• Geographic Information System Tool
• Travel Demand Forecasting
• Understanding Transportation Problems in the Project Study Area
• Breakout Group Exercise—Transportation Objectives
• Comments

Dave Lutyens began the meeting by introducing himself as the recently appointed Project Director for the Lake County Transportation Improvement Project. In his introductory remarks, he touched on the following points:

• Recap of Technical Advisory Group Meeting #1
• Role of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
• Overview of project activities since the last TAG meeting—GIS Database, Project Video I, Transportation Workshop & Fair, Project Website, Transportation Deficiencies (on-going), Project Newsletter (on-going), and Speaker’s Bureau Events
• Overview of the Transportation Workshop Preference Survey Results
• Schedule through the Public Informational Meeting
• Meeting Topics for upcoming TAG meetings

Larry Martin/CH2M HILL began the Geographic Information System (GIS) Tool portion of the presentation by first defining GIS. He then provided information on how this tool would be used by the project. He identified the type of information included in the database and the benefits of this tool.

Mike Hirsh, in his introduction, explained that he would first discuss the regional travel demand forecasting process and then explained how this process relates to the LCTIP analysis. Mike provided an explanation of travel demand forecasting; the fundamentals of the regional travel demand modeling process and its relationship to LCTIP. He identified the four endorsed 2020 regional scenarios and their relationship to the LCTIP: 2020 No Build O’Hare, 2020 Regional Transportation Plan O’Hare, 2020 No Build South Suburban Airport, and 2020 Regional Transportation Plan South Suburban Airport. He then explained the analytical tools being used for the project—TP+, Viper and GIS—and the benefits of these tools.

Larry Martin explained the development of the perceived transportation issues, which were developed based on input received at the meetings of the Municipal Groups, County Committees and the Technical Advisory Group. He then reviewed the issues that fell into four broad categories: road network, public transportation, environmental and other issues.

Mike Hirsh next identified the trip characteristics in Lake County.

He then provided an overview of some preliminary transportation system performance results. He started with a graphic illustration of congested road areas (areas where volume is greater than capacity) in 1996 and 2020 (No Build O’Hare). He showed an illustration of travel time across Lake County from a Deerfield employment center along Lake Cook Rd. (1996 travel times vs. 2020 travel times.) The congestion/travel time scenarios assumed no transportation improvements beyond 1996 conditions.

He showed an illustration of Metra and Pace Transit Coverage in the project study area. He explained that Pace service primarily follows old bus routes established prior to the formation of Pace. He also explained that Metra shares its tracks with freight service. He stated that additional commuter trains on these tracks could affect freight service.

Mike showed commute to work statistics from the 1990 US Census for Lake, Du Page and McHenry Counties. He then provided information on public transportation use for commute to work trips in other suburban locations in the US that have commuter rail service—Philadelphia, Boston, Washington D.C., San Francisco and New York.

He concluded the transportation system performance discussion by showing an illustration of Metra parking lots in the project study area that have greater than 85% utilization, the number Metra uses to identify needs for additional parking lot facilities. Mike then showed Metra’s future plans for parking lot expansion.

Larry Martin explained the breakout group exercise. Before beginning the exercise, he provided some background material on what is an objective, examples of an objective, and how transportation objectives will assist the project team as we move forward with the analysis. Following is a summary of the transportation objectives developed by the groups:

• Encourage alternative work choices/schedule/TDM
• Relieve non-arterial road congestion/traffic
• Relieve high-type facility congestion (e.g., I-94, 41, 43)
• Distribute traffic to the appropriate facilities—requires sufficient capacity on those facilities
• Strive to accommodate existing and future direction of travel, i.e., grid system
• Transportation improvement alternatives should be compatible with adopted/endorsed land use plans (both regional and local plans)
• Alternatives should consider funding abilities

• Develop an awareness of the public transit opportunities in the project area

• Convenience

Environmental

• Develop transportation improvements that consider, protect and preserve natural and human/social/cultural resources in Lake County.

• Can TDM help?
• Do we need to expand transit to underserved areas?
• Do we need to focus on directional movement?
• How important is the regional transportation issue in Lake County?

• Coordinated System Improvement

• Incorporate creative solutions to resource issues in alternatives development process
• Noise reduction
• Safety enhancement
• Air Quality

• Analytical basis to influence policy on growth and associated infrastructure investment funding (impact fees)
• Funding availability
• Cost/benefit analysis
• Equity—who pays?
• Socioeconomic considerations: Transportation decisions that support local economic development objectives and local land use preferences

• Focus travel on the appropriate functional facilities
• Ensure sufficient functional facilities for all levels of travel (arterial, collector, and neighborhood streets)
• Reduce network congestion
• Provide better transportation efficiency through adding capacity and TSM measures (intersection improvements, signal phasing, etc.)
• Provide efficient travel choices

• Reduce total travel time differential between transit use and driving in a single occupancy vehicle
• Improve the attractiveness of transit as a travel option
• Improve transit connections to final destinations (i.e., from train station to office park)
• Improve transit service to accommodate existing and changing future home to work trips
• Invest in transit improvements concurrent with new development (i.e., establish alternative modes of travel to an office development from the outset)

• Prioritize transportation improvements where you want to support development

• Provide sufficient capacity on major corridors (to reduce cut through travel)
• Focus on major transportation corridors rather than spot improvements
• As land develops, ensure connectivity of the transportation network to allow local short destined trip on the local system
• Remove obstacles at points of conflict that hinder the efficient movement of traffic

• Grade separation
• Adequate spacing of signals
• Bus turnouts

• For non-CBD travel, improve connections to destinations (employment centers, shopping, etc)
• Promote higher density development around transportation hubs
• Expand commuter rail service in Lake County by providing service on existing freight lines
• Promote private sector involvement in transportation issues (e.g. TDM)

• Develop transportation improvements that avoid or minimize impacts to natural resources

Why can’t others be members of the Technical Advisory Group and/or participate in the breakout group exercise?

The arterial analysis should focus on the SRA system that includes a lot of the corridors we are studying.

Is the LCTIP process going to involve other transportation providers?

Land use and transportation have been "segregated" by LCTIP staff during the breakout discussion; they need to be considered together.

Why is the project using 4 – 6 p.m. peak? If you provide capacity during this period the roads will just fill up after you improve them. Move traffic from the 4 – 6 p.m. period to the rest of the day.

How much congestion will a motorist tolerate?

This was a good meeting; we got a lot out of it. The breakout group generated good discussion. Additional time for the breakout group exercise should be considered for future meetings.

(All questions were answered at the meeting.)