides will increase local traffic volumes during the morning and evening rush periods. Traffic increases will be con¬ fined to.major streets, and the provision of parking garages should negate substantial pressure for parking on residential streets near station sites. Park-n-Ride use and station access by motor vehicles will create air pollution in areas surrounding the station complexes. Air quality will not be signifi¬ cantly impacted at either the Roseraont or Cumberland station sites. At Harlem Avenue, however, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard could be exceeded during the first three years of garage use. Noise levels along the O'Hare Extension route will increase due to train operations. The noise guidelines set by the American Public Transit Associa¬ tion will be slightly exceeded in residential areas closest to the transit line. The effect of this impact, however, will be minimized by the location in the expressway median. Neither the Rosemont Yard nor station sites at the airport, in Rosemont, or at Cumberland Avenue will result in significant visual intrusion due to their distance from sites sensitive to the addition of transportations related facilities. The Harlem Avenue station will have a greater impact as it is located close to moderate density residential areas. The overall impact of the O'Hare Extension then will be significant benefits to the regional transportation system, substantial support for existing regional and use patterns, improved regional air quality and energy consumption patterns, greater mobility for persons along the transit route, and support for advantage¬ ous changes in local land use. These benefits will be accrued at the expense of temporary disruption during construction, deficits incurred in the operation of the extension, local traffic increases and negative effects on local air quality, noise levels, and the visual environment. V-64 effects on parkland and historic PROPERTTFS A. EFFECTS ON PARKLAND Se § ? Hare CO Extens?on S win e L e T Ve °^ trl ' Ct °T 3 parcel of land through which of thp 1 - P Thls P arcel > the Indian Boundary Division Dubi?rlJ n f I?? SP 2l at1on may approve a project which requires ?he use if' p . .~.y wne d land from, among others, a park or recreation area of local significance, as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof or land by°such 2ffl?,! 1 o t :,ri” t10na, - State - ° r IsTZZ^ ^ such e iand n °and aSlble ^ Drudent alterna tive to the use of 2) such l P Ind eCt ’ ncludes a11 P° ss1 'bl e planning to minimize harm to fn^oT d ^ an Boundary v i3i°n is a 3,163 acre section of the 64 756 acres of forest preserve owned and maintained by the Forest Preserve Distrir? Th= f urbaTarea ZiZZZZ t0 pr0vide --tuarieTofTaTive e iJ" he Such farnltTIc • TT e f ’'? creatl °nal facilities included along its fringes areas f two ireTiT the i Indlan Boundary Division include: numerous picnic areas, two ice skating lagoons, a model airplane flyinq field a Bov Smut Des P P!aine River Se hi a k i t0b °"d anin9 Z*’ tW0 Can0e towboat ramps on the Kiaines River, hiking and equestrian paths, and a playfield. the'Indian d B oundary h Division fot S the e construction a of e the U Northwest IT 'Toi : iway , "and b occuo?L EX hTth S T’ T P ? CtiVely ' These adjacent easements are ^esenlr Preserve owned land^hi ^ reSsway ' N ° rthwest Tollway junction. The Forest whol?v ?nra?fd , 1 ?" dwhlch ls required for O'Hare Extension right-of-way is of thl v cat j d within easements granted for transportation use The design cLed aHoc Ln P nTT?T 95 ? r1 9 inal ! y =°nceived and later executed In? rapid transit extension (See Figure VI-20 SXPreSSWay medlan for a future Inri a ? t T natlVeS ^ analysls for a future ra Pid transit service to O'Hare Airport included nine schemes, five bus and four rail. The analysis of bus aUerna? ves indicated th a t none of the schemes, including the existing bus service in the 6 Kennldv e r 0f .f rvic ® adequate to meet the projected 1985 travel demand the Kennedy Corridor. Patronage estimates for these schemes showed that leve bU demand me W ° Uld attract only about one tenth of the total 1985 transit VI-1 Forest Preserve District Of the four rail alternatives, three required construction within the Kennedy median. The fourth alternative, an extension of the Milwaukee Road commuter line, proved to be the least attractive rail scheme under service, patronage, and cost criteria. The extension of a Chicago and Northwestern commuter service in the Kennedy median also Droved inadequate under the same criteria. Of the two remaining rail schemes, both CTA system extensions in the Kennedy Expressway median, the alternative including intermediate stations proved to be the best choice when tested under a wide range of economic, environmental and social criteria. (See Chapter III for a full discussion of alternatives and for the alternative selection process.) The CTA extension with three intermediate stations is the only alternative under final evaluation to satisfy both airport related and commuter travel demand. Since the alternative uses right-of-way in the Kennedy Expressway median, it can therefore be stated that no feasible and Drudent alternative exists to the use of this parkland. The impacts of transit operation on the Forest Preserve will be limited to the noise generated by passing trains. This impact is effectively minimized by operating trains in an established noise corridor, thereby localizing the negative effects associated with the operation of various forms of land trans¬ portation. The noise impact will be further mitigated by the operation of the transit line in subway tunnel for some of the route through Forest Preserve Land. It should also be noted that recreational activities which could be affected by transit noise, boating, hiking, or horseback riding, normally re¬ sult in short exposure to such noise. With the exception of available fishinq in certa ] n relatively polluted segments of the Des Plaines River and those ] l sted .* b ove, recreational facilities have not been located in areas impacted by transit operation. facilitip^or^r^^ 0 ^ 9 ^ Ext ®!?? 1 '° n " ni be conduc ted so that no recreational k le ? 0r , acc ^ ss t0 them will be disrupted. Erosion of the Des Plaines River bank and subsequent pollution of the river itself will be minimized by conducting construction work in coffer dams behind steel sheet pilinq The anv S adinini n c ° nt ^ actors wil1 be required to assure that the stream bank and tions wiT not ^fjr.h reS ^ red , t ° 3 natural conditi °"- Construction opera- zone as it developed trail" running through the construction zone, as it crosses the expressway easement via a highway bridge at East River parkfands US ’ thlS pr0,]ect includes a11 possible planning to minimize harm to VI-4 B. EFFECTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES m S ’ teS in ,. 0r eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places has been completed. The only sites in or eligible for in- physical 1 v imnart»HT er f ?K nd lu ^ SUrVSy ar ® l0Cated Wel1 awa ^ from a, V areas physically impacted by either the construction or operation of the O'Hare Ex- the S ReT : ster wiiThl*’4° TflTS, 51 ' tS ! ncluded or eligible for inclusion in Preservation off 'c TlSoo i by he pr0Ject ’ as Proposed. The State Historic nln! vt t J on 0fflcer s (SHPO) concurrence with this finding is presented on page vi-o. As is stated in the letter, the SHPO indicated no effect on archeological sites w ill result from the construction or operation of the proposed proiect. Nonetheless, the Illinois Department of Conservation's (IDOC) normal archeoloqical construction procedures will apply. These procedures require that the IDOC be notified of any archeological find uncovered during construction, and that be T' ak k P t0 . a ^ sure that the IDOC has the opportunity to retrieve the archeological object(s) from the construction site. VI-5 Illinois Department of Conservation life and land together 605 STATE OFFICE BUILDING • 400 SOUTH SPRING STREET CHICAGO OFFICE - ROOM 100, 160 NO. LASALLE 60601 David Kenney, Director . James C. Helfrich. Assistant Director SPRINGFIELD 62706 September 21, 1977 Mr, Marshal Suloway Commissioner of Public Works City of Chicago City Hall Room 406 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Dear Mr, Suloway: e ^ etter is t0 inform you that we have reviewed the specifications of your project for the Kennedy Rapid Transit Extension - Jefferson Park to O'Hare Airport. Our review of the records indicates that your project will have no effect on historic, architectural or archaeological sites m the area. 6 clearance relates only to cultural consid- erations and should not be viewed as a blanket write-off which of Conservation?" 11 ” 1 """ C ° nCernS ° f the De P™nt If you have further questions regarding this, please contact me. . Sincerely, David Kenney State Historic Preservation Officer VI-6 DK/lb VII. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The construction and operation of the O'Hare Extension will create some adverse environment^ 1 effects that cannot be avoided. Following is a bMef discussion of those effects. For a more complete discussion of each, refer to the expropriate section of Chapter V, Environmental Impact of Recommended Alter- The O'Hare Extension, as is the case with the CTA Rapid Transit System as a exolnse” 1 Th n0t rec ® lve suffi cient fare-box revenue to cover its operating p ® ns ®' The annual operating deficit is expected to be $3.1 million in 1977 dollars. The operating deficits incurred by the O'Hare Extension will be met by operating subsidies from the Regional Transportation Authority. exDresswai 9 TrLr ter T 1 'K XPreSSWay 1nterchan 9es will reduce the number of expressway access points by removing selected ramps. This effect will be miti- s 9 naliL h ?n[! deS T ° f appr0priate remalnin 9 ramps and the induslon o? signalized intersections at appropriate locations. As a result, the same access and egress movements will be available at each of the three affecied volumes 3 " 1965 WUh caDaclty great enough to accommodate all projected traffic traffir V ,mi l0n of .P a ^- n -r^ e .facilities at intermediate station sites will increase . fflc volumes in the vicinity of intermediate station sites. These traffic increases will increase the likelihood of traffic'congestioTand’travel" delays oark-n-rinTe 31 -? 1 : 6815 Serv ^ ng the intermediate stations. The provision of p ride facilities, on the other hand, will mitigate the effect of increased parking pressure on local streets near intermediate stations. increased vo ' umes ? n g oca 1 streets and vehicle movements in station facilities will increase air pollution levels. At the Harlem Avenue Station site levels of carbon monoxide could slightly exceed the National Ambient Air Quality’ Standards during its initial three years of operation. Iurrnnnd?nl°rhf, tlle ?r ans1t .f^slon will increase ambient noise levels in areas surrounding the transit corridor. Operation of the O'Hare Extension is exDected in thn Sed th ^ American Pub1ic Transit Association (APTA) guidelines for noise nnlv ?n W n^f e b0 T nlty - t lowever > APTA standards are expected to be exceeded Tn il T?* denbla 1 areas closest to the transit line and then by only ldB(A). In any case, noise from transit operations will be effectively masked by 1 ine^M^be^ocated" ^ Kennedy Ex P resswa y. in the median of which the transit JnnJo t f Si0n 0 -AT aj0r pu ? lic transportation system into unserved areas will ZTlTr, n na y° ld abie visual impact. Although elements of the transit extension A® been designed and located so as to minimize their visual intrusion, some impact wiIi occur. Local areas in the vicinity of construction sites will be temporarily impacted by the unavoidable adverse effects of construction activities. These effects include fugitive dust, exhaust emissions, dirt' escaping the site, construction noise, and traffic congestion created by construction activities in the express¬ way median and on local streets. VI1-2 VHI- the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM US ES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENH ANCEMENT~QF "LONG-TERM PRODUCTivTTy " The major short-term use of the environment associated with the O'Hare Extension involves construction of the track, roadbed, stations and ancillary facimies The major negative impact resulting from this short-term use of the environment is disruption to vehicular traffic on the Kennedy Expressway. This disruption will be evident over most of the 2 to 3 year construction period. After construction is completed, the disruption will cease, and operation of the transit system will begin. In return for the negative short-term impacts 0 the ^ ransit s y stem will result in a long-term primary effect ^right-of-way.^namely, more intense transportation use of the Kennedy Express- ™? a ^^ of the Kennedy Expressway Corridor to transport people and goods will be significantly increased. This increase in the productivity of the which P incl t d° n SyStem Wl11 lead to a number of secondary productivity effects, 1. provision of an adequate ground access system to O'Hare Airport; 2. increased value of undeveloped and under¬ developed land adjacent to the rapid transit/ expressway corridor; 3. maintenance of the CBD as the most accessible place in the region; 4. intensification of the use of the CBD as the cultural, commercial, and convention center of the region; 5. growth of the city and adjacent townships at the expense of suburbs beyond the service area; and 6. increased effectiveness of the regional transportation network, with associated air quality and energy consumption benefits. VIII-l Ix - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETREIVABLE COMMITMENT OF RES01IRP1FS The O'Hare Extension, as proposed, of the following resources: will involve the irrecoverable committment a) the materials used to construct the rapid transit extension, including raw materials and the decrease in useful life of machinery used in construction; b) the amount of human labor required to construct and operate the system; and c) the public tax dollars committed to constructioi of the proposed system and subsidization of the transit service. ion that are not within The breakdQwn of resources used for the project is presented in the following TABLE IX-1 MATERIALS INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE O'HARE EXTENSION STEEL, TONS CONCRETE, CUBIC YARDS 25,000 250,000 TABLE IX-2 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTED ACTIVITY LABOR FORCE DURATION Construction Operation and Maintenance 1000 * 88 2 to 3 years Life of Project ^Totalling 21,460 man months.of labor. IX-1 TABLE IX—3 ECONOMIC RESOURCES COMMITTED* ACTIVITY AMOUNT DURATION Construction Rail Car Purchase** Operational Subsidy $136 million (approx.) $ 40 mill ion (approx.) $3.1 million (approx.) 2 to 3 years One Time Purchase Life of Project *More detailed presentation of the economic requirements of the system is presented in Chapter IV. **Rail Car Purchase will be part of an ongoing CTA rail car replacement program, which is not a part of this capital grant application. IX-2 X * — MMENTS AND RESPONS E S ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT STATEMENT A. INTRODUCTION Jn e ^v C n at ]^ Pe tT f0r T h : Draft T IS be 5 an °" May 12, 1978, and ended rpcpivpH from fnH D i rin ? ]; hat P eriod > twenty-seven commenting letters were The official Pub! Le ’ a +x 1 ° cal agencies, and from concerned citizens !h! rf C Hearing on the Draft EIS was held on June 15, 1978 in atVnT 9 °t C 1 T' Councl1 Chambers, City Hall, 121 North LaSalle Street,’ 60602 cer 2 P Attendan^T y i W H S ■ t ^ en on this date before an appointed hearing offi- Urban f he . Staff of the 0ff ! ce of Program Analysis of the pi r • • aportation Administration. During the hearinq session Chicaac Dr no ?he S tIn n Ha rS and . f ^ r additional persons presented ora e mony 9 ?or inclusion ofwrmTn° d ’ June J 5 ." 1978 J t0 June 25 > 1978, which allowed Tor inclusion of written comments into the official Public Hearina cn p t, two written comments were received by the Secretary of the~Chicaqo who n sSbmi , tted 0 both h wrUten C and an ' n i f f l cer ' Takin 9 int ° a «ount commlnters menters resDonded 0ra ] a total of 30 different com¬ at u The transcripts of the Public Hearing may be inspected D C and locally at'VlJ^V’rh• Tran ^ortation Administration in Washington, Deveiopmeni D? sion aT ! ?I Ca 2? Department ° f Works, Research and development uivision. All substantive comments are included in this rh^ntpr mments re ha P veT n rb Vided t0 T : f c “t. In some cases theTnd^idual^ been paid to acc^rat^„f eP H ? verbatim. However, carful .attention has Notations 1 ‘ T d completely represent the original comments. Notations identifying the commentor(s) appear after each comment The " abl1 P rovlded ln the Draft EIS has been revised as necessary to adequately the'^eft'margin? 6ntS " Cha " geS in the text are Identified by a verticafba^^ mentecTorTthe RaDid h Raii e T CleS: t°r 9 f nlZati0nS ’ and private citizens who com- mentea on the Rapid Rail Transit Extension to Chicago O'Hare Airoort Draft Environmental Impact Statement during the circulation period. Airport Ground Transportation Association, Inc. (AGTA) Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) Chirfnn l? e P a r |; nieri t °f Planning, City and Community Development (DPCCD) Chicago Department of Environmental Control (DEC) j Chicago Plan Commission (Messrs. Levi, Goldblatt, Messe, or Pate) Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) ’ aze) DuPage County Regional Planning Commission (DPRPC) Des Plaines Publishing Company (DPPC) Greater North Michigan Avenue Association (GNMAA) Illinois Archeological Survey (IAS) Illinois Department of Transportation- Bureau of Location and Environment Illinois Department of Transportation- Department of Aeronautics Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Miller, F. (IDOT-BLE) (IDOT-DA) X-l Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) Norwood Park Citizens Association (NPCA) Norwood Park Chamber of Commerce (NPCC) Northwest Cumberland Association (NWCA) Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC) Pucinski, Aid. R. Resurrection Hospital (RH) Taylor, D.O. United States Department of Agriculture (US DOA) United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) United States Department of Interior (US DOI) United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration - Washington, D.C. Office (FAA-Wash., D.C.) Federal Aviation Administration - Great Lakes Region (FAA-GLR) Federal Highway Administration - (FHWA) United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Will County Regional Planning Commission (WCRPC) B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY TOPIC 1. Transit Operations Comment 1: The Harlem Avenue bus line should run continuous past the Harlem Avenue station to eliminate extra turn-on and turn-off traffic, as well as to facilitate the line's use by shoppers with packages who would have to transfer at the Harlem station under the present bus line plan. (DPPC) Response 1: The planning effort that resulted in the feeder bus route configuration for the O'Hare Extension considered a through bus route past the Harlem Avenue Station on Harlem Avenue. This route configuration was not accepted for the following reasons: A) The demand for bus service is significantly different north and south of the proposed Harlem Avenue Station. By terminating routes at the Harlem Station, these different levels of demand can be more adequately and efficiently satisfied. B) Operating a through service on Harlem Avenue past the rapid transit station would be difficult because logically the bulk of the services north and south of the station are provided by different carriers — Nortran and the CTA, respectively. X-2 C) Terminating routes at the Harlem Station is convenient since operating a through route would not eliminate turn-on and turn-off traffic. For safety reasons, un¬ loading passengers on the east side of the Harlem Avenue bridge, thereby forcing patrons to cross Harlem Avenue to enter the station, is not feasible. As a result these buses would enter and exit the station complex area, even under a through route scheme. It should also be noted that transferring between bus routes servinq the areas of , t f' e s ^ ati on will be very convenient. Loading bays for these routes will be side by side, and in most cases, buses should be waitinq in the Harlpm 9 sta+in° aC ?? Pt transferr1 n 9 passengers. Also, terminating routes at the Harlem Station will increase the consistency and reliability of service as consistency and reliability tend to decrease as bus routes lengthen. The present Harlem Avenue bus scheme is a preliminary plan. The desire for a through bus on Harlem Avenue will be transmitted to the CTA. Comment 2: 0'Hlrs h be S "A" S nr t ''R" e n r hre ?i ln i t ? ri T ed - ate stations between Jefferson Park and Hare be A or B or will all trains stop at each station? (DPPC) Response 2 : ^r ina ]- P i anS T?Y e been established by the CTA for stop designations at intermediate stations. Current scenarios under discussion include a plan serveTonlfhv" 1 '^^^ - S ^ !! A n B " ° r 311 St ° P station ’ wl 'th Cumberland served only by A trains and Rosemont served only by "B” trains. In any tbe three intermediate stations would not all be "all stop" stations, except during night operation when all trains stop at all stations on the line. Comment 3: Will CTA trains run more frequently during the rush hour? (DPPC) Response 3: After completion of the O'Hare Extension, service headways will be approximately e same as.they are now. That is, five minute headways during regular daytime of U FEIS^ mlnu ^ es c * un * n 9 peak hours, and 15 minutes at night. See page IV-19 X-3 Comment 4: Will some sort of shuttle bus be available for airport employees who do not work near terminal buildings? (DPPC) Response 4: As part of the bus routing scheme proposed in connection with the O'Hare Extension, a shuttle bus, as described on page IV-22 of the FEIS, will operate between the terminal area and the airport's cargo area, the main employment center beyond the terminal area. 2. Transit System Comment 5: In order to remove park-n-ride patrons from the area of Harlem Avenue and the Kennedy, a park-n-ride facility could be constructed back along one of the bus lines, from which auto drivers would take a CTA bus to the station. (DPPC) Response 5: The park-n-rides are planned to facilitate the modal change from auto to rapid transit. As a result, their location contiguous to the transit stations is essential. Providing a park-n-ride back along one of the buslines would require auto drivers to transfer modes twice and would significantly increase their total travel time. As the driver convenience essential to the successful operation would be lost, drivers would be much more apt to drive directly to the station and park on streets in residential neighborhoods, or avoid the use of transit altogether. Comment 6: In order to retain the circulat ramp at Harlem Avenue, which would save people coming from the north from having to cross traffic for expressway access, could the bus bridge over the expressway be increased to four lanes to accommodate bus traffic and to allow two lanes for kiss-n-ride patrons, one lane for drop-off and one lane for through auto movements? (This comment was made in conjunction with Comment 5.) (DPPC) Response 6: The proposal to increase the width of the bus bridge to accommodate kiss-n-ride patrons would not allow sufficient space for auto drop-off. Between 8 and 10 spaces, maximum, could be provided to duplicate the service provided by the planned 44 space Kiss-n-Ride facility. Conflicts would occur as through traffic would be blocked by persons stopping to park or drop off passengers. X-4 Comment 7: Sf r M?i refe r enC n f ° r r rail .transit service to O'Hare Airport has been the usaae lilwaukee Road-Soo Line trackage with loading and unloading facilitip<; in the genera Merchandise Mart-Apparel Center area 9 On the area 9 near Wei s si?eet and the Chicago River.) (GNMAA) street Response 7 The alternative of using Milwaukee Road and Soo Line trackage for airoort IIi rV 23 e and S in e ?a Car ?h^ lly ® naly2ed in Chapter III of the Final EIS, pages III 23 and III-24. This scheme would provide a significantly lower level of service than any other rail alternative analyzed. Adding a loading-unloading facility along an already congested segment of the line would on y further exacerbate existing congestion problems anddeteriorate “ Eras ° f sm ' a - " h '" ^.4'sswrr Comment 8: or Iohe^ t R-T S r^ rat -? n °l Sc ^ eme ^’ the existing O'Hare Express bus service, because Scheme R 1 The extensi ° n O'Hare Airport with no intermediate stations, DT aU , ?j heme R-l. the proposed alternative, would have to be subsidized by the RTA, would create noise, would create auto congestion and on-street parking resu ting in increased congestion, pollution, and noise, would create visual im- alter Teels To intT Nation areas looking like Jefferson Park, would alter access points to the expressway creating traffic conflicts, and would create dust noise and congestion during the two year construction period (NPCA) Response 8: Alternatives B-l, R-l, and R-2 are extensively analyzed in Chapter III of the Final EIS pages I 1-24 to III-30. Both the beneficial and adverse impacts «ss h As f a refi? TTh t1VeS T™ considered in the alternative selection pro- ten T of . thls analysis which ranked each alternative according to ten criterion categories, alternative R-l ranked the best. 9 Comment 9: ranid t tTnT-t e et 1 T nment T the i! in9le 9arage stut, - end station that would provide proposed! (RTAl lteese)^ 63 ^ °' HarS paSSe " 9er te ™nals has been Response 9: de ! i ? ned "Semi-Loop Subway", has been incorporated into the FEIS in Chapter III, and is analyzed in detail therein. X-5 Comment 10: Consideration should be given to the transit system's ability to either handle baggage or to some seating arrangement to accommodate baggage. (IDOT-DA, NIPC) Comment 11: Baggage removal and transport services should be included at the airport terminal station and possibly, at least, one downtown station. (NIPC, Levi, Pate) Responses 10 and 11: Consideration has been given to the accommodation of luggage on airport trains. For each new car equipped to accommodate luggage, the capital cost of the pro¬ ject would increase by approximately $500,000. By not providing these transit cars at this time, substantial cost savings are realized. Although it is not expected that large numbers of air passengers using the ex¬ tension will carry numerous or cumbersome pieces of luggage, a future^decision by the CTA to provide luggage accommodation, if warranted, has not been precluded. Space has been allocated in the pedestrian-concourse at the O'Hare Terminal Station for luggage check-in facilities. The provision of such facilities is the re¬ sponsibility of the airline companies and is subject to their perception of the need for such facilities. Comment 12: The extension would be more, profitable if all park-n-rides were eliminated and stations were added at Nagle Avenue and at Canfield Avenue. (F. Miller) Response 12: The addition of stations at Nagle and Canfield Avenues coupled with the elimination of all proposed Park-n-Ride facilities would not result in a more profitable transit system because: A) such a scheme would reduce total patronage, and therefore farebox revenue at intermediate stations, B) maintenance costs at intermediate station locations would increase by about 67% with the addition of two intermediate stations, and C) the savings resulting from elimination of the park-n-ride facilities would not cover the capital cost addition for the construction of two additional intermediate stations without park-n-ride facilities. X-6 Comment 13: The single track elevated loop alternative for airport service should be ^ e ? ause 1 *^ s greater convenience and lower construction cost (F. Miller) Response 13: The alternatives analysis for airport station design is presented in Chapter III, pages III-30 to III-38 of the Final EIS. Although least expensive in terms of capital cost, the single track elevated loop rated significantly below the selected alternative under patron convenience and comfort, con- struction disruption, and station operations criteria. Comment 14: Instead of constructing park-n-ride facilities at Harlem and Cumberland Avenues the Rosemont facility should be enlargened to accommodate the traffic from the other two park-n-rides. (R. Pucinski) Comment 15: ! h nnn P r ar r' n »rn e facilities at Harlem and Cumberland Avenues should be eliminated (DPPC, F. Miller, NWCA) Response 15: The park-n-ride facilities at the Harlem and Cumberland Avenue stations are key elements of the O'Hare Extension. These facilities have been designed so that traffic will have adequate access to and from them. In planning intermediate station design, the need to facilitate the transfer of auto drivers to transit was realized not only because of congestion on the Kennedy Expressway during peak hours, but also because of the need for regional air quality control, for conservation of petroleum based fuels, for limiting traffic growth in the CBD, and for minimizing on-street parking near station 1ocations. Comment 16: We advocate the relocation of the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride, so that emergency traffic to and from the hospital would not be adversely affected. (RH) Response 16: No option for the relocation of the.Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride exists. Each of the three intermediate stations designs already includes a park-n-ride facility and capital expenditures to install Park-n-Rides at downstream locations would be prohibitive. The capacity of the arterial street system is such that the spaces from the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride could not be relocated to either the Cumberland Avenue or Rosemont Station. (See Topic Category 6 for a discussion of access to Resurrection Hospital.) X-7 Comment 17: » An adverse impact of the proposed project is that a heavily subsidized public mass transportation system is being proposed to provide a service duplicating an existing service provided by a private mass transportation firm. (AGTA) Response 17: The rapid transit extension to O'Hare Airport is required to satisfy the pro¬ jected ground access demand to and from the airport. Rapid transit and Limousine/Coach will be two of five ground transportation modes serving the airport. The service provided by the extension will be an alternative to existing private airport transportation services which will not duplicate the door-to-door service provided by the private carriers. Many patrons will continue to utilize the private service after completion of the rapid rail extension. Comment 18: Alternative B-5, Exclusive Bus Lanes, deserves more serious consideration,” including the effects of Continental Air Transport's use of such lanes. (AGTA) Response 18: Alternative B-5 is thoroughly analyzed in Chapter III of the FEIS. The exclusive lanes are proposed as an improvement option for the public trans¬ portation system. In this, as in all other cases, private airport ground access carriers are considered to provide a service separate from, but parallel to, the public service. The exclusive lanes are thus for the use of public carriers only. Under the assumption that the private airport carriers used the exclusive bus lanes, such use would increase the 1985 Continental Air Transport pat¬ ronage by 1080 trips per day. Such an increase is insignificant when com¬ pared to the 1985 airport related rapid transit demand of 24,000 trips per day. Such an increase would only occur if subsidization of the private carriers' operation in the form of a publicly funded capital investment for the exclusive bus lanes were provided. X-8 3. Patronage and Ridership Comment 19: I would not be surprised that the 2000 passenger per day patronage on the existing 0 Hare Express bus would be the limit of airport employee patronage on the extension, due to the distribution of jobs at the airport. (R. Pucinski) Response 19: The expected 1982 airport employee patronage on the extension is 7000 trips per day. This projection was made by the project consultant, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, using an auto-rail transit binary choice, logit model supplied by the Chicago Area Transportation Study. The problem of distribution of employees to job locations removed from the Airport Terminal resulted in the creation of the Airport-terminal-Cargo Area shuttle bus. Comment 20: The CTA wants the park-n-ride at Harlem Avenue because they estimate it will generate an additional 1000 riders per day. (R. Pucinski) Response 20: The justification for the Harlem Avenue park-n-ride is not limited to the increase in patronage it will generate. The park-n-ride will alleviate congestion and air pollution problems on the Kennedy Expressway and in the CBD, will conserve petroleum based fuels, will provide travel time savings to rapid transit patrons, and will increase the accessibility of the entire rapid transit system. Comment 21: The Cumberland Avenue park-n-ride will not serve Chicago residents because they will have access to the station via bus routes. (NWCA) Response 21: The Cumberland Avenue Park-n-Ride has been designed to serve both users from the local areas near the station and expressway drivers. Estimates indicate that about one-half of the garage capacity will be filled by local area residents. Bus service to the station is not the mode of accessibility many people would choose. Instead of overcoming the perceived inconvenience of the bus mode, some people would sooner drive to the CBD. By providing the park-n-rides, many of these auto trips will be shortcut to transit for the greater portion of the trip. ' ' X-9 Comment 22: e The park-n-rides will draw passengers away from the Chicago & Northwestern suburban stations. (F. Miller) Response 22: The presence of the O'Hare Extension will affect patronage on some Chicago and Northwestern suburban stations. Since the C&NW terminal is located on the west end of the CBD, and since the downtown stations of the CTA's Milwaukee Line are generally located nearer the center of the CBD, the section of the CBD to which rail patrons are destined will certainly affect their choice of carrier. It is the overall service provided by the carriers that determines patrons' preferences. It should.be noted that at all C&NW stations within the O'Hare Extension Study Area parking is available for patrons. The number of parking spaces available at selected C&NW stations is listed below: Comment 23: Norwood Park Edison Park Park Ridge Dee Road Des Plaines 225 spaces 260 spaces 475 spaces 133 spaces 739 spaces Thousands of other riders would be diverted from the existing CTA feeder bus system to the park-n-rides. (F. Miller) Response 23: Of the 21,500 trips per day made from the intermediate stations, 1,100 will be made by park-n-ride users who currently use CTA facilities. However, the portion of these trips using existing feeder buses for access to the Jefferson Park Station is unknown. Some of these trips are presently made by auto with drivers parking on residential streets in the Jefferson Park area. See table V-1, page V-13 of the FEIS. Comment 24: Where do the transit system patrons come from: the city, the suburbs, or our own local area? . (NPCA) Response 24: The O'Hare Extension is intended to serve a very wide range of patrons. Airport oriented ridership will come from the Chicago region and locations throughout the nation. The intermediate station ridership will be made up mostly of patrons from local areas near station locations. Patrons from other areas of the City as well as suburbanites who access intermediate stations via buses or autos, will also use the line. X-10 Comment 25: In our opinion, Scheme R-4 would generate the highest CBD-O'Hare patronage of any alternative. (GNMAA) Response 25: According to the comparison of the four rail alternatives, Scheme R-4, Milwaukee Road-SooLine Spur, would rank the lowest in regard to total patronage -- 20,200 as compared to 36,500 for the proposed alternative. Although all of Scheme R-4's users from the CBD would be airport oriented since no intermediate stations are proposed for this alternative, fewer of each of the three airport oriented user groups would be served with this alternative than with any other rail option. In addition, patronage levels for alternative R-4 would be affected by the Scheme’s longer travel time, low reliability of service, and relatively inaccessible CBD location. Comment 26: Using the data in Table 11-2 and Table 11-1 on Page 11-18, the limousine/ coach service would indicate considerably more than the 4,500 persons, per day discussed in the section on "Continental Air Transport" would be using those services. If distribution between 1969 and 1976 changed significantly, the data should be corrected. If the distribution remained similar, it would appear the number stated in the "Continental Air Transport" section should be corrected. (FHWA) Response 26: The category LIMOUSINE/COACH in Table II-2 regarding the Modal Distribution for Departing Air Passengers is comprised of several services in addition to Continental Air Transport. Continental Air Transport is a major airport bus service which accommodates approximately 4500 passengers per day between the CBD and O'Hare. However, this service represents only a portion of the 13.8% listed in Table 11-2, and not the total amount. Comment 27: We find no research in your study to justify the position that businessmen will use this method of transportation. (NPCC) Response 27: Patronage statistics were compiled according to six user group categories -- Airline Passengers, Airport Employees, Airport Visitors, CBD Commuters, Reverse Commuters, and Expressway Drivers. Although a further detailed breakdown according to patron profession was not made, a significant por¬ tion of the Airline Passenger user group is expected to be businessmen since, according to the 1969 Origin-Destination survey, 92.6% of CBD to O'Hare trips are made for business purposes. X-ll Comment 28: The highest ridership level the O'Hare Extension will acheive is what the rapid transit service to Cleveland's airport has been able to acheive, namely 20% of the arrivals and departures for approximately 5000 daily riders. (AGTA) Response 28: Ridership extimates for the O'Hare Extension airport service are based on a thorough analysis of ridership demand at Chicago's airport and include, not only the air passenger demand, but also the airport employee and airport visitor ground access demand. Comparisons of ridership levels for two different airport ground access systems, Chicago and Cleveland, are not valid since the airport access problems and the airport access systems, themselves, are different. 4. System Construction Comment 29: No information is provided relative to measures to prevent undue construction- oriented pollution, including erosion, to the Des Plaines River nor subsequent restoration of the stream bank and any adjoining disturbed lands. (US DO I) Comment 30 : Erosion should be controlled during construction. (US DOA) Responses 29 and 30: The construction operations adjacent to the Des Plaines River will consist of pier, abutment, and foundation installation for the transit stream crossing. The work is expected to take place in coffer dams behind steel sheet piling, thus minimizing the potential for pollution of the river or bank erosion. More specific details regarding construction techniques, erosion protection, etc. are not available at this time since the bridge has not yet been designed. Construction contractors will, however, be required to assure that all appropriate measures to protect the river and restore the *banks to a natural condition will be taken. Excavation will be required to construct the East River Road and O'Hare Terminal subway tunnels. Spoil from these excavations will be trucked out of the site almost immediately since inadequate space is available for stockpiling. Thus, there should be little or no cause for concern regarding stockpile erosion or runoff. X-12 Comment 31: 5. Accessibi1ity % The proposed transit extension would in no way serve the Near Northside (Chicaqo River to North Avenue - Lake Michigan to North Branch Canal), and would result in a poorer CBD-Airport ground access transportation service for this area and sections of downtown. (GNMAA, AGTA) Response 31: As an extension of the MiIwaukee-Congress rapid transit line, access to O'Hare Airport will emanate from the most accessible location within the metropolitan area, the "Loop". Currently, nine rapid transit lines converge in the Loop, allowing patrons to easily transfer lines in order to reach other sections of the City and metropolitan area. Although airport bound trains do not directly service the Near Northside, the Lake Street/Clark Street station on the line is only two blocks from the southern boundary of the area, with transfer points to northbound transit and bus lines located at other loop stations. The addition of another needed mode of airport ground access for the variety of existing airport ground access modes will in no way reduce the levels of service provided to any section of the City or metropolitan area. Comment 32: The downtown stations of the Milwaukee Line are so crowded during the evening rush hour that getting on the train, especially with a suitcase, will be very difficult. (R. Pucinski, NPCC) Comment 33: It is impossible to ride the Chicago elevated with a suitcase as most travelers will do and again impossible to travel with a party of one or two companions and their luggage. (D. Taylor) Responses 32 and 33: The capacity of the Milwaukee Line will be significantly increased by the time the O'Hare Extension opens. The operation of 8 car trains, as opposed to 6 car trains at present, at the same headways now provided, will increase the line's capacity by 33%. If additional changes in capacity are required, adjustments in train headways will be undertaken by the CTA. The present project does not foreclose the option for provision of on-train baggage facilities by CTA at a later date, if warranted. Comment 34: The Dearborn Street subway (the Central Area segment of the Milwaukee Line, of which the O'Hare Extension will be a part) is inconvenient and uncomfortable during inclement weather. (GNMAA) X-13 Response 34: The Dearborn Subway tunnel runs north and south.one block east of the CBD's most central street, a location more convenient than other proposed CBD access points. Naturally, inclement weather increases the difficulty of access to or from any location in the CBD, but the centralized location of the Dearborn Street Subway tunnel will help to minimize access problems created by such weather. It should also be noted that access to many buildings in the CBD can be made directly from the Dearborn Street subway stations. Access to many other buildings can be made via a system of interconnecting underground pedestrian walkways. 6 . Congestion Comment 35: Although planners indicate traffic levels will return to normal after construction of the intermediate stations, studies also show increasing development of land in areas around station sites. (DPPC) Response 35:‘ The traffic projections used in the planning of roadway improvements at park-n- ride sites are based on projections supplied by the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS). The CATS projections include the traffic growth increases gen¬ erated by increased development. The Chicago Department of Streets and Sani¬ tation staff added park-n-ride traffic to the CATS projections and designed roadway improvements to accommodate all traffic on the roadways. Comment 36: Traffic snarls could develop at the Harlem-Bryn Mawr intersection due to bus movements out of the Harlem Avenue station complex via this intersection. (DPPC) Comment 37: Traffic snarls could develop at the Harlem-Gregory intersection due to through traffic volumes and to the amount of vehicles making turns at this intersection. (DPPC) Comment 38: Although the report says traffic volumes will remain within the capacity limits of Harlem and Higgins Avenues, these streets already operate too close to their capacities, disrupting local residential streets. (DPPC) Comment 39: Moving the traffic which presently uses the ramp in the Harlem-Kennedy interchange southwest quadrant to the ramp off Gregory Street via a signalized intersection will back traffic up all the way to Talcott. (R. Pucinski) Comment 40: Putting a park-n-ride at Harlem Avenue will create a traffic problem in that community for years to come. (R. Pucinski) X-14 Responses 36, 37, 38, 39 , and 40: At the Harlem-Bryn Mawr intersection, a right turn bay will be southbound intersection approach on Harlem Avenue, increasing of that approach. Buses turning right from the station onto s Harlem will move simultaneously with the northbound left turn is controlled by a left turn arrow. Thus no time in the signa lost for this bus movement. Buses turning left will operate 0 actuated signal. This is, the approach of a left-turning bus 5 second green signal for that movement only. Since the bus 1 occur, at most, 15 times per hour, no interruption of traffic added to the the capacity outhbound movement, which 1 cycle will be n a demand will actuate a eft-turn will flow is expected The Harlem-Gregory intersection will be signalized and will operate smoothly. Adequate time in the signal cycle is available to accommodate both through movements and the increased number of left turns. This change will convert the Harlem-Kennedy interchange to a diamond interchange, of which there are many in the Chicago area operating satisfactorily with even higher traffic volumes. Intersection improvements are underway at the Harlem-Higgins intersection, in¬ cluding the addition of left turn bays, which will alleviate the existing problems at that intersection. Minor modifications will be included as part of this project. The traffic signals at all three intersections will be synchronized so that traffic entering the area from the north or from the south will move con¬ tinuously through the three intersections. All turn movements will be synchronized so that.they do not conflict with the through traffic. Adequate time exists at each intersection to accommodate all traffic movements. It should be emphasized that the traffic volumes that these design changes are planned to accommodate include both park-n-ride traffic and traffic in¬ creases generated by future development. Furthermore, approximately 62 % of all traffic generated by the park-n-ride will not even pass through these intersections. Expressway users and local area users from the west will turn into the park-n-ride before they reach the Harlem-Higgins intersection. Park- n-ride traffic exiting to the expressway will use internal park-n-ride road¬ ways, avoiding local arterial strees altogether. Traffic will move more smoothly than at present through the Harlem-Kennedy area once roadway improvements are made to accommodate the new traffic. As a result, fewer motorists should be using residential streets to avoid traffic bottlenecks than do now. (See Page V-19.) X-15 Comment 41: The spill-off of cars on residential streets would result in an auto-ghetto with insufferable environmental effects. (NPCA) Comment 42: The report mentions that local streets will have plenty of parking spaces for those not wanting to pay at the park-n-rides. This seems to be an assurance to suburban drivers that local drivers will not use the park-n- ride, but suburban drivers may be tempted to follow suit. (DPPC) Response 41 and 42: The discussion in the report relative to on-street parking pressure stated that the presence of the park-n-ride will reduce such pressure. One goal of the park-n-ride design is to reduce the amount of on-street parking as much as possible, whether on-street parkers are local residents or expressway drivers. It should be emphasized that residential street parking demands would be higher without the park-n-rides than with them. Also, see Comment 41 below. Comment 43: The Draft EIS totally disregards the possibility of park-n-ride patrons using already crowded airport parking facilities. Conversely, it should address the extent to which the transit facility and intermediate stations can help alleviate this problem. (FAA-GLR) Response 43: The > use of the airport parking garage by park-n-ride patrons is expected to be insignificant. The airport garage parking fee for a 10 hour stay, $1.65, is significantly higher than any of the proposals for the full day fee at a park- n-ride, which would be .purposely structured to discourage use of the airport garage. Second, the airport _ga.rage is inconveniently. 1 ocated for CBD commuters. The garage is located at the terminal end of Ill. 594. The first point at which a ln ^ ersec ^ s a major roadway is 1.3 miles toward the CBD from the airport. Any CBD commuter wanting to use the airport garage as a park-n-ride would be forced travel at least 1.3 miles away from their destination, then backtrack over this distance'again via transit. It should be emphasized that it is impossible to ban drivers from using the airport garage for park-n-ride use since it is a public facility. On the other hand, use of intermediate station park-n-rides by airport patrons is feasible for those persons who are making a same day round trip, e.g. some business travelers. Overniaht Darkinq at the stations will be forbidden. Comment 44: The O'Hare Rail Rapid Transit Extension will not significantly reduce the ground access problems at O'Hare Airport. (AGTA) X-16 Response 44: The impact of the O'Hare Extension on airport traffic is fully discussed on pages V-15 and V-16 of the FEIS. As stated therein, and as demonstrated by data presented in Tables V-2 and V-3, the provision of rapid transit will reduce the vehicle load on airport roadways, preventing service break¬ down conditions during the peak hours. Comment 45: Taxpayers have witnessed the noise-air pollution and traffic congestion at the Jefferson Park station and don't want it in their backyard. (NPCA) Response 45: The traffic congestion and its associated environmental problems at Jefferson Park are largely attributable to heavy on-street parking and drop-off traffic due to the status of.the station at the end of the transit line. This pro- posed.project will mitigate these problems by providing parking garages. In addition, the intermediate stations will not be at the end of the line. Comment 46: The Harlem and Cumberland garages would generate traffic congestion in residential areas surrounding the garages. (F. Miller, R. Pucinski) Comment 47 : Traffic from the Cumberland Avenue Park-n-ride would endanger an already heavily travelled Cumberland Avenue. (NWCA) Responses 46 and 47: A number of improvements, including widening of Cumberland Avenue, improvement of adjacent intersections, and upgrading of traffic signalization, are being undertaken to insure that levels of service remain within acceptable limits. Cumberland Avenue will not be overloaded. At the intersection serving the park-n-ride, Cumberland will operate at Level of Service "D" during peak hours, which is above the intersection's capacity. The layout of local streets near the Cumberland Avenue Park-n-ride is not the grid pattern evident in other*sections of the City. Residential streets do not form unbroken paths parallel to Cumberland that would facilitate use of these streets to avoid congestion on Cumberland. During periods of heavy traffic, however, use of local streets by some motorists would unavoidably occur. The plan to minimize this problem includes providing the best possible level of service on Cumberland Avenue so as to eliminate the perceived need to use local streets. (See Page V-22. ) X-17 Comment 48: The removal of the southbound exit ramp from the eastbound Kennedy Expressway at Cumberland Avenue, where traffic is already backed up to the toll booth (on the Northwest Tollway) during rush hours and holidays, would result in traffic not moving at all. (NWCA) Response 48: The southbound exit ramp from the eastbound Kennedy Expressway lanes at Cumberland Avenue will not be removed. The alignment of this ramp will be shifted slightly to the southwest, but its location and free flow characteristics will be retained. Comment 49: We are told that entrance to the park-n-ride will be from the expressway, then why put the facility at Harlem and the Kennedy which will serve only suburbanites? (R. Pucinski) Response 49: Entrance to the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride will be made from Higgins Avenue and will be available to both expressway drivers and area residents via the arterial street system. Comment 50: The increased traffic congestion resulting from the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride would impair traffic flow from the Hospital's Emergency Room (four blocks west and three blocks north of the park-n-ride site). In addition. Hospital bound traffic northbound on Harlem and westbound on Higgins would be adversely affected. (RH) Response 50: Traffic congestion will be somewhat reduced from its present level after the operation of the Harlem Avenue Station begins. The increased congestion referred to in the EIS does not refer to increases over present congestion levels, rather to increases in congestion on the improved arterial roadways that would occur with station oriented traffic over that which would occur without it. In either of these latter two cases, levels of congestion would be lower than present levels even though traffic volumes may increase. Further¬ more, elimination of the park-n-ride would have only a minimal (2%) effect upon traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Harlem Avenue station. As a result, traffic between Resurrection Hospital and points south of the expressway will move in generally the same or less time than at present. X—18 Access to the hospital from the eastbound expressway lanes, and therefore from the airport, will be improved with the proposed ramp redesign. Traffic will move freely onto.eastbound Higgins Avenue, instead of accessing Higgins Avenue via an intersection controlled by a stop sign, thereby providing faster egress from the expressway. The improved Harlem-Higgins intersection will facilitate movement through this point, and interconnected signals on Harlem will main¬ tain adequate flow on northbound Harlem Avenue. Comment 51: There is no traffic analysis that reflects the already congested condition of Harlem Avenue and the other thoroughfares immediately surrounding the location of the Harlem Avenue station. Unless a detailed plan to alleviate the existinq nnnnfT?" f® l ncluded as .P art of the rapid rail transit extension, we would be opposed to locating a station at Harlem Avenue and the Kennedy Expressway. (NPCC) Response 51: The existing congested condition on Harlem Avenue and other area arterial streets ^ * f ,T tl0n ° f 5 raffic volumes exceeding the capacities of area intersections. Since the proposed improvements increase the capacities of area intersections enough to accommodate higher traffic volumes than presently exist, a detailed plan to.alleviate existing congestion is redundant. The proposed packaqe of street improvements is a (detailed plan to prevent additional congestion on Harlem Avenue and other arterials in the vicinity of the Harlem Avenue Station. Traffic improvements to the arterial Street System in the vicinity of the Harlem Avenue Station will include: 1) Provision of a turning bay on southbound Harlem Avenue at Bryn Mawr. The turning bay will accommodate the traffic which turns right at this location (between 25 and 30 percent); 2) Provision.of a.southbound pull-out bay on the Harlem Avenue bridge which will allow bus drop-offs without interfering with southbound through traffic; 3) A traffic signal at the Harlem Avenue-Gregory Street intersection which will permit all eastbound Kennedy Expressway traffic to enter the expressway ramp via a left turn onto Gregory. This signal will be timed.with a "four phase signal overlap" timing schedule used for diamond interchanges"; and will be synchronized with the signals at both Bryn Mawr Avenue and Higgins Avenue; and 4) Throat widening and channelization of the Harlem-Higgins inter¬ section. This will provide left-turn bays on all approaches, thus allowing two lanes of through traffic at each aDproach instead of one. X-19 Comment 52: Eliminating the Harlem Avenue and Cumberland Avenue park-n-rides might sub¬ stantially limit traffic overloads. (DPPC) Response 52: Elimination of the park-n-ride facilities would represent a traffic volume situation intermediate between the no-build and the proposal with intermediate stations and park-n-rides since a proportion of the local users would still access the stations via auto. This increased traffic load would require the same traffic control and signalization features as would the park-n-rides. The level of service would be slightly better than with the park-n-rides and there would be a lower potential for overloads. The difference is not considered substantial , however, since a decrease of only about 2% would be expected at Harlem and 1% at Cumberland is no park-n-rides were built. 7. Air Quality Comment 53: According to the study, the extension with intermediate stops will improve • regional air quality by reducing the number of cars emitting' pol1utants. It is difficult to tell how regional air quality is measured. (DPPC) Response 53: Impacts on regional air quality are most often measured by the total weight of various air contaminants emitted by stationary or mobile sources. Changes in these total weights are an indicator of changes in regional air quality. Thus, a regional air quality benefit of the extension is reflected in the vehicles which would use park-n-ride facilities that would otherwise be emitting pollu¬ tants over the entire trip to the CBD and back. As noted on Page V-31 of the FEIS, data derived from a detailed US EPA study of pollution control measures, including park-n-rides, indicates that the 2600-car capacity of the proposed park-n-rides alone could result in a 1.5% decrease in total carbon monoxide emissions in the Chicago Transportation Control Area. Comment 54: Use of park-n-ride garages will increase pollution. (F. Miller) Response 54: Use of proposed park-n-ride garages will result in more air pollution in local areas near garage sites than would exist without them. See page V-34 of the Final EIS. Even so, because of emission reductions expected through the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program, air quality in areas near station sites is expected to be better after park-n-ride facilities begin operation in 1981 than it is at present. In addition, regional air quality benefits will be accrued through operation of the three park-n-rides. X-20 Comment 55: Te adverse short-time CO impact near the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride facility should be mitigated by optimizing the traffic flow in and around the park-n- ride facility. The parking should be designed to minimize excessive idlinq of existing vehicles. (IEPA) y Response 55: Significant improvements to roadways serving the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride will be made to minimize traffic flow disruption. The Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride A n ^°^° rates a major design feature to facilitate movement of existing vehicles. A bridge over the expressway will be provided to allow direct egress from the park-n-ride to the westbound expressway lanes. Provision of this bridge will facilitate the quick exit of all vehicles from the garage, and minimize traffic ilow interruptions on surrounding arterial streets. Comment 56: Table II-4, page 11-24, should be modified or deleted because the basis for the toxicity calculation is outdated. (DEC) Response 56: Ta ble 11-4 has been modified. Tolerance factors used in the revision of the table were issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1976. 8 . Noise Comment 57: Intermediate stations will generate the greatest amount of additional noise due to noise from trains, feeder buses, and park-n-ride facilities. (DPPC) Response 57: Increased noise levels will occur in the vicinity of the intermediate stations as a result of passing trains, feeder buses, and park-n-ride facilities as detailed on pages V-40 to V-43 of the FEIS. Located in an established noise corridor, the additional noise from the trains and park-n-ride facilities at the intermediate station locations will occur at times of the day when other transportation related noise levels will be at a maximum. Increased feeder bus traffic is not expected to have a serious noise impact given the volumes of traffic normally using primary and secondary arterials in the vicinity. Comment 58: Additional information should be provided concerning measures to reduce noise levels at the subway station. (US EPA) X-21 Response 58: Three measures are being implemented to control noise at the O'Hare terminal subway station: A. Resilient track fastening will be employed to reduce structure- borne vibration due to wheel-rail interactions. B. A permanent speed restriction of 25 MPH will be enforced in the station and tunnel as a safety and noise control measure. High subway noise levels are associated with high speed train opera¬ tion. Operation at speeds below 24 MPH will result in drastically lower noise levels. C. A noise control consultant, Wilson-Ihrig & Assoc., is being retained to develop specifications for sound absorbing materials usage in the station proper. Comment 59: Two elements of the current HUD external noise exposure standards for new residential construction might be relevant to the project. First,'sites where the exposure exceeds 80 dB(A) for 60 minutes per 24 hour period are clearly unacceptable for residential development. Secondly, "loud repetitive sounds on site" render a site discretionary/normally unacceptable. While not precisely defined, this criterion is intended to apply to sites which are subject to significant train and airplane noise. (US HUD) Response 59: Current HUD external noise exposure standards which are relevant to this project are incorporated on page 11-35 in the FEIS. 9. Energy Comment 60: Garage use will increase gasoline consumption. (F. Miller) Response 60: An investigation was undertaken to determine the net increase or decrease in fuel consumption that would result from use of the O'Hare Extension. This investigation was carried out for five separate O'Hare Extension user groups, including park-n-ride patrons. In each of the five cases', and for the project as a whole, it was determined that substantial energy savings would be accrued. See Page V-46 of the FEIS. Comment 61: The approximate 1000 riders per day increase in patronage resulting from the construction of the Harlem Avenue Park-n-Ride is a very high price to pay for the increase in fuel consumption which will result. (R. Pucinski) X-22 Response 61: The increase in CTA ridership to be generated through use of the Harlem Avenue park-n-ride would not be generated at the expense of increase petroleum fuel consumption. Use of the Harlem Avenue park-n-ride will result in a decrease in based fuel consumption, as drivers short-cut longer auto trips by diverting to mass transit. See above comment and Page III-45 of the FEIS. Comment 62: The assumptions used in the energy impact analysis of the recommended alter- native are false and should be redeveloped. (A6TA) Response 62: The assumptions used in the energy impact analysis are documented on page V-45 of the FEIS. The analysis, as is indicated on page V-45, is intended to demonstrate the effect of the proposed extension on trip related energy consumption. In the development of the analysis, the energy efficiency of travel modes from which patrons will divert to rapid rail and changes in access routes for both auto and bus have been considered. 10. Recreational and Historic Properties Comment 63: No information is provided as to whether there is north-south public access through the transportation easement land nor whether that access will be main¬ tained during and after project construction. (US DOT) Response 63: The Forest Preserve District of Cook County maintains a "developed trail" for pedestrian/cyclist/equestrian traffic through its Indian Boundary Division which passes over the transportation easement via a highway bridge at East River Road. There will be no effect upon this access either during or after construction. 11. Safety and Security Comment 64: Does the fact that the Kennedy Line passes through low crime areas and the relationship between crime in rapid transit stations and crime rates in areas surrounding stations guarantee that our area will be free from an in¬ crease in crime simply because criminals are not supposed to strike on unfa¬ miliar transit platform? With homes and businesses less than a block away on foot, and increased accessibility of bus routes to each surrounding area, local police can probably expect increased possibilities of crime. (DPPC) % Response 64: As a continuation of a very low crime segment of the CTA transit system, it is anticipated that in-station crime and crime rates in areas surrounding the stations will be unaffected by the transit project. Formore detailed information concerning the relationship between crime in rapid transit stations and crime rates in areas surrounding the stations, refer to Safety and Security on pages V-43 and V-49 of the FEIS. Comment 65: Traffic congrestion at intermediate station sites will impede ambulance access from O'Hare Airport to Resurrection Hospital, the official receiving hospital for the airport. (R. Pucinski) Response 65: The designated exit from the Kennedy Expressway, and hence from O'Hare, to Resurrection Hospital is at Harlem Avenue. Exiting from the westbound expressway lanes, access to Harlem Avenue is made via Bryn Mawr Avenue, which will incur no change in peak hour traffic volumes due to the proposed park-n-ride at Harlem' Avenue. Exiting from the eastbound lanes, the route from O'Hare Airport, ambulance and emergency vehicle traffic would access . Harlem Avenue via Higgins Avenue. The exit movement from the eastbound expressway lanes to Higgins will be significantly improved by the proposed exit ramp modification. This modification will allow free flow movement off the expressway, avoiding the present stop-sign controlled, three way, expressway exit ramp - Higgins Avenue intersection. Movement through the Harlem-Higgins intersection will be somewhat improved after project com¬ pletion due to addition of turn bays, channelization, and improved signaliza- tion. The proposed improvements are expected to have no adverse effect on access to Resurrection Hospital from O'Hare Airport via the eastbound expressway 1 anes. Comment 66: The Dearborn Street subway (the downtown segment of the Milwaukee Line, of which the O'Hare Extension will be a part) is possibly unsafe particularly during non-rush hours. (GNMAA) Response 66: The Dearborn Street subway, as with other subway stations within the Central Area, is heavily patroled by police during both rush hour and non-rush hour periods; and is as safe or safer than other stations in the Central Area - including those located on the Near-Northside. As referenced in the report- improvement of Mass Transit Security in Chicago (1973), CBD stations on the Milwaukee line are among the safest within the entire rapid transit system. Compared below are the total number of crimes (from January 1971 - July 1972) and the percentage of total system crimes on the Milwaukee Line (West-North¬ west) and the North-South Line which directly services the Near-Northside area. X-24 Transit Station Total Number of Crimes % of Total System Milwaukee Line North-South Line Lake/Clark 4 0 % Washington 9 1 % Monroe 1 0 % Jackson 8 1 % LaSalle 6 0 % Clark/Division 11 1 % Chicago 37 2 % Grand 10 1 % Washington 44 3% Monroe 11 1 % Jackson 42 3% 12. Economics Comment 67: The belief that the extension will maintain the CBD as a highly attractive business area and strengthen the area's role as a regional hotel and con¬ vention center is purely mythical. (AGTA) Response 67: Chicago has developed one of the most economically viable Central Areas in the nation primarily as a result of its accessibility to and from most sec¬ tions of the metropolitan region. By extending rapid transit service to residents on the Northwest Side of the City and by providing transit service to airport bound passengers and employees from the entire metropolitan area, the CBD, which is the major destination, origin, or transfer point of most °f trips, will accrue significant economic benefits. Increased acces¬ sibility to the CBD will support its business and retail activity. Provision of an overall ground access system capable of handling increased CBD-Airport traffic will help maintain the CBD and Chicago as the most viable convention center in the nation. Comment 68: The airline travelling public, in general, represents the most affluent members of society who will enjoy heavily subsidized travel to and from the airport via the proposed extension. (AGTA) Response 68: The O'Hare Extension has been planned to satisfy a need for improved trans¬ portation to O'Hare Airport and the Northwest section of Chicago. An ade¬ quate ground transportation system is essential to the ongoing viability of O'Hare Airport. The need for improved airport related ground transportation is not determined by the relative affluence of those receiving the service. It should be emphasized here that the O'Hare Extension will provide a needed transportation service to all segments of the Dopulation, reaardless of their affluence. X-25 Comment 69: The total cost estimate in the study has not considered the continued in¬ flationary spiral to which the economy is committed. We therefore conclude that the cost estimates are incorrect and that the per capita cost of this extension will be significantly higher than included in the study. (NPCC) Comment 70: Federal, State, County, and City projects, including the O'Hare Extension, overestimate the benefits and underestimate the costs. (NPCA, AGTA) Based on past history, we have reason to believe that project costs will double to $375 million. (NPCA) Responses 69 and 70: Cost, revenue and patronage estimates for the O'Hare Extension have been carefully analyzed by a number of professional agencies. These estimates represent the best available projections of actual costs, revenues, and ridership. They have not been altered or modified to make the project appear more attractive. As explained in Chapter V of the Final EIS, the project cost inflated to 1980 dollars is $152.5 million. For costs to double by the end of construc¬ tion, the 1981 inflation rate would have to be 100%. Comment 71: Can the taxpayers afford to have so few people, 36,500 per day, served at such a hugh cost. (NPCA). Comment 72: I protest the construction of the Rail Rapid Transit Extension to Chicago O'Hare Airport as an unnecessary use of taxpayer's money. (D. Taylor) Responses 71 and 72: The O'Hare Extension will have major benefits that extend beyond the simple transport of people. The expenditure of public funds for this project will result not only in transportation benefits to a wide range of patrons over long project life, but will also result in economic, environmental, enerqy and social benefits.. Assuming the patronage on the O'Hare Extension remains constant, the extension will serve about 435 million passengers over the next 30 years. The Chicaqo Area Transportation Study (CATS) has indicated that on a passenger miles per route basis and on a .cost per passenger mile basis, this extension compares favorably with existing lines and other proposed extensions. Comment 73 The residential home in the impact areas of Harlem-Cumberland would depreciate if the park-n-ride was constructed. (NPCA) Response 73: Studies of real estate values in the vicinity of the Jefferson Park CTA terminal nave indicated that a marked increase in property values occured, possibly due to the transit service. Since no park-n-ride is present at Jefferson Park, the problems of residential street traffic and on-street parking exceed those which would occur if one were built. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the Park-n-Rides will result in home depreciation. Comment 74 At $7,300 per parking space, park-n-ride garages are not cost effective (F. Miller) Response 74 The cost per space for each park-n-ride are listed below: Harlem Avenue Cumberland Avenue Rosemont $5,777 per space 2,916 per space 2,484 per.space The proposed park-n-ride garages will not recover the capital investment required to construct them from revenues generated through their use. The park-n-rides are proposed to produce benefits, some of which, like improved regional air quality, are not reducible to dollar amounts, and others, like energy conservation, whose importance extends beyond the simple dollar value of impacts. X-27 Comment 75: By eliminating the park-n-ride facilities, $17 million could be saved. (F. Mi 11e Response 75: Eliminating the three intermediate station parking facilities would reduce the project's capital cost by $8.4 million. Comment 76: No discussion was included under economic impact of the effect of the proposed transit system on the private taxi/livery services now being afforded passenqers at O'Hare. (I DOT-DA, Pate) Response 76: Neither taxi companies nor Continental Air Transport should expect decreased patronage as a result of the O'Hare Extension. By 1985, the total number of weekday person trips to the airport will increase from the 1976 level of 172,500 to 248,900.. It is projected that patronage on the O'Hare Extension will not equal the difference between 1976 and 1985 person trips. As a result, the demand for highway access will be greater than at present. The share of the airport ground access ridership market captured by taxi and airport bus is not expected to decrease. Projections generated for air passengers' trips to O'Hare Airport indicate that in 1985 the Taxi and Limousine/Coach modes will carry 135% and 106% of their 1976 patronage, respectively. Comment 77: We, as businessmen, are fundamentally opposed to any rapid transit projects which will not be financially self-supporting and which will require subsidies on a continuing basis. (NPCC) Response 77: The provision of adequate public transportation is not a business venture intended to generate profits._ It is rather a public service provided by local governmental agencies with the support of the Federal government intended to insure that the welfare and vitality of urban areas, and satisfactory movement of people and goods within urban areas is not jeopardized by the continued reliance on motor vehicles and consequent traffic congestion. Comment 78: Chicago taxpayers are going to pay more taxes for an. extension and parking facilities to benefit only the suburbs. (NPCA) Response 78: Neither the financial burden nor transit benefits are limited only to the City or suburbs. Through the RTA, each share in supporting region-wide transit operations while capital construction funds are provided by UMTA from national sources. The O'Hare Extension will serve a wide patronage See response to Comment 22, Topic III. Comment 79: Since the construction of the O'Hare Extension will consume a large amount of the UMTA Section 3.capital funds for the Chicago region at the expense of other regional capital projects, a detailed fiscal impact statement should be prepared and included in the FEIS. (NWMC) Comment 80: DPRPC does not endorse the project because of its impact on the supply of UMTA Section 3 Capital Funds in the region for FY'78, until such time as the priorities for UMTA's use of Section 3 monies is clearly addressed (DPRPC) Responses 79 and 80: The priorities for use of UMTA Section 3 capital grant monies within the Chicago region are established in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) forum through the Transportation Improvement Programming (TIP) pro¬ cess described by joint UMTA/FHWA planning/programming regulations issued in September, 1975. For the FY'76-80 TIP, all potential UMTA Section 3 applicants, including the City of Chicago, the commuter railroads, and suburban transit districts identified their project needs and negotiated a fiscally constrained program of projects in the MPO forum. The O'Hare Extension has been included in the fiscally constrained five-year TIP (FY 76-80) as well as in the FY'78 Annual Element. As a result of negotiations among transit interests in the region, funding for the O'Hare Extension was reduced from 55 to 32 million dollars for this first phase. X-29 Comment 81: Would it be cheaper to operate a commuter rail or CTA rapid rail service to O'Hare Airport? (Pate) Response 81: The proposed CTA service to O'Hare Airport operates at an operating cost lower then either commuter rail alternative studied. See Page 111-21 of the FEIS for annual operating cost figures. Comment 82: Would the service provided by the O'Hare Extension result in more patronage of O'Hare area, as opposed to CBD, hotels? (Goldblatt) Response 82: During the 30 year period from 1948-1977, Chicago has annually hosted over 1000 conventions, except for a brief lull in 1969-1972 due to the loss of McCormick Place and the effect of the 1968 Democratic Convention. Recent CBD area completion of luxury hotel accommodations totalling about 4000 rooms, the influx of major corporate headquarters such as Standard Oil, Sears Roebuck, etc., and construction of eleven major office buildings assure that Chicago will remain one of the largest convention centers in North America. There is no reason to believe that improving public transit access to the CBD from O'Hare Airport would adversely affect the momentum implicit in this strong CBD developmental activity. 13. Airport Planning Comment 83: No discussion could be found regarding the impact of the proposed facility on the City of Chicago's efforts to divert some airline traffic to Midway. (ID0T-DA) Response 83: The O'Hare Extension will have no effect on the City's effort to divert some airline traffic to Midway Airport. Midway Airport is a potentially valuable asset to the region's transportation network; and efforts to revitalize the southwest side facility will continue regardless of increased accessibility to O'Hare provided by the extension. The Civil Aeronautics Board recently granted tentative permission to five airlines to operate low-cost commuter service between Midway and 17 other locations. X-30 14. Project Planning Comment 84: The entire matter should be restudied in the public interest, so that the Near Northside is served in the most efficient and least expensive manner possible. (GNMAA) Response 84: The purpose of the O'Hare Extension is to provide fast, reliable and convenient access to O'Hare Airport from all sections of the CBD, not just from the Near Northside. The Near Northside has always been an integral, but not exclusive, section of the CBD in CBD-airport transit planning. To restudy the entire matter at this point would be a purely redundant effort which would be under¬ taken at a significant expenditure of public funds. Comment 85: A new origin-destination study should be conducted to learn the actual facts of air traveller preference in travelling between the CBD, including the Near North- side, and O'Hare. (GNMAA) Response 85: The origin-destination studies undertaken in 1964 and 1969 as a part of project planning for the O'Hare Extension established a significant demand for travel between O'Hare Airport and the CBD, which includes the most highly developed section of the Near Northside centered along Michigan Avenue. Based on data gathered in these studies, origin-destination projections were generated upon which project planning has been based. These projections account for the increased travel demand between the northern section of the CBD and the airport. Projections of airport oriented transit ridership for the various alterna¬ tives considered were generated through the use of a modal split model. This model was calibrated before projections were made to insure their validity. Comment 86: None of the residents living in the impact area were interviewed as to the people's reactions to stations and park-n-rides at Harlem and Cumberland. (NPCA) X-31 Response 86: Individual interviews with private citizens are not necessarily included as features in the planning of every transit improvement project. In this case, citizens were able to express their opinions and reactions through the formal public hearing process and Draft EIS comment period carried out in accordance with UMTA regulations. In addition, public involvement meet¬ ings. have been held in the adjacent communities offering residents oppor¬ tunities to discuss the proposed rapid transit project. Comment 87: Due to the long and short terms adverse effects, the project should be put on the back burner for more consideration. (NPCA) Response 87: The proposed project has been under study and development for over ten years in order to identify and address transportation, environmental, social and economic needs and issues. Its long and short term effects have been evaluated in detail in this FEIS in order that a decision in the greatest public interest could be reached. To restudy the proposal at this point would be a redundant effort. 15. Maintenance Comment 83: The CTA makes no guarantee to repair well travelled streets near station sites that bear increased traffic loads. (DPPC) Response 88: The CTA is not responsible for street maintenance. Maintenance of streets in areas surrounding the intermediate stations will be the responsibility of the highway agency which has jurisdiction over the streets. These agencies are -- the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Cook County Department of Highways, and the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation. X-32