Circle Line Alternatives Analysis Study FTA's New Starts Process

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y FTA’s New Starts Process Concept Development Alternatives Analysis Study Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction Operation -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Alternative Analysis (AA) Process Screen 1, 2 and 3 Evaluation Criteria Screen 1 Public Input Screen 2 Public Input Screen 3 Public Input LPA Alternatives Considered Alternatives Analysis Process Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3 Reviewed universe of alternatives Detailed definition and comparative evaluation - Eliminated alternatives that were not suitable - Three public involvement meetings – May 2006 – Specific alignments, transit ridership and capital costs – Evaluate and identify the strongest alternatives – Three public involvement meetings – September 2006 -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE Final definition and evaluation – Refine strongest alternatives to best serve the Purpose and Need – Present recommended LPA and supporting data to the public and solicit feedback

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s Purpose and Need Transportation Needs - Growth in population and employment - Access to activity and employment centers - Changing travel patterns (non-Loop destinations) - Connecting ng among transit modes - Increasing g transit travel options for residents - Congestion on and lengthening travel times Purpose of Transit Investments - Increase transit access between neighborhoods - Improve access to major regional activity centers - Improve CTA and Metra transfer connections - Increase regional transit system effi fficiency - Leverage existing regional transit infrastructure cture investments -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE S t u d y

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Screen 1 Findings Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE Light Rail Transit (LRT) Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Mostly Elevated Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Limited Elevated

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Screen 2 Findings Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Advancing to Screen 3 Bus Rapid Transit Ashland Bus Rapid Transit Ashland-Ogden Heavy Rail Transit Alternatives Advancing to Screen 3 Heavy Rail Transit Ashland -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE Heavy Rail Transit Ashland-Ogden

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Community Participation More than 500 people attended Screen 1 and 2 public meetings Met with stakeholders and elected officials Approximately 550 comments submitted and answered Significant media coverage -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Screen 3 Expanded Study Area Response to public request Seeking cost-effective solution to Purpose and Need Cicero Bus Rapid Transit & Heavy Rail Transit Modified system routes Expanded study area Extended north to Lawrence Extended south to 79th Street Extended west to Cicero -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Screen 3 Alternatives Maps New Cicero Alternatives Bus Rapid Transit Heavy Rail Transit Heavy Rail Transit to Midway Heavy Rail Transit to Ashland/Archer Bus Rapid Transit Heavy Rail Transit Ashland/North Ave New Route Alternatives (Utilizing Ashland/Ogden) Refined Screen 2 Alternatives (Lower Cost Alternatives) -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE Heavy Rail Transit Ashland/Ogden

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Alternatives Considered Screen 1 START Screen 1 ALTERNATIVES Public Involvement TECHNOLOGIES Monorail Screen 3 ALTERNATIVES Screen 2 ALTERNATIVES Public Involvement HRT Mostly Elevated – Ashland Baseline – Ashland-Ogden Half Circle BRT – Ashland HRT Mostly Elevated – Ash-Ogden Baseline – Ashland-Ogden Half Circle w/infill Stations HRT Mostly Elevated – Western Baseline – Ashland-Ogden Full Circle Commuter Bus Commuter Rail HRT Limited Elevated – Ashland HRT Northside to Lake/Ashland via State Street BRT – Western HRT Elevated – Ashland-Ogden Heavy Rail Transit High Speed Rail Light Rail Transit HRT Elevated – Ashland HRT Limited Elevated – Ash-Ogden RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN LONG RANGE PLAN Public Involvement BRT – Ashland-Ogden Bus Rapid Transit RECOMMENDED LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Phased LPA HRT - New Route to Lake/Ashland via State Street Circle Line Vision – Future Green, Red, Brown Connection BRT – Ashland Half Circle HRT Elevated – Western HRT Limited Elevated – Western Local Bus BRT Ashland-Ogden Half Circle BRT – Cicero HRT Underground – Ashland-Ogden MagLev Personal Rapid Transit HRT Underground – Ashland Streetcar HRT Underground – Western BRT – Western BRT – Ashland BRT Ashland Full Circle BRT – Ashland-Ogden HRT – Ashland Full Circle w/N Clybourn Hub BRT – Ashland BRT – Western HRT Ashland Full Circle BRT – 79th BRT – Western-35th HRT Ashland Ogden Full Circle BRT – Clybourn to McCormick LRT – Ashland HRT Ashland Half Circle HRT Midway to Pink Line Connection LRT – Ashland-Ogden Baseline – Ash/North & Ashland-Ogden Half Circle Brown Line Extension LRT – Western BRT Ashland/North & Ashland/ Ogden Half Circle HRT West Loop HRT Ashland/North Full Circle Madison Incline USX Sight Access LRT At-Grade – Ashland-Ogden CORRIDORS Canal/Clinton Halsted Ashland Ashland/Ogden Damen Western LRT At-Grade – Ashland LRT At-Grade – Western HRT Ashland/North Full Circle Milwaukee Incline ALIGNMENTS At-Grade Elevated Underground HRT Ashland/North Full Circle Clybourn Incline HRT Ashland/Ogden Full Circle Madison Incline HRT Ashland/Ogden Full Circle Larrabee Incline BRT Kimball to Midway via Cicero BRT Kimball to 87th via Cicero HRT Kimball to Jeff Park – Underground – Cicero HRT Kimball to Jeff Park – Elevated – Cicero BRT Kimball to 87th via Cicero HRT Northside to Midway – via the Loop HRT Lake/Ashland to Midway via Paulina HRT Northside to Midway via Ashland-Ogden HRT Northside to Ash/Archer via Ash/Ogden 134 combinations of technologies, corridors and profiles -*- No-Build (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE No-Build No-Build

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Screen 3 – Step 3 Summary Evaluation Matrix New Cicero Alternatives Criteria Order of Magnitude Capital Cost New Route Alternatives (Utilizing Ashland/Ogden) Refined Screen 2 Alternatives (Lower Cost Alternatives) Bus Rapid Transit Heavy Rail Transit Heavy Rail Transit to Midway Heavy Rail Transit to Ashland/ Archer Bus Rapid Transit Heavy Rail Transit Ashland/ North Ave Heavy Rail Transit Ashland/ Ogden 230 4,900 1,600 1,600 320 3,200 4,200 2,300 3,000 15 50 37 28 10 36 33 5.5 9.1 26.3 22.4 10.5 24.4 25.1 2.7 3.6 5.5 4.3 .6 2.6 2.5 11 112 27 33 54 103 129 79 100 (2009 million) Annual Operating Cost (2009 million) Annual Project Ridership (2030-million) Annual User Benefits (million hours) Annual Project Cost Per Hour of User Benefits (compared to no-build) Recommended for Long Term Vision and premise of LPA Not Recommended CTA Recommendations -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE Potential component of BRT network High cost relative to estimated ridership Does not allow for future connections identified in Purpose and Need Potential component of BRT network Provides for future connections identified in Purpose and Need

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Long Term Vision New HRT Elevated Service Fullerton New HRT Underground Service New Rail Cl yb o ur n Armitage New HRT Station Final Phases and Alignments to be Determined to North h Michigan n Ave A e North/Clybourn Clark/Division Chicago Chicag Grand Lake Ashland Washington Monroe Jackson Congress/Paulina Jackson Harrison Polk Roosevelt Roosevelt Norther r ly Islaand Park We stern Douglass Park 18th Halsted 18th/Clark Chinatown 18th 23rdd Cermak - Blue Island Halsted 27thh Ashland Bu urnham Parrk rk Provides future connections identified in Purpose and Need Potential Green, Red, Brown and Purple connections Future connections require additional environmental impact analysis -*- (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE

C i r c l e L i n e A l t e r n a t i v e s A n a l y s i s S t u d y Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative New HRT Elevated Service Fullerton New HRT Underground Service New Rail Cl yb o ur Armitage n New HRT Station to North Michigan Ave North/Clybourn Clark/Division We ster n Chicago Proposed Turn Back At Existing Ashland Station Proposed Circle Line To Utilize Existing Underground Red Line Tracks Grand Lake Proposed Circle Line To Utilize Existing Elevated Pink Line Tracks Ashland Washington Monroe Jackson Congress/Paulina Congress/Paulina Jackson Harrison Polk Roosevelt Roosevelt Potential Future Station Douglas Ashland (Metra BNSF) Park We stern Northerly Island Park 18th Halsted 18th/Clark 18th Chinatown Cermak-Blue Island 23rd Potential Future Station Archer (Metra RI, Future SWS) Halsted New Orange and Pink Line Connection 27th Ashland Burnham Park Capital Cost (inflated dollars)* 1.1 B Capital Cost ( 2009) 1.0 B Operating Cost ( 2009) 22 M Project Ridership (Year 2030)** 10 M * Inflated to estimated year of expenditure ** To be revised to reflect refined service plan -*- Proposed Circle Line To Utilize Existing Orange Line Tracks (ARRIS #4% %NGINEERS A *OINT 6ENTURE

Circle Line Alternatives Analysis Study -*- (ARRIS #4%%NGINEERS A*OINT6ENTURE Alternative Analysis (AA) Process Screen 1, 2 and 3 Evaluation Criteria Alternatives Considered Screen 3 Public Input LPA Screen 1 Reviewed universe of alternatives - Eliminated alternatives that were not suitable - Three public involvement meetings - May 2006 .