• Introduction
• Overview of Technical Advisory Group Meeting #2

• Transportation System Performance Report Findings
• Project No-Action
• Alternatives Development & Alternatives Evaluation Process
• Village of Long Grove Presentation
• Comments
• Upcoming Activities

Dave Lutyens welcomed representatives to the meeting and provided an overview of the meeting agenda and the day's activities. He provided an overview of the last Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting and the output received during the breakout group exercise on transportation objectives.

Larry Martin/CH2M HILL and Jim Miller/CH2M HILL presented the findings of the transportation system performance analysis. Larry Martin began the discussion by explaining that the transportation system performance analysis describes the performance of the existing transportation system in the project study area with current and future travel. The evaluation incorporates both technical analysis and public perceptions. It establishes a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of alternative improvements. He mentioned that the full Transportation System Performance Report would be distributed to the TAG members at the end of the meeting.

Larry explained that the project team gathered information on public perceptions from focus groups, telephone surveys, agency and elected official meetings, and the transportation workshop and fair survey results. He reviewed the input from these various groups/activities. He then reviewed Lake County's population and employment trends and forecasts, as well as travel to work mode characteristics.

Jim Miller presented information on the roadway system. First, he discussed daily vehicle trips that take place in, from, to or through Lake County. He explained that there are approximately 1.73 million daily vehicle trips-approximately 50% have origins and destinations within the county, and approximately 50% have destinations and/or origins outside the county (including through trips).

Jim then explained p.m. peak period travel desires in the project study area. This type of analysis is concerned with desired travel patterns rather than the actual paths taken by motorists in making trips. Travel desires are based on data supplied by the Chicago Area Transportation Study, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for northeastern Illinois. He illustrated how travel desires are developed and how they are useful in planning transportation facilities. He explained that the 1996 p.m. peak period travel desires are heaviest in the eastern and southern tiers of the study area, and are oriented in the north-south direction. Highway travel demand in the p.m. peak period is expected to increase by nearly 40% by 2020.

Next, was a discussion of the congested links or roads in the project study area. Jim explained that the analysis focuses on identifying roads that can be characterized as congested, severely congested and extremely congested based on travel speeds, traffic volumes, and roadway configuration. He explained that approximately one-third of the major roadways operated at "congested" levels in 1996.

Jim explained that 2020 roadway congestion analysis assumes a package of improvements over the next 20 years-referred to as the Project No-Action highway network. This network represents a reasonable expectation of transportation improvements anticipated through the year 2020. The No-Action highway network includes approximately 74 route miles of improvements (roadway widenings) to the existing roadway system in the project study area and transit projects such as double tracking the North Central Service. Jim showed an illustration of the 2020 No-Action network.

In 2020, approximately two-thirds of the major roadways will operate at "congested" levels. Jim further explained that with the No-Action roadway improvements, by the year 2020 congestion on the major roadways would worsen by 55%, and improve on only 6% of the roadways. Jim noted that this forecast was the "No Build" scenario, which used population and employment forecasts that do not assume any major transportation investments.

Joanne Schroeder/Vlecides-Schroeder Associates discussed the state of the transit system in the project study area. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 3.7% of all work trips were made by rail. She mentioned that although the proportion of work trips completed by rail has been decreasing over the last decade, Metra data indicates that actual ridership has been increasing. Metra ridership has increased by approximately 32% in Lake County over the last 10 years. The reverse commute in the study area has also seen significant increases, approximately 32%. Nearly one-third of the residents in the project study area live within one-mile of a Metra rail station.

Joanne stated that Pace bus ridership has also been increasing. Fixed bus service is most prevalent in the study area, along the lakefront and southern tier of the study area. More than one-half of the residents live within one-half mile of a Pace route. Joanne also provided an overview of the other services offered by Pace.

Larry Martin explained the Project No-Action alternative and how it will be used during the project study. He explained that the Project No-Action included improvements identified in the 1998-2002 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and other improvements determined by transportation providers to be implemented by 2020 in Lake County. He showed illustrations comparing the CATS 2020 No-Build alternative and the Project No-Action transportation network (i.e., both highways and public transportation projects).

Next, Suhail al Chalabi/The al Chalabi Group discussed the generation of the Project No-Action population and employment forecasts. After explaining his methodology, he stated that the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission has accepted his methodology as reasonable and the results as consistent with the Commission's endorsed forecasts. He explained that the difference between the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 2020 No-Build forecast is due to changes in accessibility to transportation. Each transportation project has an impact proportional to its influence on accessibility. He then presented the effects of the individual 2020 RTP projects (both highway and transit) in Lake County on population and employment. This included a discussion of the actual numbers and an illustration of the distribution effects on the metropolitan area.

Looking to the year 2020, there will be an increase of 250,000 residents and 161,000 jobs in Lake County under the Existing Airports No-Build development scenario (no major transportation improvements) from 1990 conditions. Under the Project No-Action scenario, Lake County will have approximately 31,000 more residents than under the No-Build scenario; employment will be approximately the same. Under the 2020 Existing Airports RTP (implementing all the projects identified in the RTP) there will be an increase of approximately 60,500 residents and 4,500 jobs from the No-Build scenario. Although improving accessibility through highway and transit projects does stimulate growth, its overall effect on the county's growth is minor. The majority of the growth in Lake County will occur without transportation investment.

Larry Martin described the alternative development process. He began the discussion by explaining: what an alternative is; what an alternative will strive to accomplish; what the basic elements of an alternative are; and how alternatives will be developed. He then explained that there would be several rounds of evaluation and described the process for evaluating alternatives during each of these rounds. He concluded this discussion with an example of the type of factors to be used to compare and evaluate alternatives.

Lenore Simmons, President of the Village of Long Grove thanked the group for the opportunity to present information to the Technical Advisory Group. She introduced the topics for the presentation and then invited Lane Kendig, Village Planner of Long Grove, to make the presentation. The presentation mentioned the following topics:

• Funding
• 1982 Lake County Framework Plan
• Land Use
• Travel Patterns
• IL 53 Extension
• Rush Hour Tolls
• Citizen Input

The floor was opened for comments. Following is a summary of the topics discussed.

• Long Grove's position regarding the widening of IL 22. Long Grove stated that it supports the widening of IL 22 everywhere except through Lincolnshire who opposes the widening of IL 22. The Village supports the Village of Lincolnshire's right to determine what's right for its community.
• The 1982 Lake County Framework Plan. Many of the projects identified in the plan were not implemented and now the county has to deal with the traffic problems. There is a need to examine what are the major transportation problems in the county and identify what it will take to relieve these problems.

• The relationship between transportation and land use. The LCTIP has no control over land use decisions; that is a local issue. However, this project is concerned with land use changes associated with any proposed transportation improvement. The al Chalabi Group's work identified land use changes as a result of transportaiton projects in Lake County. 90% of Lake County's future growth is attributed to things other than new highways.

• IL 53 Extension. This concept is not on the table and a discussion about IL 53 is premature at this point.
• Northwestern Cook County Employment Centers. The significance of Lake County work trips to the northwestern Cook County employment centers was discussed. The point was made that there is a lot of interaction between trips in Lake County and the region as a whole. Fifty percent of the 1.73 million daily vehicle trips-847,000 trips-have an origin or destination outside the county or are trips that pass through the county.

• Funding. A question was raised about the ability to fund a package of improvements. The merits of this question were recognized, and a discussion about the transportation planning process followed. It was noted that the first step is to identify the system of transportation improvements that are needed to address the major transportation problems in study area. The second step is for the transportation agencies to prioritize their needs throughout the region. Studies like the LCTIP are necessary for long range planning in anticipation of future funding.

• Municipal Group participation. A request was made for an update on the previous week's Municipal Group meetings. It was commented that summary notes are prepared for all meetings and are posted on the project website, or available upon request. It was also noted that attendance and involvement by municipalities in this project has been good throughout the process.

Dave Lutyens discussed the agency and elected official meeting schedule through public informational meeting. He also discussed the proposed agenda for the next meeting.

The meeting concluded at 12:00 p.m.