1. science
2. weather

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