Village of Bedford Park
Last Mile Mobility Study
Phase I Report
July 2019Village of Bedford Park
Last Mile Mobility Study
Phase I Report

The study was funded through Cook County’s Invest in Cook Program.

PREPARED for
The Village of Bedford Park

PREPARED By
Antero Group, Shared-Use Mobility Center, and Active Transportation AllianceTABLE OF CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION

1

Project Overview
Project Goals
Mobility Challenges
Project Approach
How to Use this Report

2

BEDFORD PARK’S MOBILITY CHALLENGES

15

Defining the Last Mile
Regional Context
Community Conditions
Bedford Park’s Last Mile Challenges

3

BEDFORD PARK’S LAST MILE ASSESSMENT

43

Last Mile Gap Assessment: By Transportation Mode
Last Mile Gap Assessment: By Corridor
Summary

4

LAST MILE TOOLKIT89

How to Use the Toolkit
Last Mile Solution Toolkit Matrix
Tools for the Pedestrian Network
Tools for the Bike Network
Tools for the Transit Network
Tools for the Motorist and Freight Network
Tools for the Shared Use Mobility Network

5

THE PATH FORWARD

115

Next StepsREFERENCES

119

APPENDICES		

125

Appendix A: Plan Inventory
Appendix B: Case Studies
Appendix C: First/Last Mile Assessment Tool
Appendix D: Employee Survey Results
Appendix E: Community Data
Appendix F: Shared Mobility Resources
Appendix G: Additional Last Mile Solution Toolkit Resources
Appendix H: Cost Tables

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
COOK COUNTYRESOURCE GROUP

President Toni Preckwinkle, Cook County
John Yonan, Cook County
Benet Haller, Cook County
Tomohiko Music, Cook County

Loretta Spiak, ACH Food Companies, Inc.
Donna Smith, Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial
Association
Dawn Welch, Cintas
Lisa Van Kampen, Cintas
Emily Drexler, CTA
Katherine Branch, CTA
Andy Charley, FedEx
Christine Wilkins, FedEx
Steve Degrazio, FedEx
Pamela Coan, GRM Information Management
Services
Johnny Terzakis, Hoffman Alpha Omega
Development GroupFrank Flores, Home Chef
Eva Perez, Ingredion
Kelly Anderson, Ingredion
Rob Mead, Ingredion
Mike Daley, Innova EV
David Bruce, Lapham-Hickey SteelJohn Malnar, Lapham-Hickey Steel
Sonserese Hatch, Metra
Mark Weglarz, Midway Hotel Center
Tammy Knor, Midway Hotel Center
Mary Koutek, Nalco
Rory Neill, Neill Cartage
Lewie Neill, Neill Cartage
Will Hansen, Nexus Distribution
Jessica Rybarczyk, Pace
Ryan Ruehle, Pace
Jovita Gamboa, Pactiv
Edward Grzywacz, Professional Freezing Services
Peter Fahrenwald, Regional Transportation
Authority (RTA)
Peter Kersten, Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
Kelsey Mulhausen, Southwest Conference ofMayorsMatt Ginsberg, Tai Ginsberg & Associates, LLC
Robert Elliot, UPS
Terri Bonneville, UPS
Felicia Coleman, USPS
Terry Lynch, Paine Wetzel Associates

VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK
President David Brady, Village of Bedford Park
Chief Sean Maloy, Village of Bedford Park
Chris Lesniak, Village of Bedford Park
Jerry Ponio, Village of Bedford Park
Jim Butler, Hoefferle Butler Engineering
Kevin Ormins, Village of Bedford Park
Larry Gryczewski, Village of Bedford Park
Marilyn Curnutte, Village of Bedford Park
Rick Young, Village of Bedford ParkTom Hansen, Village of Bedford Park
Yvette Solis, Village of Bedford Park
Trustee Anthony Kensik, Village of Bedford Park
Trustee Ed Salecki, Village of Bedford Park
Trustee Gail Rubel, Village of Bedford Park
Trustee Katrina Errant, Village of Bedford Park
Trustee Terry Stocks, Village of Bedford Park

CONSULTANT TEAM
Curtis Witek, Antero Group
Eric Neagu, Antero Group
Allison Kappeyne, Antero Group
Andrew Johansson, Antero Group
Cathriona Fey, Antero Group
Randal Bernthal, Antero Group
Heather Schady, Active Transportation AllianceColin Murphy, Shared Use Mobility Center

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Getting to work is a challenge for thousands ofcommuters across the Chicago region. This isespecially true for employees that travel each day
to industrial districts like the Bedford Park-Clearing
Industrial Area. Though Bedford Park businesses
employ nearly 30,000 workers across three work
shifts, the area presents a challenging travel
environment for commuters who do not arriveby car. Dangerous walking and biking conditions,limited transit service and mismatched schedules,
high volumes of freight traffic, frequent railroad
grade-crossing delays, and an array of other “lastmile” challenges impede mobility in ways that go
beyond the basic problem of accessing transit
stations.

In an ideal world, thejourney from a transit stop
to work or home is quick,safe, and convenient, butthere is often an array of“last mile” challenges that
impede mobility.
Given these mobility challenges, it’s unsurprisingthat most employees opt to drive alone to thearea. However, commuters’ reliance on driving
alone contributes to roadway congestion andnegatively impacts access to jobs for people
who walk, bike, or take transit. If left unchecked,ii

these last mile challenges could choke economic
development and job opportunities in Bedford
Park, Cook County, and the broader Chicago
region.
With funding from Cook County’s Invest in Cook
program, the Village of Bedford Park engaged
a consultant team (Antero Group, Shared-Use
Mobility Center, Active Transportation Alliance)
to implement a Last Mile Mobility Study and Pilot
Program. The goals of this study were to:
1. Define the regional and last milechallenges impacting mobility in
Bedford Park;
2. Assess Bedford Park’s last milechallenges; and3. Develop and evaluate a toolkit ofpotential last mile solutions.
Completing this Phase I Report is the first step of
a broader process of discovering, piloting, andscaling last mile and new mobility solutions. This
report and forthcoming Bedford Park Last Mile
Mobility Action Plan will provide a roadmap foradvancing last mile and new mobility solutions
that provide more efficient, accessible, andequitable transportation services in Bedford Parkand the broader Chicago region.

1 – REGIONAL AND LAST MILE CHALLENGES
IMPACTING MOBILITY IN BEDFORD PARK
Mobility to and from Bedford Park is impacted
by the following regional and last mile challenges.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

REGIONAL CHALLENGES
1. Limited Transit Supply. Bedford Park
has limited transit access, due to theVillage’s “edge” location, regional
patterns of land development, long-termsocioeconomic trends.

2. Rail Delays and Truck Bottlenecks.
Bedford Park experiences high volumesof both rail and commercial truck trafficand other associated mobility challenges.
3. Severe Road Congestion. Bedford Park’s
limited transit supply, high volumes oftruck traffic, rail crossing delays, and highrates driving alone all contribute to roadcongestion in the area.

LAST MILE CHALLENGES

1. Long Walks. Some commuters must
regularly walk over 1.5 miles from thenearest bus stop to their place of work.
In many places, the sidewalk network
connecting pedestrians from a transit
stop to work is either incomplete or inpoor condition.

2. Limited Transit Access and Supply. The
average distance from a train stop into
the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area
is 2.75 miles. The average wait time for abus in Bedford Park is over 34 minutes.
Poor alignment between bus schedules
and work shifts was a commonly citedconcern.
3. Degraded Infrastructure. Many of thewalking and driving surfaces in Bedford
Park are weathered or degraded. Faded
pavement markings, potholes, andcrumbling sidewalks create dangerous
travel conditions for motorists andpedestrians alike.

4. Dangerous Travel Conditions.
Pedestrians must walk alongside fastmoving, congested arterials and crossdangerous intersections to get to work.
Bike commuters must share the roadwith heavy truck traffic and speeding
motorists. Between 2012 and 2016, there
were 22 pedestrian and bike crashes
in Bedford Park, 4 of which resulted in
fatalities. During the same period, there
were 1,056 car crashes, which resulted in
no fatalities.

5. Restrictive Right-Of-Ways. Most of
the roads in Bedford Park have been
designed to prioritize motorists andcommercial vehicle traffic. Over time, thishas created a travel environment thatis not safe for pedestrians or cyclists.
Retrofitting the right-of-ways to facilitate
alternative modes of travel will be achallenge, but necessary for reducing
congestion.
6. Poor Transit System Legibility and
Schedule Alignment. Navigating
multiple bus routes, schedules, andtransfers necessary to get to and from
Bedford Park can be challenging, which
deters potential transit riders andencourages driving commutes. Clear,simple signage and schedules that are
well aligned with work shifts will makecommuting via transit easier.

2 – LAST MILE GAP ASSESSMENT
In order to assess Bedford Park’s last milechallenges and develop a toolkit that promotes
access to jobs and economic opportunities, theproject team developed a framework for “integrated
and equitable mobility.” This framework is based on
the following definitions and premises.

WE
ARE
HERE

DISCOVER
Executive Summary

PILOT

SCALE
iii

An integrated mobility system is one
that facilitates the flows of people and goods
in a way that is safe, efficient, reliable, andconvenient. An integrated mobility system
works well for all users, including pedestrians,
cyclists, motorists, professional drivers, transit
users, and others. In an integrated mobility
system, smart and complete streets arebusiness-as-usual and enable the seamless
mobility of people and goods traveling alongconnected pedestrian, bike, transit, andmotorist and freight mobility networks.

iv

An equitable mobility system is one that
not only addresses the physical constructionof our streets, but the socioeconomic, cultural,and discriminatory barriers to access andcomfort within public spaces. Centering on
the experience of marginalized individuals
and the most vulnerable communities helps
in addressing these challenges. An equitablemobility system acknowledges that safety isdifferent for different people and should be
defined by the most vulnerable. An equitablemobility system facilitates connections between
people and places, and—by extension—accessto opportunity for all.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

The project team used this framework to assess
the last mile challenges associated with Bedford
Park’s Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, and Motorist andFreight mobility networks. In addition to assessing
last mile challenges by a travel mode, gaps werealso assessed through a corridor-specific lens for
Bedford Park’s five main transportation corridors.

3 – LAST MILE TOOLKIT AND NEXT STEPSThe Last Mile Solution Toolkit put forth in thisreport is based on the premise that emerging last
mile and “new mobility” technologies and services,such as Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), mobility hubs,
microtransit, autonomous vehicles, on-demandparatransit services, and others, can be integrated
with public transit systems in ways that are
mutually beneficial and that provide more efficient,accessible, and equitable transportation for all.
Therefore, the Toolkit shown on the next
page includes both innovative and pragmaticinterventions. The Toolkit is organized according
to the framework for integrated and equitablemobility and includes solutions for Bedford
Park’s Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, and Motorist andFreight. Shared Mobility solutions are integrated
into each of these four mobility networks. The
Toolkit includes 20 broad “solutions” and over 100
specific “treatments” for modifying the physical,
technological, operational components of Bedford
Park’s various transportation networks and as wellas policies that govern them. In order to equip
Bedford Park’s leaders, staff, and other local andregional partners with information to plan, design,
and implement specific actions, each solution
within the Toolkit was evaluated based on thefollowing guiding principles:;;

Safety. Last mile solutions improve travel
safety for all users, especially the mostvulnerable.

;;

Affordability. Last mile solutions addressmobility challenges in a way that is costeffective for communities and affordable
for travelers.

Executive Summary;;

Community Support. Last mile solutions
respond to community concerns andleverage community strengths.

;;

Feasibility. Last mile solutions areplanned, designed, and implemented
in a way that recognizes physical, fiscal,
political, and operational constraints.

;;

Supportive of Transit. Last milesolutions support the use of public
transit and other sustainable modes oftransportation.

NEXT STEPSThis Phase I Report defines Bedford Park’s last
mile challenges and outlines a Toolkit consistingof potential last mile solutions. The next stepis to engage Bedford Park’s leaders, staff,
employers, employees, regional partners, andmobility providers in a collaborative effort. This
collaboration is aimed at identifying the specificlocal last mile solutions that best respond to theVillage’s unique challenges and opportunities;
that are physically, economically, culturally, andoperationally feasible; and that are scalable
throughout other industrial areas in the region.
Towards that end, Phase II of this project will
include the following activities:
1. Targeted outreach to local and regional
stakeholders and mobility providers;
2. A Last Mile Mobility Demo Day; and3. Development of a Last Mile Mobility Action
Plan for Bedford Park
Phase II of this project will produce a Last
Mile Mobility Action Plan, lessons-learned,
and relationships between local and regional
stakeholders and mobility providers, which
will serve as a springboard for scaling last milesolutions that improve mobility and access toopportunities for all.

v

Last Mile Solution Toolkit and map

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Chapter 1

Introduction
PROJECT OVERVIEWIn June 2018, the Village of Bedford Park (“Village”) embarked on a study
to better understand and develop solutions to address important mobility
challenges within the community. Although Bedford Park only has a populationof 604 residents, the Village is home to 418 businesses that employ over 30,000
employees, owing to the Village’s significant transportation and industrial assets
and proximity to the City of Chicago. These employees generally commute to
and from the area during various shifts throughout the day, creating a majortraffic obstacle for residents and businesses. While the area does have public
transit, most of the area’s residents and employees use their own vehicles,
owing to an array of challenges this study seeks to address. These challenges,
often referred to as the “Last Mile Challenge,” for area employers and residents
include:;;Areas with limited pedestrian and bicycle access;;;

Limited transit service and mismatched schedules for area employees;;;

High volumes of freight traffic causing periodic congestion;;;

Frequent railroad grade-crossing delays; and,;;

Challenges involved with connecting commuters from transit nodes to
employment centers in a convenient, reliable, and efficient manner.

1

INTRODUCTION
With funding through Cook County’s Invest in Cook
program, the Village engaged a consultant team(“Project Team”) to complete an analysis of thecommunity’s Last Mile Challenge (“Phase I”) and to
implement a short-term Pilot Program (“Phase II”)
that is focused on addressing Bedford Park’s last
mile mobility challenges. The goals of the Phase I
Study and Phase II Pilot Program are listed in thefollowing section, Project Goals. Upon completionin summer 2019, this project will produce thefollowing:;;

Village of Bedford Park: Last Mile Mobility
Study;;;

Village of Bedford Park: Last Mile Mobility
Action Plan;;;

Outline of Important Relationships,
Including Possible Solution Providers andParticipants;;;

A summary of the results; and,;;A program design for a full-scale Pilot
Program.

Study and a Phase II Pilot Program. The goals ofeach are outlined below.

PHASE I GOALS:
1. Define the regional and last mile challenges
impacting mobility in Bedford Park.
2. Assess Bedford Park’s last mile challenges.
3. Develop a toolkit of potential last milesolutions for future consideration andimplementation.

PHASE II GOALS:
1. Identify the most feasible last milesolutions for Bedford Park.
2. Develop a Last Mile Mobility Action Planfor Bedford Park. w
3. Leverage the Pilot Program to launch afull-scale Last Mile Program.
Upon completion, this project will produce thefollowing resources, each is discussed in moredetail below:
1. Village of Bedford Park: Last Mile Study

PROJECT GOALSThe Project Team was engaged to complete a
one-year project to be conducted in two phases.
As mentioned above, the phases include a Phase I

2. Village of Bedford Park: Last Mile Demo Day
3. Village of Bedford Park: Last Mile Action Plan

WHAT IS THE LAST MILE? AND WHAT IS A LAST MILE CHALLENGE?
An individual’s trip encompasses the entire journey from their origin to their destination.
A person may use any number of modes of transportation to complete their journey;
they may walk, drive, ride a bicycle, take a train or bus, or in many cases combine several
modes.
In an ideal world, the journey from a transit stop to work or home is quick, safe, andconvenient, but there is often an array of “last mile” challenges that impede mobility. These
challenges include any gaps or friction points that impact the last mile of a commuter’strip, such as: long travel distances due to limited transit service; unsafe walking conditions
due to the lack of sidewalks and cross walks; poor alignment between transit schedules
and commuting times; the lack of ridesharing and last mile mobility services; and others.
Figure 1.2 illustrates the six main types of last mile challenges identified through thisstudy, which are defined in more detail in Chapter 2.

2Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 1.1. Project Approach

Together, Phase I and Phase II of this project, andtheir respective activities and outputs, can beframed as part of a broader process of discovering,defining, designing, developing, and deploying
last mile solutions in Bedford Park (Figure 1.1).
Outputs from this project, including this Last Mile
Study, the Last Mile Demo Day, and the Last Mile
Action Plan, can serve as a springboard for future
efforts to develop and deploy last mile solutionsin Bedford Park. They can also be a model forother Cook County communities facing similar
challenges.

MOBILITY CHALLENGES
Bedford Park is a unique municipality. Although
the community is home to only 604 residents,
the Village’s road network must facilitate theflow of nearly 30,000 daily commuters,¹ while
also managing a road network with daily traffic
volumes that range between 18,000 and 45,000
12vehicles per day.² The Village’s transportation
system must also enable access to several regional
economic anchors, including: the Bedford ParkClearing Industrial Area, which occupies 90% of
the Village’s land area and supports the largest
intermediate switching terminal railroad in UnitedStates and hundreds of businesses; the Midway
Hotel Center, which is located just two blocks
south of the Chicago Midway International Airport
and includes ten hotels that provide 1,600 rooms;
and an extensive local business district along
Cicero Avenue and adjacent to Ford City Mallin Chicago. Ensuring safe, reliable, and efficientmobility for residents, commuters, and visitors
would be a challenge for any community facingthese transportation demands and land uses. In
Bedford Park this is further complicated by anarray of regional challenges, as well as localized
last mile challenges, which are outlined below anddiscussed in detail later in this document.

LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S Census Bureau, 2002-2015).
Illinois Department of Transportation, “Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts,” https://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/.

Introduction

3

REGIONAL CHALLENGES
These challenges impact mobility in Bedford Parkdue to the Village’s context within a collectionof high-volume transportation corridors andindustrial and commercial areas. Regional
challenges can be difficult to address as there are
multiple entities, almost always outside of theVillage’s authority and influence, that must be
coordinated. The primary challenges have been
identified as follows:
1. Limited Transit Supply. Bedford Park has
limited transit supply, due to the Village’s“edge” (i.e. inner suburban) location,
regional patterns of land development,
long-term socioeconomic trends, andrecent disruptions in the urban mobility
industry.
2. Rail Delays and Truck Bottlenecks.
Bedford Park experiences high volumes ofboth rail and road freight traffic and otherassociated mobility challenges due to thebusiness activities facilitated and generated
by the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial
Area.
3. Severe Road Congestion. Bedford Park’s
limited commuter options, high volumesof truck traffic, a considerable number ofrail crossing delays, and primarily single
passenger commuters further adds to roadcongestion in the area.

LAST MILE CHALLENGES
In addition to regional mobility challenges,
Bedford Park commuters are also faced with anarray of last mile challenges (Figure 1.2). These
include:1. Long Walks. Some commuters must
regularly walk over 1.5 miles from thenearest bus stop to their place of work.
In many places, the sidewalk network
connecting pedestrians from a transit stop
to work is either incomplete or in poor
condition.

4

2. Limited Transit Access and Supply. The
average distance from a train stop into
the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area
is 2.75 miles. The average wait time for abus in Bedford Park is over 34 minutes.
Employees frequently cited long distances
between transit stops and work, long wait
times, and the poor reliability of bus service
as reasons why employees do not see
transit as a convenient or reliable option.
3. Degraded Infrastructure. Many of thewalking and driving surfaces in Bedford
Park and surrounding areas are weathered
or degraded.
4. Dangerous Travel Conditions.
Pedestrians must walk alongside fastmoving, congested arterials and crossdangerous intersections to get to work.
Bike commuters must share the road withheavy truck traffic and speeding motorists
and have limited to no bike facilities.
Between 2012 and 2016, there were 22
pedestrian and bike crashes in Bedford
Park, 4 of which resulted in fatalities. During
the same period, there were 1,056 car
crashes, which resulted in no fatalities.
5. Restrictive Rights-of-Way. Most of theroads in Bedford Park have been designed
to prioritize motorists and commercial
vehicle traffic.
6. Poor Transit System Legibility andAlignment. Navigating multiple bus
routes, schedules, and transfers necessary
to get to and from Bedford Park can bechallenging, which deters potential transit
riders and encourages driving alone.
The map shown in Figure 1.3 illustrates the roadcongestion that occurs on a typical weekday in
Bedford Park as a result of the combined impactof these regional and last mile challenges. These
mobility challenges are described in more detail in
the next chapter.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 1.2. Six Main Types of Last Mile Challenges

Long Walks

System Legibility & Alignment

Degraded Infrastructure

Limited Transit Access

Dangerous Travel Conditions

Restrictive Right-of-Ways

PROJECT APPROACHREGIONAL COORDINATIONThis study is based on the premise that addressing
the root causes of Bedford Park’s mobility
challenges will require a coordinated effort
amongst transit agencies; local, county, and state
government; employers; private mobility providers;and other civic partners to implement integrated
and equitable mobility solutions. This section
describes the priorities that frame this study
including, Regional Coordination, Integrated andEquitable Mobility, and Complete Streets, as wellas the specific methods that were employed.

To foster regional coordination this last milemobility study and forthcoming last mile action
mobility plan build upon and align with the policy
priorities identified in ON TO 2050, Connecting
Cook County, and Invest in Transit.

Introduction

ON TO 2050 is the Chicago region’s comprehensive
regional plan. GO TO 2050 was developed by the
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)
through an extensive research, analysis, and public
engagement. The plan was developed over athree-year process and was officially adopted by5

Figure 1.3. Factors Contributing to Road Congestion in the Bedford Park Area
Traffic

Word Transportation
Service (4:30pm, 2/7/19)

1

Rail Crossing Delays
CMAP Crossing Delay Data

3

Annual Average Daily Traffic
Illinois Department of Transportation

9
0

0.5

10

4

2

8

1mi

7

5

6

CMAP on October 10, 2018. The plan builds on theagency’s first comprehensive regional plan, GO
TO 2040, which was released in 2010 and guides
transportation investments and frames regional
priorities on development, the environment, theeconomy, and other issues affecting quality of life.
Three priorities inform all the plan’s goals: inclusive
growth, resilience, and prioritized investment.
Connecting Cook County is the County’s firststrategic transportation plan in over 75 years. The
plan was adopted on August 3, 2016 by the Cook
County Board of Commissioners and guides where
and how Cook County invests in transportation tomore fully realize its opportunities to attract andretain businesses, people, capital, and talent. The
plan establishes five policy priorities that shape
Cook County’s transportation policies and capital
improvement program: prioritize transit and othertransportation alternatives; support the region’s

6role as North America’s freight capital;
promote equal access to opportunities;
maintain and modernize what already exists; andincrease investments in transportation (Figure 1.4).
Invest in Transit, the Regional Transit Authority’s
2018-2023 Regional Transit Strategic Planestablishes the region’s case for pursuingdependable funding streams that will enable
the region’s three transit agencies, the Chicago
Transit Authority, Metra, and Pace, to delivertransit vital services well into the future. Invest
in Transit outlines strategies for delivering value
on investment, building on the strengths of theexisting network, staying competitive. It also includes
a list of Priority Projects, the key initiatives that
the Transit Agencies cannot complete at current
funding levels, but which are necessary to ensure
continued high-quality transit for the region.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 1.4. Connecting Cook County: Five Policy Priorities

Source: Connecting Cook County (2016)

Introduction

7

Figure 1.5. A Framework for Integrated and Equitable Mobility

An understanding the regional planning context
will enable Bedford Park staff, elected officials,
and other stakeholders develop and implement
last mile solutions that address local needs ina way that is aligned with regional priorities
and resources. These and other plans that werereferenced throughout this study are listed in the
appendices.

8

INTEGRATED AND EQUITABLE
MOBILITY
The way people and goods are moved is changing.
Broader and more inclusive ways of thinking
about mobility have emerged; as have new, morediverse voices and perspectives; and innovativetechnologies, partnerships, and business models.
These emerging movements, voices, technologies
and models are disrupting conventionaltransportation planning and creating exciting

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase Inew opportunities. They are transforming urban
mobility and the ways by which people and goods
move in urban areas.
The project team developed a framework for
Integrated and Equitable Mobility to assist local
and regional stakeholder in translating theseemerging, new mobility ideas into on-the-groundoutcomes. The framework shown in in Figure 1.5
is based on the following two definitions:;;;;

An integrated mobility system is one
that facilitates the flows of people andgoods in a way that is safe, efficient,reliable, and convenient. An integrated
mobility system works well for all users,
including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists,
professional drivers, transit users, andothers.³ In an integrated mobility system,
smart and complete streets are businessas-usual and enable the seamless
mobility of people and goods travelingalong connected pedestrian, bike,transit, and motorist and freight mobility
network.
An equitable mobility system is
one that not only addresses thephysical construction of our streets,
but the socioeconomic, cultural, anddiscriminatory barriers to access andcomfort that different communities
experience within public spaces
by centering on the experience ofmarginalized individuals and the mostvulnerable communities.⁴

Moving towards a more integrated and equitablemobility system may require a shift in thinking(and investment priorities), from one that is
primarily focused on one or two modes of travel toa more balanced approach that seeks to improve
mobility for all users. Complete streets is a conceptthat can be used to guide transportation planningand investment decisions.

METHODS
The methods that were developed and deployedthroughout this project support regional
coordination, integrated and equitable mobility,
and complete streets. Moreover, to ensure thatthe findings of this project and related documents
are grounded in Bedford Park’s physical, financial,technological, and operational constraints, theproject team implemented a multifaceted anditerative research methodology that included thefollowing elements (Figure 1.6):;;

Stakeholder Engagement. A diverse
set of local and regional stakeholders
from the public, private, and civic
sectors were engaged in a series ofthree Resource Group meetings inwhich preliminary findings and solution
opportunities were reviewed, discussed,
and refined. Moving forward, theResource Group will also provide input
on draft recommendation and could also
be involved future efforts to develop anddeploy last mile solutions.

;;

Desktop Analysis. Baseline data on
Bedford Park’s demographics andtravel behavior, land use, transportation
conditions, and business environment
were collected, analyzed, and mapped(Appendix A). Additional datasets,such as crash data, business license
data, survey results were added as they
became available. The project teamalso inventoried and reviewed 15 local
and regional plans, policies, programs(Appendix B), and 15 best practicecase studies relevant to developing
and implementing last mile solutions(Appendix C). Outputs from desktop
analysis (e.g. maps, diagrams, graphs)
were presented, discussed, and refinedwith project stakeholders through a seriesof Resource Group meetings.

The McKinsey Center for Future Mobility refers to the broader concept of ‘integrated mobility’ as consisting of shared mobility
along with six other interconnected mobility trends: infrastructure, autonomous driving, connectivity and internet of things (IoT),
decentralization of energy systems, electrification of vehicles, and public transit.
4Adapted from “Untokening 1.0 – Principles of Mobility Justice,” http://www.untokening.org/updates/2017/11/11/untokening-10-principles-of-mobility-justice3

Introduction

9What is a Complete Street?
Complete Streets are streets for everyone.
Complete Streets provide safe access for all users,
including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit
riders of all ages and abilities.

– Smart Growth America

Complete streets are designed and operated
to enable safe access for all users, regardlessof age, ability, or mode of transportation.
Complete streets make it safe and easy to
cross the street, walk to shops, and bike towork. They allow buses to run on time,
improve public health outcomes, and help
foster thriving local economies.

Pedestrian
Network

Image created using Streetmix.net
licensed under Creative Commons.

Bike
Network

TransitNetwork

Bedford Park’s unique transportation
demands and physical constraints
means that complete streets in thisheavily industrialized community will
have a different composition thancomplete streets in other parts of theregion, but the goal remains the same:
make streets safer and more accessible
for all users.

Motorist &Freight Network

Shared Mobility
NetworkWhat are the elements of a Complete Street?
There is no singular design prescription forComplete Streets; each one is unique and responds
to its surrounding land use, transportation, andcommunity context. Some of the most frequently
used Complete Streets elements are shown below.

Benefits
Complete Streets
improve road safety
Complete Streets makeeconomic senseComplete Streets improvetransportation andmobility for all users
Complete Streets help
build community andsocial equity
Complete Streets
improve public healthoutcomes

These Complete Street elements—and others—
are embedded in the Last Mile Solution Toolkit
presented in Chapter 3. This Toolkit can be usedby Village staff when planning, designing, andimplementing capital improvements.

Myths
Myth #1.
“We don’t need complete
streets because everyone
drives.”In reality…
85% of Bedford Park’s
residents and workforce
drive alone to work. This is a
key driver of roadcongestion in the area.

Myth #2.
“Complete streets means
putting bike lanes andsidewalks everywhere.”

In reality…
Complete streets elements
are designed to be placed in
the appropriate areas and torespond the transportationand neighborhood context.

Myth #3.
“Complete streets meansreconstructing all of the
roadways right now.”

In reality…
Complete streets are
generally constructed onroads that are alreadyscheduled for improvement.

;;

Field Assessment. A field assessment
was conducted, in which on the groundobservations and photos were collectedby members of the project team atareas of concern as determined bystakeholders. The project team developed
a project- and community-specificFirst/Last Mile Gap Assessment Tool
(Appendix D) to facilitate the efficient
documentation of field observations.
The field assessment focused on thefive primary corridors that surround the
Bedford-Park Clearing Industrial Area.
Datasets from the Desktop Analysis andField Assessment will be accessible toVillage staff through an online interactive
map.

;;

Mobility Survey. Origin/Destination
data, trip journey information, travel
behaviors, and other user- and companyspecific data were collected through a
Mobility Survey which was distributed to
Bedford Park employers and employees.
268 Employee Surveys and 20 Employer
Surveys were collected, coded, andanalyzed (Appendix E). Data gathered
through the Mobility Survey was used
to provide a more granular snapshot of
travel-related challenges, behaviors, andpreferences with which to supplement
U.S Census Data and other regional data
sources.

This approach was used to define Bedford Park’s
last mile challenge (Chapter 2), organize the last
mile gap assessment (Chapter 3), and to articulate
last mile solutions (Chapter 4) and a clear pathforward (Chapter 5).

Figure 1.6. Phase I Research and Outreach Methods

12

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase IHOW TO USE THIS REPORTThis report is organized into following chapters:

1

INTRODUCTION. Chapter 1 provides an overview of this project, including the
project goals, the mobility challenges it aims to address, outputs, and overall
approach.

2

BEDFORD PARK’S MOBILITY CHALLENGES. Chapter 2 describes the regional,
community-scale, and last mile challenges that impact mobility in Bedford Park.

3

BEDFORD PARK’S LAST MILE ASSESSMENT. Chapter 3 applies the integrated andequitabwle mobility framework to assess the modal and corridor-specific last milechallenges.

4

LAST MILE TOOLKIT. Chapter 4 presents a toolkit of last mile solutions that theVillage staff and other stakeholders can further refine.

5

THE PATH FORWARD. Chapter 5 presents a clear path forward for leveraging thisreport, the Last Mile Toolkit, and the Resource Group to advance last mile solutions.
REFERENCES.
APPENDICES. The Appendices section provides a wealth of more detailed reference
and supporting information.

Introduction

13

Chapter 2

bedford park’s
MOBILITY challengeS

Bedford Park’s last mile mobility challenges are driven by the combined effects
of regional and community-specific factors. This chapter defines the “lastmile,” and describes the regional and community-specific conditions (e.g.
demographics and travel behavior, land use, transportation conditions, andbusiness environment) that contribute to Bedford Park’s last mile challenges.
This chapter includes the following sections:;;Defining the Last Mile;;

Regional Context;;

Community Conditions;;

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Challenges

DEFINING THE LAST MILE
This study is focused primarily on the last mile of a commuter’s trip (i.e. thelast leg between a transit stop and their place of employment), so we use theterm “last mile” hereafter (Figure 2.1). Bedford Park, located within the Chicago

15

BEDFORD PARK’S MOBILITY CHALLENGES
Figure 2.1. The First and Last Mileregion, utilizes the Chicago Transit Authority(CTA), Metra, and Pace to provide a range of rail,bus, and other mobility services that support thecore of many local commuters’ trips (Figure 2.2
and Figure 2.3). The challenge with these modes,
as it relates to Bedford Park, is that commutersand residents must often complete the last mileof their journey without public transit support,

usually by walking. This last mile journey is further
complicated by an array “last mile” challenges, orgaps, that impede mobility, such as long distances
between transit stops and employment centers,
dangerous travel conditions, and others. It is thesechallenges that Bedford Park is working to address
in identifying improvements and alternative
strategies to ensure that a journey from a nearby
transit stop to work is quick, safe, and convenient.

Figure 2.2. Chicago Region’s Transportation Agencies
The CTA provides transit services to the City of Chicago and 35 suburban Cook
County communities, including Bedford Park. It operates eight rapid transit

lines with 145 rail stations. It also manages 1,864 buses that operate 129 bus

routes with 10,768 posted bus stops. In 2017, CTA bus and rail ridership totaled 479.4 million, including 249.2

million bus rides and 230.2 million rail rides. For the year, bus and rail system ridership declined 3.7% comparedwith 2016, with bus ridership decreasing 3.8% and rail ridership falling 3.5%.

Metra is one of the largest and most complex commuter rail systems in North America,

serving Cook, DuPage, Will, Lake, Kane and McHenry counties in northeastern Illinois. The
agency provides service to and from downtown Chicago with 242 stations over 11 routes

totaling nearly 500 route miles and approximately 1,200 miles of track. Metra operates nearly 700 weekday trains,providing nearly 290,000 passenger trips each weekday. In 2018, Metra provided about 76.1 million passenger
trips, which is 3.2% decrease in ridership from 2017.

Pace is one of the largest bus service providers in the nation. It manages 209 bus routes,
serving 284 communities in the six-county metropolitan area, as well as operates oneof the largest vanpool systems in the country, with 784 vehicles in service. Pace is also

responsible for the Americans with Disabilities Act transit services throughout all of metropolitan Chicago. In

2017, Pace served 35.6 million passengers which reflected a .8% increase over the 2016 ridership total of 35.3
million. Pace’s ADA Paratransit ridership increased 1.9% in 2017.

The RTA is the agency charged with transit planning for the six-county Northeastern

Illinois region. It implements projects, administers a variety of programs and develops
plans aimed at growing ridership and improving mobility.

16

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.3. Chicago Region’s Transit Network

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

17

REGIONAL CONTEXTThe Village of Bedford Park is located immediately
southwest of the City of Chicago in Cook County,
Illinois (Figure 2.4. With over 90% of the Village’s
land area dedicated to industrial land uses,
Bedford Park is one of the most industrialized
municipalities in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.
Bedford Park’s industrial heritage and characteris largely a result of the community’s proximity to
several regional transportation assets, including
the following:;;

Air. Chicago Midway International Airport;;

Highway. I-55 (Stevenson Expressway),I-294 (Tri-State Tollway), IL Route 50(Cicero Avenue), IL Route 43 (Harlem
Avenue), Illinois Route 171 (Archer
Avenue);;Rail. Belt Railway Company of Chicago(BRC) Clearing Yard;;

Water. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Bedford Park’s proximity and access to theseregional transportation assets make thecommunity desirable for transportation,
distribution, and logistics (TD&L) firms that
require direct access to national highway, air,and rail networks, as well as companies that ship
bulk goods along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal. Bedford Park also benefits from a regionallysignificant commercial and hospitality corridor
along Cicero Avenue which runs north and south
dividing Bedford Park from the City of Chicago.
While Bedford Park’s locational advantages havepositioned the community as an economic engine
for the region, they also contribute to the area’s
mobility challenges. This section describes how
Bedford Park’s regional context and community
conditions contribute to the area’s last mile challenges.
These regional and local factors will serve as aspringboard for defining and assessing Bedford Park’s
last mile challenges and for framing last mile solutions.

REGIONAL CHALLENGES
1. Limited Transit Supply

2. Rail Delays and Truck Bottlenecks
3. Severe Road Congestion

Challenge #1: Limited Transit Supply.
Bedford Park has limited transit supply,
due to the Village’s “edge” (i.e. innersuburban) location, regional patterns of landdevelopment, long-term socioeconomic
trends, and recent disruptions in the urban
mobility industry.
Bedford Park is located at the edge of the Cityof Chicago. Although distinctive from othersuburban communities in Cook County, Bedford
Park has many of the same demographic, landuse, and transportation conditions that make it
difficult to supply with frequent, high capacity,and reliable transit service. These include relatively
low population density, sprawling land uses andlarge blocks, and an automobile-dependent urban
design and road network. These local conditions
make it difficult to provide the area with a levelof service (LOS) that enables commuters to viewtransit as a convenient and reliable way to get towork.
In addition to unfavorable land use conditions that
impact the supply of transit service, transit demandhas been in decline nationally for the past decade.
According to the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA), national transit ridership
declined 2.36% as of the third quarter in 2018
compared with the previous year.⁵ If the New York
area is excluded, ridership has declined nationallyby 7% over the past decade.⁶ The two factors thatlikely most affect public transportation ridership are
the supply of transit service and competitive factors
such as low gas prices and the growing popularityof ridesourcing and bikesharing services, which

⁵ American Public Transportation Association, Transit Ridership Report, Third Quarter 2018, https://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2018-Q3-Ridership-APTA.pdf
6
William J. Mallett, Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy (Federation of American Scientists, 2018).

18

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.4. Regional Context Map

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

19appear to have adversely affected transit ridership.
Both factors have impacted transit ridership in
Cook County. Like many other communities acrossthe nation, Bedford Park is faced with a negatively
reinforcing trend in which declining transit supply
contributes to declining transit demand. It is
important to understand how the outcomes ofthis dynamic impacts current and potential transit
users.
In terms of transit supply, commuters who take abus to work in Bedford Park must wait on average
34 minutes for a bus to arrive (Figure 2.5). Transit
experts suggest that for transit to be considereda ‘convenient’ option for riders, buses and trains
must arrive at least as frequently as every 10-15
minutes. These long wait times coupled with thepotential for unreliable arrival times may cause
commuters to prioritize driving over transit.
This is just one example demonstrating how
longer transit wait times and poor reliability cancontribute to higher instances of people travelingalone.⁷

The distance between transit stops anddestinations is another supply side factor that
impacts transit demand. In the United States, aquarter mile to a half mile is generally considered
to be a walkable distance.⁸ In Bedford Park,
however, the average walking distance from thenearest CTA or Metra station to the center ofthe five primary corridors that surround Bedford
Park-Clearing Industrial Area is 2.75 miles (Figure2.6). This last mile gap forces most train-based
commuters to connect to a bus or another modeof travel to reach their destination.
In summary, the lack of frequent, reliable, andconvenient transit service in the area is one factor,
among others, that is contributing to Bedford Park
commuter’s reliance on driving alone to work. Thisreliance on single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips, inturn, contributes to road congestion and other last
mile mobility challenges.

Figure 2.5. Convenient Bus Service Frequency Versus Bus Service Frequency in Bedford Park
For transit service to be considered ‘convenient’ for passengers, buses
must arrive at least as frequently as every 15 minutes.

The average passenger wait time* in Bedford Park is 34 minutes, a service frequency(or headway) that is over twice that which that is considered to be convenient.

*Bus Based on posted CTA and Pace Bus route Schedules (See Appendix G)

7
8

20

Florida Department of Transportation Transit Ridership, Reliability, and Retention (National Center for Transit Research, 2008).
Planning Commission TOD Committee Walking Distance Research (Fairfax County, VA, 2012).

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.6. Pedestrian Travel Access Sheds

Challenge #2: rail delays andtruck bottlenecks.
Bedford Park experiences high volumes ofboth rail and road freight traffic and otherassociated mobility challenges due to thebusiness activities facilitated and generated
by the Bedford Park-Clearing
Industrial Area.
Bedford Park has historically played and willcontinue to play a significant role in supporting
the Chicago region’s position as the nation’s freightcapital. Bedford Park is the site of the 786-acreBelt Railway Company of Chicago’s Clearing Yard,⁹
one of the largest hump classification facilities
in the United States.10 The Clearing Rail Yard has
over 350 miles of switching tracks, consisting of 92
classification, 44 departure, and 40 receiving tracks
that separate, classify, and re-block rail cars for the
14 railroads serving Chicago. The Clearing Yard has
the capacity to manage the flow of 32 inboundand 33 outbound trains and over 8,400 individual
rail cars daily.¹¹ In addition to the Clearing Yard,
Bedford Park is also home to a CSX intermodal
terminal and numerous rail spurs, which facilitate
the intermodal flow of domestic and international
freight. Correspondingly, 90% of the Village’s

land area is devoted to the Clearing Yard and thehundreds of TD&L companies that either directly
or indirectly benefit from their proximity to the
Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area.
However, because of this business activity,
thousands of trucks originate from and travelto the Bedford-Clearing Industrial Area eachday. Commercial truck-induced congestion andincidents were among the highest priority concernsthat emerged through this study. Moreover, someof the region’s most severe rail crossing delay
problem areas are within the greater Bedford Park
area and impact the commutes of thousands ofdaily travelers who are heading into or through thearea. Across the Chicago metropolitan region, cars
and trucks are delayed at rail crossings for 7,800
hours each weekday—more than 2 million hours ofdelay per year across the region. Congestion in theregion has been increasing 5 percent annually forthe past 30 years, and the average Chicago region
commuter now spends approximately 71 hours
per year in traffic.¹² According to a recent study of
global traffic patterns, the cost of congestion for
Chicago was estimated to be $6.2 billion in 2018
(up from $5.5 billion in 2017).¹³ This translates toapproximately $1,994 per commuter.

The Belt Railway Company of Chicago is (BRC) co-owned by six Class I railroads — BNSF Railway, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX Transportation, Norfolk Southern Railway, and Union Pacific Railroad — each of which uses the switching
and interchange facilities of the BRC.
10
A hump yard is the largest and most effective type of rail classification yards and serves to classify single rail cars or a block of
coupled cars into larger unit trains, which are more efficient to ship over longer distances.
11
The Belt Railway Company of Chicago “Connecting Chicago Since 1882” http://www2.beltrailway.com/
12
CMAP Mobility: engine of our regional economy. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), 2019, https://www.cmap.
illinois.gov/mobility/explore#/. Accessed 12 Feb. 2019.
13
INRIX 2018 Global Traffic Scorecard. INRIX, 2019. http://inrix.com/scorecard/. Accessed 12 Feb. 2019.
9

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

21

21Figure 2.7. Freight and Truck Bottlenecks in tihe Chicago Metropolitan Region

Source: CMAP, 2018

Freight facilities tend to co-locate, so
understanding the relationship between theseclusters and areas of truck congestion canhelp prioritize both transportation investments
and local land use decisions to support freight

movement while ensuring a better quality of life
for residents. Figure 2.7 illustrates how truck
bottlenecks, vehicular traffic, and at-grade railcrossing delay problem areas all contribute to roadcongestion in the Bedford Park area.¹⁴

Truck bottlenecks are defined as locations where trucks experience at least six hours of congestion per weekday, (where congestion is defined as truck travel times more than 10% greater than free flow truck travel times).
14

22

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

In addition to contributing to road congestion,commercial truck traffic in Bedford Park creates
an environment that is dangerous for walking andbiking. Given Bedford Park’s role as an industrial
anchor for the region, the Village’s road networkand right-of-way (ROW) allocations have been
designed to prioritize the flow of freight overother modes of transportation (Figure 2.7). Overtime, this has resulted in a street network androad geometries that (while conducive for theefficient movement of freight traffic) are inherently
dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists (Figure 2.9).
Several recent studies illustrate a clear relationshipbetween vehicular speeds and pedestrian casualties.
When vehicles move at or above 40 mph, there
is a dramatic decrease in the chance of survival
in a crash. For example, when collisions occur at
or above 40 mph there is only a 10% chance ofsurvival. Conversely, when collisions occur at or
below 20 mph there is a 90% chance of survival(Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.8. Overall Mode Priotiztation for Bedford Park

Mode

Prioritization

Auto

#2

Walk

#4

Freight
Transit
Bike

#1

#3
#5

Figure 2.9. Looking East on W 73rd Street in Bedford Park

Given that the movement of people and freight areboth vital to Bedford Park’s and the Chicago region’s
economic vitality, last mile solutions must address
this dual challenge when it comes to freight mobility
and personal mobility. Finding the right balance
between physical, technological, operational, andFigure 2.10. A Pedestrian’s Risk of Getting Killed When:

Source: Vision Zero Network

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

23policy interventions that will produce multiple
last mile mobility benefits for people and freightis a unique challenge for Bedford Park and otherindustrial areas in the region.

Challenge #3: severe road congestion.
Bedford Park’s limited commuter
options, high volumes of truck traffic,
number of rail crossing delays, and highrates of driving alone all contribute toroad congestion in the area.
Over 85% of Bedford Park’s workforce drives alone
to work. This reliance on single occupancy vehicles
is largely driven by the challenges discussed
above, such as:;;

The limited supply, reliability, andconvenience of transit and other sharedmodes of travel;;;

High volumes of truck traffic, number ofrail crossing delays; and;;Other factors that contribute to
unfavorable walking and biking
conditions.

Taken together, Bedford Park’s limited commuter
options, high volumes of truck traffic, number ofrail crossing delays, and high rates driving alone
all contribute to road congestion in the area
(Figure 2.11). Implementing last mile solutions
that help commuters get to and from work in a
way that is safe, convenient, and efficient, will
therefore require interventions within all thevarious transportation networks and systems (e.g.
pedestrian, biking, transit, motorist and freight,
and shared mobility) that are involved with moving
people and freight in Bedford Park.
In the following section we describe Bedford Park’s
local community conditions that influence and are
influenced by these regional challenges. A baseline
understanding of regional and local conditions
is necessary because Bedford Park’s last milemobility challenges are driven by the combined
effect of regional and community-specific factors.
Moreover, a baseline understanding of thesecommunity conditions is necessary to develop
context-appropriate last mile solutions for thecommunity.

Figure 2.11. Figure 2.11. Typical Rush Hour Traffic on I-55 near Bedford Park

24

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.12. Population Density, 2018

COMMUNITY CONDITIONSThis section drills down into Bedford Park’s current
demographics, commuters’ travel behavior, landuse, transportation conditions, and businessenvironment. Additional baseline community
information is provided in Appendix E.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRAVELBEHAVIOR
Bedford Park’s 604 residents and 248 households
are concentrated a small residential neighborhood,which is tucked between South Archer Avenue andthe Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area. Given
the Village’s small population and large land area,
Bedford Park has a much lower population thanneighboring areas to the north, east, and south(Figure 2.12).

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

25

According to the Mobility Survey, 83% of Bedford
Park’s residents and 85% of the area’s workforce
drive alone to work. In comparison, 61.7% of Cook
County residents drive alone to work. Only 8%
of Bedford Park’s workforce take transit to work,
compared to 18.9% of Cook County residents
who use this mode of travel (Figure 2.13).
Correspondingly, the average household vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) for Bedford Park residents is
19,241 and 15,706 and for Cook County residents

overall. Annual Transportation Costs for Bedford
Park residents is $13,131 and $11,062 for Cook
County residents overall.¹⁶
It takes most Bedford Park employees between 30
and 59 minutes to commute to work (Figure 2.14).
13% of Bedford Park employees’ commute takes
over one hour.
The Village’s business license data includes shift
times and number of employees that are changing

Figure 2.13. Mode of Travel to Work

5.9%

5.5%

8.1%

18.9%

61.7%

5%

6.1%

5.4%

3.2%

8%

2.2%
83%

2%

85%

Figure 2.14. Travel Time to Work

11.3%

14.7%
15.5%

26.5%
16.2%

41.2%
28.7%
19.4%
18.4%

6.4%
6.3%

16

26

41.2%
39.1%%

22.9%

15.2%

H+T® Affordability Index. Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2019, https://htaindex.cnt.org/. Accessed 23 March. 2019.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.15. Rush Hour Time

shifts during that time. Figure 2.15 below charts
the number of employees that are changing
shifts during a given hour during the work day.
According to business license data, the top fiverush hour times are: 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 A.M. (#1);
7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. (#2); 3:00 P.M to 4:00 P.M.
(#3); 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M (#4); and 11:00 P.M. to
12:00 A.M (#5).

Figure 2.16 illustrates where Bedford Park
employees live. 28.5% of Bedford Park employees
live in Chicago. Many Bedford Park employees
live in the Chicago neighborhoods of West
Elsdon, Chicago Lawn, West Lawn, Gage Park, andClearing. 36.7% of Bedford Park employees travel
less than 10 miles between home and work. 14.3%
of employees travel more than 50 miles.

Figure 2.16. Commuting Patterns, 2015

Source: OnTheMap (2002-2015 LEHD Origin Destination Employment Statistics)

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

27

LAND USE
Bedford Park predominately includes industrial
land uses (Figure 2.17). 90% of the Village’s landarea is allocated for transportation and industrial
land uses, which are concentrated around the786-acre Belt Railway Company (BRC) of Chicago’s
Clearing Yard and to the east of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. The areas designated fortransportation and industrial land users, including
the Clearing Yard, are collectively referred to as theBedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area.
Commercial areas are the second most prevalentland use but represent only 3.5% of the Village’s
land area.¹⁷ Bedford Park’s commercial areas
are concentrated along Cicero Avenue and areanchored by the Midway Hotel Center north of the
BRC, and the Ford City Mall district south of the
BRC. The Village’s only residential area is tucked
between South Archer Avenue and the Clearing
Yard. Other institutional land uses are located on
the edge of the Village’s corporate boundary.
Bedford Park is generally surrounded by singlefamily residential neighborhoods. Local, mixed-use
commercial corridors exist along Harlem Avenue,
63rd Street, South Archer Avenue, West Archer
Avenue, and West 79th Street. There are also
industrial areas in Summit, Bridgeview, and Justice,which are connected to Bedford Park through the
BRC and through the Bedford Park Enterprise Zone
(Appendix E).

1728This excludes land that is either under construction or vacant.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.17. Existing Land Use

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

29

MOTORIST AND FREIGHT NETWORK
Bedford Park is rich in regional transportation andlogistics assets. Figure 2.18 provides a map of
the functional classification and annual average
daily traffic (AADT) for the roads in the Bedford
Park Area. Principal arterials that provide accessto Bedford Park from I-55 (Stevenson Expressway)and I-294 (Tri-State Tollway) include Cicero Avenue,
Harlem Avenue, which are both Class II Designated
Truck Routes. Other important arterials andcollectors that provide local access to the Bedford
Park-Clearing Industrial Area include 63rd Street,
65th Street, Archer Road, 71st Street, Sayre Avenue,
and 73rd Street.

30

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.18. Road Network

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

31

TRANSIT NETWORK
Figure 2.19 and Figure 2.20 provide an inventory
and map of transit service in the Bedford Park
area, respectively. Appendix E provides additionaltransit service information. The Midway Airport
Orange Line station and Summit, Wrightwood, andAshburn Metra stop are the nearest rail stations to
Bedford Park. The average distance from a station
into Bedford Park is 2.75 miles.
There are 14 bus routes that service Bedford Park
area. However, none of these bus routes are 24hour service and the average headway for buses is
34 minutes. There are several turnaround facilities
near Bedford Park and the Toyota Park Transit
Center is located immediately southwest of theVillage in Bridgeview.
Figure 2.19. Inventory of Transit Service in the Bedford Park Area

32

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.20. Transit Network

TransitPace Bus Routes

Railroads

CTA Bus Routes

Bedford ParkCTA Orange LineBus Route Number

Metra Heritage Line

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

0

0.5

1

mile

Source: IDOT Technology Transfer Center (2018)33

BIKE NETWORK
Figure 2.21 and Figure 2.22 provide an inventory
and map of existing and planned bike facilities in
the Bedford Park area, respectively. Planned bikefacilities in the area include multi-use paths, cycle
tracks, shared lanes, side paths, bike boulevards,
and bike routes. Most of the bike facilities in thearea are in the planning phase, but there are a
few constructed segments of side paths in theneighborhoods surrounding Bedford Park. Bike
facilities have been proposed by several different
entities including: the Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning (CMAP), the Chicago
Department of Transportation (CDOT), Village ofBridgeview, and Village of Justice. Future efforts
to design, construct, and manage bike facilities
in Bedford Park will involve coordination withthese stakeholders and others, such as the Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT).

Figure 2.21. Inventory of Bike Facilities in the Bedford Park Area

34

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.22. Bike Network

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

35

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Figure 2.23. Top 10 Employers in Bedford Park

Bedford Park is home to 418 businesses that
employ 30,649 people. The top ten largest
employers are shown in the Figure 2.23. Key
industries by employment include the following:#1 Manufacturing: 7,974 (26.0%); #2 Wholesale
Trade: 6,131 (20.0%); #3 Transportation andWarehousing: 3,717 (12.1%); #4 Professional: 2,020(6.6%); and #5 Construction: 2,001 (6.5%).
In addition, Bedford Park has several regional
economic assets including, the Belt Railroad ofChicago’s Clearing Yards and the surrounding
Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area; Midway
Airport; the Midway Hotel Center; the Ford City
Mall district; and a heavy industrial district along
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Figure 2.24).
65th Street, Cicero Avenue, 73rd Street, Harlem
Avenue, and Archer Road are key corridors within
the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area and areassessed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Many of Bedford Park’s manufacturing, industrial,
transportation, and logistics employers hire shift

workers as well as seasonal staff. Bedford Park’s
largest employers tend to have three shifts andare distributed throughout the Bedford ParkClearing Industrial Area. Figure 2.25 visualizes thegeneral location of Bedford Park companies, theiremployment size, and whether they have one,
two, or three shift changes. None of the CTA andPace bus routes in Bedford Park provide 24-hourservice, so transit is often not an option for 2nd
and 3rd shift workers.

Figure 2.24. Regional Economic Assets

36

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.25. Employment and Shifts in Bedford Park

Orange Line

1

2

3

Metra

Employment# of Shifts

0

1

2

miles

CTA Bus Routes
Pace Bus Routes

Approximately 60% of Bedford Park’s workforce
is between 30 and 54 years of age (Figure 2.26).
53.5% of Bedford Park’s workforce may make morethan more than $3,333 per month (Figure 2.27).
Bedford Park’s regional context and local
community conditions interact in ways that
contribute to the community’s last mile challenges.
This section provided a baseline understandingof Bedford Park’s community conditions, which
set the stage for framing last mile challenge andpotential solutions.

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

Figure 2.26. Workers by Age, 2015

Figure 2.27. Earning per Monty, 2015

37

BEDFORD PARK’S LAST MILE CHALLENGES
This section provides a summary of the six main
last mile challenges, which are a result of theregional challenges and community conditions.

LAST MILE CHALLENGES
1. Long Walks

4. Dangerous Travel Conditions

2. Limited Transit Access and Supply

5. Restrictive Right-Of-Ways

3. Degraded Infrastructure

6. Poor Transit System Legibility and
Schedule Alignment

Challenge #1: long walks.
A quarter mile is generally considered to bea “walkable” distance for planning purposes.
In other words, it is reasonable to expect
someone to walk a quarter mile from a train
station or bus stop to their destination.
However, some Bedford Park commutersmust regularly walk over 1.5 miles.

LIMITED ACCESS & SUPPLYLONG WALKS

Challenge #2: limited transit accessand supply.
Providing convenient, frequent, and reliabletransit service is necessary to make transit
an attractive mode of transportation forcommuters. However, the level of transit
service that is currently available in Bedford
Park does not make taking a train or riding
a bus a convenient option. The average
wait time for a bus in Bedford Park is over
34 minutes (CTA -22min, Pace 47 min).
Employees frequently cited long distances
between transit stops and work, long wait
times, and the poor reliability of bus service
as reasons why they do not view transit as aconvenient or reliable option to get to work.

38

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

DEGRADED INFRASTRUCTURE

Challenge #4: Dangerous travel Conditions.
Most of the existing sidewalks in Bedford
Park do not have a buffer zone between
pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Pedestrians
must therefore walk alongside fast-moving,congested arterials and cross dangerous
intersections to get to work. Bike commutersmust share the road with heavy truck trafficand speeding motorists and have limited
bike facilities. Between 2012 and 2016, there
were 22 pedestrian and bike crashes in
Bedford Park, 4 of which resulted in fatalities.
During the same period, there were 1,056 car
crashes, which resulted in no fatalities.

RESTRICTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAYS

Challenge #3: Degraded infrastructure.
Many of the walking and driving surfaces
in Bedford Park and surrounding areas are
weathered or degraded. Faded pavement
markings, potholes, and crumbling sidewalks
create dangerous travel conditions formotorists and pedestrians alike. In many
places, the sidewalk network connecting
pedestrians from a transit stop to workis either incomplete or in poor condition.
Limited access to transit is another factor
that contributes to reduced ridership.

DANGEROUS TRAVEL CONDITIONS

Challenge #5: restrictive right-of-ways.
Most of the roads in Bedford Park havebeen designed to prioritize motorists andcommercial vehicle traffic. However, thedesign elements that optimize roads forthe efficient movement of commercial andpersonal automobiles also make roads
inherently dangerous for pedestrians andcyclists. Retrofitting the rights-of-way tofacilitate walking, biking, transit, and otheremerging modes of transportation will bea challenge, but necessary for reducing
congestion in the area.

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

39

challenge #6: Poor Transit System Legibility
and Schedule Alignment

SYSTEM LEGIBILITY & ALIGNMENT

Most current and potential transit commuters
in Bedford Park need to make at least
one transfer or connection to get to theirdestination. The prospect of having tonavigate multiple train and bus routes andschedules, and coordinate transit schedules
with work schedules, can deter potential
transit riders and encourages driving alone.
Poor alignment between bus schedules andshift changes also presents challenges fortransit riders. For example, the last westbound #165 leaves 65th and Harlem, which
is an area with high employment density, at
6:14 P.M. This leaves any workers who get off
work after 6:14 effectively stranded. Several
Bedford Park employers have cited difficulties
in getting to work via transit as a challenge inhiring and retaining late shift workers. Accessto real-time information about transit options,schedules, delays, and other useful commuter
information is also limited.

The combined effects of the six last milechallenges above creates a situation in whichmost commuters drive alone to work, either bychoice or out of necessity. This reliance on single
occupancy vehicles (SOVs), plus the high volumesof commercial traffic, are two of the main drivers ofcongestion in Bedford Park. This is overwhelming
the #1 concern amongst commuters, as illustrated
below (Figure 2.28).

40

Road congestion is the most visible (andfrustrating) manifestation of Bedford Park’s
regional and last mile mobility challenges. So, it
is understandable that this is survey respondent’s#1 concern. By addressing these challenges,
Bedford Park leaders, staff, and partners can makeit easier for people to access jobs using public
transit and other modes of transportation that will
help to reduce road congestion. The next chapter
describes a framework for responding to last milechallenges in a way that produces these and othercommunity and regional benefits.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 2.28. Categorized Responses to Employee Survey Question 8: What is the #1 challenge impacting your journey			
to work? (n=238)

Transit Access

Safety and Security

Operations and Maintenance

Multimodal Connections

Congestion
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Source: Employee Survey (2018), See Appendix D for a summary of survey results.

Bedford Park’s Mobility Challenges

41

Chapter 3

bedford park’s
Last mile assessment
This chapter further defines last mile challenges impacting mobility in Bedford
Park by describing challenges specific to the four interconnected transportation
network tpes (Figure 3.1): Pedestrian Network (Figure 3.2), Bike Network(Figure 3.3, Transit Network (Figure 3.4, and the Motorist and Freight
Network (Figure 3.5) within Bedford Park. Although each network is discussed
individually, they are all part of an integrated mobility system. This assessment
also examines the last mile gaps within the five primary corridors that surroundthe Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area: North Corridor, East Corridor, South
Corridor, West Corridor, and Far West Corridor (Figure 3.6. Assessments werecompleted through site visits, surveys, interviews, and resource group meetings
that all led to potential last mile solutions, outlined below and in more detail in
Chapter 4.

LAST MILE GAP ASSESSMENT: BY TRANSPORTATION NETWORKThis section discusses each of the available modes of transportation
within Bedford Park, assessing their functionality, specific challenges, andimprovements.

43

BEDFORD PARK’S LAST MILE ASSESSMENT
Figure 3.1. A Framework for Integrated and Equitable Mobility in Bedford Park

Figure 3.2. The Five Main Corridors Surrounding the Bedford Park Clearing Industrial Area

44

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.3. Last Mile Assessment: Pedestrian Network

45

Figure 3.4. Last Mile Assessment: Bike Network

46

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.5. Last Mile Assessment: Transit Network

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

47

Figure 3.6. Last Mile Assessment: Motorist and Freight Network

48

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS
Four interconnected transportation networks
were identified in Bedford Park. Additionally,a shared mobility network that operates
within the four identified transit networks
was used for assessment purposes.

Pedestrian network
This section provides an assessment of thevarious elements of Bedford Park’s pedestrian
network including sidewalks, pedestriancrossings, pedestrian ramps, pedestrian scaled
lighting, signals, and others. Although sidewalk
functionality is critical to pedestrian mobility,
there are other elements that should beconsidered, such as:;;

Sidewalks;;

Pedestrian Crossings;;

Pedestrian Refuges;;

Sidewalk Extensions;;

Pedestrian Ramps;;

Guidance for the Visually Impaired;;

Signage and Wayfinding;;

Pedestrian Countdown Signals;;

Lighting;;

Seating;;

Water Fountains;;

Weather Protection

;;

Curbs

;;

Waste Receptacles;;

Active Building Edges;;

Trees and Landscaping

Deficiencies in the pedestrian network can quickly
lead to safety challenges. Between 2012 and 2016,
there were 239 crashes involving pedestriansin the broader Bedford Park area (Figure 3.3).

;;

Pedestrian Network;;

Transit Network;;

Shared Mobility Network;;

Bike Network;;

Motorist and Freight Network

While only nine of these crashes occurred within
Bedford Park’s municipal boundary, these safetyconcerns directly impact the last mile journey for
employees that currently walk to work from nearby
neighborhoods and transit stations, or that could
potentially walk to work.
Most of Bedford Park’s arterial corridors and majorcollectors (i.e. 65th Street, 73rd Street, Harlem
Avenue, Cicero Avenue, and Archer Road) havea near complete network of sidewalks. However,there are some sidewalk gaps along these arterials,
which present challenges for people walking
between transit and their place of employment.
Moreover, most of the sidewalks along the arterials
and collector streets in Bedford Park have little
to no buffer zone between pedestrians and fast
moving commercial and automobile traffic, whichmakes walking in Bedford Park both stressful anddangerous (Figure 3.7).¹⁸ Some of Bedford Park’s
streets only have sidewalks along one side of thestreet in certain areas (e.g. 73rd Street).
Along the major corridors, traffic signals arespaced every quarter mile to three-quartersof a mile, providing limited opportunities forpedestrians to cross streets. Most people areunwilling to walk more than a quarter of a mile toreach the nearest traffic signal; rather, they choose
to cross a street mid-block when they see a gap intraffic. Illegal mid-block crossings were observed
during the Project Team’s site visit and cited during
interviews with Bedford Park employers. Where
traffic signals are present, some lack pedestrian
countdown signals, which provide pedestrians

A buffer zone of 4 to 6 feet is desirable to separate pedestrians from the street. The buffer zone will vary according to the street
type. In downtown or commercial districts, a street furniture zone is usually appropriate. Parked cars or bicycle lanes can provide an
acceptable buffer zone.
18

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

49

Figure 3.7. The Four Sidewalk Zones

Source: NACTO

information about the amount of time they haveallotted to safely cross a street.
Many pedestrian crossings and ramps need repair.
This is especially true along 73rd Street where
it appears that wheels from turning trucks havecrushed many of the curb ramps. Crumbling curbs
can cause stormwater drainage issues such as
ponding, which can impede walking. Similarly,
poor snow removal can force pedestrians to walkin travel lanes where the snow has been cleared.

50

Retrofitting Bedford Park’s existing pedestrian
facilities to match best practices will provide asafer and less stressful experience for all users of
the community’s pedestrian network. Whether
commuters reach Bedford Park by car, transit,
rideshare, shuttle, bike, or some other mode, they
will have to use the sidewalk network at somepoint during their trip. Bedford Park planners
should therefore take steps to bring the existingpedestrian network up to a state of good repair
and expand the network where necessary. These
steps will help ensure that the pedestrian network
functions in a way that complements other modesof travel.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase ILast mile challenges: Pedestrian Network;;

Commuters that wish to walk into the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area from nearby
neighborhoods in Chicago, Burbank, Bridgeview, and Summit must cross one or more highcrash corridors.

;;High Crash Corridors include: W Archer Avenue / W 55 Street Corridor; W 63rd Street Corridor;
W 79th Street; and S Cicero Avenue Corridor.

;;

Traffic signals in the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area are spaced every quarter mile tothree-quarters of a mile, providing limited opportunities for pedestrians to cross streets.

;;

The W 65th Street and W 73rd Street corridors have a near (50-65%) complete sidewalk
network, but gaps in the sidewalk network force pedestrians onto grassy areas and parking
lots.

;;

Snow, street ponding, and temporary construction work may block the Clear Path Zone forcing
pedestrians onto grassy areas, parking lots, or the into travel lanes, as shown in Figure 3.7.

;;

Overgrown vegetation impedes the Clear Path Zone in some places.

;;

Most sidewalks have little to no Buffer Zone to protect pedestrians from fast-moving traffic.

;;

Crosswalks, where present, generally have minimal (or faded) pedestrian pavement markings.

;;

Poor street and pedestrian-scale lighting is a concern for workers who commute when it is
dark.

;;

High Priority Intersections within the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area that needadditional pedestrian safety improvements and were identified through survey responses, site
assessments, and Resource Group Meetings, include the following: W 65th Street and S Sayre
Avenue; W 73rd Street and S Central Avenue; W 73rd Street and S Sayre Avenue; W 55th Street
and S Sayre Avenue; and W 73rd St and Cicero; and W 71st Street and Harlem Avenue.

;;

Planning and implementing infrastructure projects that improve pedestrian access to the
Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area will require coordination with neighborhood jurisdictions(e.g. Village of Burbank, Village of Summit, Village of Bridgeview, and the City of Chicago).

The visual assessment (Figure 3.8 of thepedestrian network helps showcase the first/last
mile challenges.

36

See Chapter 3 of SUMC’s TCRP Research Report 195, Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit, Shared
Mobility, and Personal Automobiles, Transit Research Board of the National Academies, 2018.

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

51

Figure 3.8. Visual Assessment: Pedestrian Network

52

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase Ibike network
The bike network is becoming increasingly
important as cities and regions seek topromote healthier and more affordable,
equitable, and sustainable modes oftransportation. Encouraging cycling as
an attractive mode of transportation
requires the provision of safe, convenient,and connected bike facilities. This section
provides an assessment of the various
elements of the Bedford Park area’s bike
network, which can serve as a springboard
for identifying last mile solutions. Elementsof the Bike Network include:;;

Sharrows;;

Conventional Bike Lanes;;

Buffered Bike Lanes;;

Cycle Tracks;;

Side Paths/Greenways/Trails;;

Bike Bridges;;

Advanced Stop Bars/Bike Boxes;;

Two-Stage Turn Que Boxes;;

Corner Refuge Islands;;

Bike Signals;;

Wayfinding Signage and Markings;;

Bike Share Stations;;

Bike Racks

;;

Bike Corrals;;

Bike Parking Structures

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

Bedford Park’s predominately industrial landuse, road design, and traffic patterns create achallenging and unsafe environment for cycling.
The lack of a connected network of off-road
facilities (e.g. side paths, trails, cycle tracks,
protected bike lanes) forces cyclists to share theroad with fast speeding vehicular and commercial
vehicle traffic, increasing the risk of crashes.
Between 2012 and 2016 there were 8 bike crashes
in Bedford Park and 136 crashes in the broader
Bedford Park area.
Several opportunities for expanding the bike
network in the Bedford Park area have been
identified though recent planning efforts including,
CMAP’s 2016 Regional Greenways and Trails Plan,
the Village of Summit’s Active Transportation Plan,
the Village of Justice’s 2030 Vision Plan, and theChicago’s Streets for Cycling 2020 Plan. However,most of the bike facilities are still in the planningphase.
Bikeways can be defined using marked sharrows,
conventional bike lanes, buffered bike lanes,
cycle tracks, and greenways and off-road trails.
Figure 3.9 below illustrates different types of bikefacilities and the relative level of protection.

53

Figure 3.9. Types of Bike Facilities

There are several segments of existing bike routes
in the neighborhoods surrounding Bedford Park
(Figure 3.3). However, many of these routes are
not connected to a broader network (e.g. there are
disconnected segments of marked bike lanes andsharrows on 63rd Street). None of these nearby
bike facilities currently extend into Bedford Park.
The lack of bike facilities creates dangerous
travel conditions for current bike commuters anddiscourages biking as a commuting option. Thisis problematic for several reasons. First, current
bike commuters must either share the roadwith motorist and commercial traffic or ride on
sidewalks, which is illegal. Second, biking may
be the most affordable mode of transportation
for some commuters. Third, the lack of bikefacilities may result in missed opportunities54

to reduce road congestion by shifting somecommuters—especially those coming from nearby
neighborhoods in Chicago, Burbank, Summit,
and Bridgeview—out of space-intensive single
occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and onto bikes. Fourth,bike-sharing and scooters-sharing are becoming
an increasingly popular and economical last milesolutions for commuters.
Establishing safe, convenient, and connectedbike facilities in Bedford Park can encouragecommuters to bike to work. An expanded bike
network can also support other new modes oftransportation such as bike sharing, scooter
sharing, and other ‘micromobility’ vehicles that
may soon appear on the streets in the Bedford
Park area.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase ILast mile challenges: BIKE Network;;

Bedford Park’s land use and traffic patterns, current road conditions, and right-of-way
allocation create a challenging and unsafe environment for cycling.

;;

There are minimal and disconnected bike facilities in Bedford Park and nearby areas.

;;

Employees that commute via bike must contend with dangerous travel conditions.

;;

Bicycling could be a viable last mile solution based on the distance that many commuters aretraveling (37% of commuters travel less than 10 miles to work), but the lack of bike facilities,
dangerous travel conditions, and other factors may discourage bike commuting.

;;

Design and construction decisions have prioritized motorist and freight traffic over othermodes of travel. Over time, this has resulted in a right-of-way allocations and roadway designs
that are difficult to retrofit.

;;

In terms of last mile solutions, bike improvements were identified as the lowest priority by
survey respondents and Resource Group meeting participants. Cultural and institutional
barriers to expanding the bike network can be more challenging to overcome than physicalbarriers and design challenges.

;;

Off street and protected bike facilities (e.g. side paths, bike trails, cycle tracks) are the mostappropriate type of bike-related improvement given Bedford Park’s land use and traffic
patterns, but these treatments cost much more than conventional bike lanes (e.g. theproposed I&M Trail Extension would cost approximately $13 million.

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

55

Transit network
Effective transit systems are supported bya range of physical infrastructure elements
within the streetscape, as well as growing
array of digital infrastructure elements.
Elements of the Transit Network include:;;

Bus Fleets/Rolling Stock;;

Transit Lanes;;

Transitways/Railway;;

Bus Stops/Train Stations;;

Accessible Boarding Areas;;

Transit Signals;;

Ticket Vending Machines;;

Wayfinding Signage;;

Real-Time Arrival Screens;;Bike-Equipped Vehicles;;

Bike Parking;;

Transit Apps/Platforms;;

Stop/Station Amenities

When compared to other modes of travel, transit
has the greatest capacity for moving large
amounts of people in constrained space (Figure3.10). The efficiency of bus and rail transport will
likely secure transit’s position as the backbone ofurban mobility systems in the future. However, theubiquity of smart phones and emerging last-mileand mobility-on-demand (MOD) services suchas bike-sharing, scooter-sharing, car-sharing,
car-hailing, and autonomous vehicles (AVs), arecreating new opportunities for providing flexible
and convenient transportation options. These
new technologies and services are creating
opportunities and challenges for transit providers.
Bedford Park is served by CTA and Pace bus
service. Last mile mobility gaps related to thefrequency, reliability, and supply of transit (e.g.
long wait times, lack of late-night and weekend

56

service, poor reliability, and long walking distances
to the nearest transit station) were ranked the#2 highest priority last mile challenge by survey
respondents after congestion.
This section provides an assessment of thetransit network in the Bedford Park area. Given
Bedford Park’s current demographics, travel
patterns, and land use constraints, and theoperational challenges that transit agencies facewhen servicing “edge” communities, expanding
conventional fixed-route transit is likely not an
economically or operationally viable solution to
Bedford Park’s last mile challenges. For example,
population and employment density, diverse trip
generating businesses and land uses, and walkableneighborhoods are key factors that impact transit
operators’ ability to deliver high-density andhigh-frequency transit service. Bedford Park’s
relatively low total daytime population density andlimited diversity and distribution (both spatial andtemporal) of trip generators does not currently
justify increasing the current level of services (e.g.
34+ minute headways) to a level of service thatwould be considered convenient by passengers(e.g. 10 to 15-minute headways).
Although expanding conventional fixed-route bus
service may not be the most viable solution forimproving access to Bedford Park, the area could
prove to be fertile grounds for testing and scalingother transit service options and innovative publicprivate partnership models for delivering last
mile mobility. For example, one potential solution
could entail utilizing a private (or public) last mile
microtransit operator to connect commuters fromnearby transit hubs (e.g. Midway Airport, SeatGeek
Stadium, Summit Metra stop). Another option
includes Pace’s forthcoming arterial rapid transit(Pulse) route on Harlem Avenue to the Bedford
Park-Clearing Industrial Area. Chapter 4 provides
more detailed discussion of this concept and otherpotential last mile solutions.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.10. People Moving Capacity per hour by Mode of Travel

Source: Adopted from NACTO Transit Street Design Guide

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

57

Last mile challenges: TRANSIT Network;;

The average walking distance from the nearest transit stations (i.e. CTA Midway Station andMetra Summit, Ashburn, Wrightwood stations) into the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area
is 2.75 miles.

;;

Some commuters must walk over 1.5 miles from the nearest bus stops on Cicero Avenue andHarlem Avenue to their place of employment along 75th Street and 65th Street.

;;

The last mile trip from some bus stops to employment centers is impacted by gaps in thepedestrian network. For example, bus commuters coming from the Pace Bus stop (Bus #386)
at Harlem Avenue and 75th Street much jump a jersey barrier to access FedEx, USPS, and UPS
facilities in southwest end of Bedford Park.

;;

Many of Bedford Parks industrial employers have large campuses with relatively low
employment densities (e.g. low jobs/acres). Areas with low employment densities are difficult
to service with fixed route transit.

;;

The average headway for bus services to Bedford Park is 34 minutes (CTA – 22 min, Pace –47 min). Headways of 8-12 minutes is considered necessary for riders to view transit as aconvenient option.

;;

Most of Bedford Park’s largest employers have three shifts. Since there is no 24-hour bus
service in Bedford Park, 2nd and 3rd shift workers have limited to no transit options for theirreturn trip. Multiple survey respondents stated that they are “stranded” if they miss the bus.

;;

Several companies cited the lack of 24-hour bus service as a challenge to attracting andretaining blue collar, shift workers.

;;

The lack of frequent, reliable, and convenient transit service that drops workers off close
to work has been cited as a challenge for attracting and retaining white collar, professional
workers who desire to take transit (or walk) to work and who come from transit-rich areas.

;;

Nine out of the 15 bus routes that service Bedford Park have experienced reduced ridershipin the past year, reflecting a regional trend towards decreasing transit ridership. If this trend
continues, this could result in a mutually reinforcing cycle in which decreasing ridershipcontributes to a decreased level of service.

;;;;Bedford Park’s population and employment density, dispersed land use (e.g. large warehousefacilities), and limited walkability does not currently justify increasing the current level ofservices (e.g. 34+ minute headways) to a level of service that would be considered convenientby passengers (e.g. less than 15-minute headways).
Most Pace and CTA bus stops in Bedford Park offer limited amenities for travelers(e.g. shelters, benches).

The visual assessment (Figure 3.11) of thetransit network helps showcase the first/last milechallenges.

58

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.11. Visual Assessment: Transit Network

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

59

motorist and freight network
The motorist and freight network (“vehicle
network”) is a critical infrastructure system.
Like the transit network, the vehicle network
is comprised of physical infrastructureelements and an array of intelligent
transportation system (ITS) technologies that
support safe and efficient transportation.
Elements of the Motorist and Freight
Network include:;;

Pavement Surface;;

Pavement Markings;;

Road Signs;;

Travel Lanes/Turning Lanes;;

Intersections;;

Intersection Monitoring and Detection
Devices;;

Adaptive/Traffic Signals;;

Traffic Signal Interconnections;;

Transit/Emergency Vehicle Signal Priority
(TSP)

;;

Dynamic Message Systems;;

Close Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV);;

Pedestrian Push Buttons and Countdown
Signals;;

On-Street Parking/Meters;;

Parking Lots;;

Smart/Street Lighting;;

Railroad Crossings;;

Truck Routes;;

Loading Zones;;

Distribution Networks

The primary goal of the vehicle network design
is to enable motorized vehicles to access an area
without disrupting other modes or the community.
Historically, transportation planning has prioritized
the efficient flow of personal motorized vehicles
and commercial vehicles over other modes oftravel. Over time, this prioritization has resulted
in street networks and road geometries that are
inherently dangerous for other modes, such aspedestrians and cyclists. Traffic calming strategies
and Traffic Demand Management are potential
solutions that can help enhance the vehicle
network.
The vehicles that flow into and through Bedford
Park contribute to the area’s economy, they bringpeople to work, transport goods to market,
and help people go about their lives, but thesevehicles also create mobility challenges. Single
occupancy vehicles (SOV) are a major consumerof street space both when in motion and whenparked. When there are few alternatives todriving, commuters often choose to drive alone,even when they live relatively close to their placeof work. This reliance on SOVs contributes tocongestion, increases vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
and pollution, and decreases community livability
and road safety. Congestion was the #1 concern
identified through Bedford Park Mobility Survey.
Between 2012 and 2016 there were 1,056 car
crashes in the Bedford Park area.¹⁹

DISCLAIMER: The motor vehicle crash data referenced herein was provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation. The author
is responsible for any data analyses and conclusions drawn.
1960

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

In addition to commuters’ reliance on SOVs,
traffic in Bedford Park is also caused by thefreight logistics (rail and truck) associated with the
Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial Area. Commercial
truck-induced congestion and incidents wereamong the highest priority concerns thatemerged through this study. Across the Chicago
metropolitan region, cars and trucks are delayed atrail crossings for 7,800 hours each weekday—more
than 2 million hours of delay per year across theregion. At the local level, at-grade rail crossingsand commercial truck traffic-induced bottlenecks

can cause severe delays, causing people to be late
for work or miss critical transfers and connections(due to their scarcity).
The next section includes a detailed assessmentof the five main travel corridors that surroundthe Bedford Park Clearing Industrial Area. Figure
3.12 provides a map of Rail Crossing Delays in
the Bedford Park area as well as a snapshot ofroad congestion. Figure 3.5 maps the high crashcorridors in the Bedford Park area.

Figure 3.12. Rail Crossing Delays and Road Congestion Snapshot

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

61

Last mile challenges: MOTORIST AND FREIGHT Network

62;;

85% of Bedford Park’s workforce drive alone to work.

;;

Between 2012 and 2016 there were 1,056 car crashes in the Bedford Park area.

;;

Regional truck bottlenecks impact the Bedford Park area, including Harlem and Cicero
Avenues.

;;

Local truck bottlenecks impact Bedford Park, including 71st Street between Harlem Avenue
and Sayre Avenue (i.e. the entrance to the CSX intermodal facility) and the intersection of 73rd
Street and Sayre Avenue.

;;

Bedford Park has relatively high volumes of commercial vehicle traffic due to the Bedford ParkClearing Industrial Area.

;;

At-grade rail crossings cause severe delays near Midway Airport. Rail crossing delays often
occur during peak rush hour times.

;;

The combined impacts of commuters’ reliance on single occupancy vehicles; the high volume
of commercial truck traffic; and rail crossing delays lead to severe road congestion.

;;

Instances of “traffic” and “congestion” were overwhelmingly cited as the #1 challenge
impacting workers’ last mile commute.

;;

The conduct of professional drivers was a commonly cited concern (e.g. rolling stops, excessive
speeding, general rudeness directed at other travelers).

;;

Faded pavement markings, particularly crosswalks and stop bars, were observed along 73rd
Street.

;;School Zone contributes to slow down on Central Avenue from 79th Street to 73rd Street.

;;

Non-actuated signals and “long red lights” were commonly cited concerns.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Shared Mobility network
Shared mobility is defined by the Shared-Use
Mobility Center (SUMC) as “transportation
services and resources that are shared amongusers, either concurrently or one after another.”
Shared mobility includes any type oftransportation that involves an element of sharing,
including public transit, taxis, shuttle services,ridesharing, carsharing, bikesharing, and othermodes (Figure 3.13). Appendix F provides adefinition of each category of shared mobility service.
Moreover, the shared mobility network is acollection of vehicles that operate within thefour identified transit networks (Pedestrian, Bike,
Transit, Motorist and Freight). For the purpose ofthis assessment, we explore the shared mobility
network on its own. However, in the toolkit sharedmobility solutions are integrated into the otherfour mobility networks (e.g.bikesharing, shuttles,
and ridesharing).

Until recently, the primary operators of sharedmobility were traditional public transit agencies
responsible for large urban and regional transit
networks, such as CTA, Metra, and Pace inmetropolitan Chicago. However, as ridehailingcompanies such as Uber and Lyft arrived on
the scene in 2009 and 2012, respectively, theentire transportation industry was disrupted andcontinues to evolve at a rapid pace. With theintroduction of these low-cost, highly customizable
transportation alternatives, consumers now havean alternative to owning cars and taking public
transit. Governments and transit agencies havebeen taking note. This section summarizes key
takeaways and trends from the literature on
shared mobility and case studies (Appendix B),
and provides a broad shared mobility opportunity
assessment for the Bedford Park area. See
Appendix F for a detailed opportunity assessment
for specific types of shared mobility solutions andtheir viability in Bedford Park.

Shared Use Mobility Modes

Figure 3.13. Figure 3.13. Shared-Use Mobility Modes

Source: Shared Use Mobility Reference Guide (SUMC, 2015)

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

63

The impacts of shared mobility services on cities
and public transit agencies is a key area of concern
for city officials and transit operators across thenation. There are ongoing skirmishes between
transportation network companies (TNCs), like
Uber and Lyft, and city governments and taxi
industry groups; debates regarding the viability of
dockless bike sharing systems and scooter sharing;and the challenges associated with designing andallocating the public right-of-way to accommodate
new modes. These all demonstrate that the
introduction of these disruptive technologies andbusiness models into cities’ economic, physical,
technological, and political landscapes come with,
well, disruptions.
Our review of th shared mobility industry
projections (See Figure 3.14), literature, casestudies (Appendix B), and consumer preferencedata, including this project’s Mobility Survey,
reveals a strong trend towards increasing demand
for shared mobility services. Shared mobility
technologies, companies, and platforms can bea part of an integrated and equitable mobility
system alongside public transportation and othertransportation networks. The following assessmentof Bedford Park’s shared mobility network isbased on this fundamental premise, as well as thefollowing concepts:;;

The increasing demand for new modesof shared mobility warrants serious
attention and action on the part of city
officials and public transit agencies.

;;

New shared mobility platforms canbe integrated into the city’s existingtransportation systems in ways that are
mutually supportive, if such integrations
are properly designed and managed.

;;

Jumping in too fast, and locking in
unviable companies, technologies, andplatforms, or sitting on the sidelines
too long and taking a “wait-and-see”
approach, may lead to poor integrations(i.e. integrations that are neither seamless
nor mutually beneficial) and missed
opportunities.
;;

Public Private Partnerships (P3s)—
throughout all stages of the program
development—will be critical indesigning, operating, and managing
successful mobility integrations.

Research analysis in Shared Mobility and theTransformation of Public Transit (2016) support
industry projections showing growth in sharedmodes of transit.²⁰ Although this continues tobe a debated issue, the 2016 analysis shows that
greater use of shared modes is associated withgreater likelihood to use transit frequently, own
fewer cars, and have reduced transportation
spending; Shared modes largely complement
public transit, enhancing urban mobility; Because
shared modes are expected to continue growing
in significance, public entities are encouraged
to identify opportunities to engage with themto ensure that benefits are widely and equitably
shared; Public-sector agencies and private mobility
operators are eager to collaborate to improveparatransit using emerging approaches andtechnology; Emerging business models include
new forms of public-private partnership for provision of mobility and related information services.
Private Transit: Existing Services and Emerging
Directions (2018) research analysis also supports
industry trends.²¹ The 2018 analysis found thatprivate transit services can complement public
transit and help reduce solo car trips; Some
private transit services divert drive-alone trips andmay cause reductions in VMT; Without prudent
regulation, private transit services can contributeto conflicts over use of street space and publicrights-of-way; Private transit’s safety benefits stemfrom per capita VMT reductions; Private transit can
expand transportation access in underserved or
hard-to-serve communities.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit. The National
Academies Press. (Washington, DC 2016).
21
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Private Transit: Existing Services and Emerging Directions. The National
Academies Press. (Washington, DC 2018).
2064

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.14. Projected Growth in Mobility Services

Mobility services are expected to
grow from 22 million vehicles in2016 to 130 million by 2030

130m

22m
2016

2030

Source: BofA Merrill Lynch Global Research Estimate, June 2017

SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITYASSESSMENTThe SUMC proprietary Shared Mobility Mapping
Tool categorizes areas in terms of their current
potential for supporting new or expanded sharedmobility.²² The assessment is based on several
underlying factors including land use, walkability,
quality of nearby transit service, jobs, and local
household characteristics (Figure 3.15). The shared
opportunities are classified into three categories:
High, Medium, and First/Last Mile Connections.
Areas with insufficient or missing data in key areas
are not categorized.²³
Due in part to the concentration of employment;
underlying walkability of the street grid; andproximity to frequent transit service, most of
Bedford Park was rated a “medium” sharedmobility opportunity. This suggests that while

it would be somewhat more difficult for themarket to attract private services, the underlying
conditions are favorable enough that services
might do well with the right policy or financial
supports. Several adjacent areas in Chicago
provide even greater opportunities. However, thewestern end of the Village, bordering the Sanitary
and Ship Canal and in the shadow of I-55, provide
a more challenging environment for sharedmobility services, even with public-sector support.
Like much of the southwest side of Chicago and its
near suburbs, Bedford Park is largely disconnectedfrom the supply of vehicle-based shared mobility
assets, such as bikesharing and carsharing, in
Chicago and the wider region. However, it iswell served by ridehailing services like Uber and
Lyft, with the full spectrum of those companies’
service offerings available in the municipality
at reasonable wait times (under five minutes

http://maps.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/sumc/#
SUMC’s opportunity analysis estimates potential demand for carsharing and bikesharing by calculating the disparity between existing resources and new resources that a given market can absorb. To conduct this analysis, SUMC developed a series of models forpredicting availability of carsharing and bikesharing within a census block group, based on the key demographic factors in markets
where demand and supply are thought to be most balanced. The resulting model was then applied to more than 50 cities acrossNorth America, using the difference between predicted and actual levels of carsharing and bikesharing to identify opportunity areas.
22
23

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

65

for core services like UberX and UberPool).
Appendix F provides a more detailed analysis of
the opportunity associated with different sharedmobility modes (e.g. carsharing, bikesharing,scooters, ridehailing/TNCs, microstransit, ondemand carpooling, TNC Rush Hours).

Figure 3.15. Shared Mobility Opportunity Assessment

66

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase ILast mile challenges: shared mobility Network;;

The nearest station-based (round-trip) carsharing vehicles are several Zipcars located at
Midway Airport.

;;

Dockless bicycle and scooter operators depend on user density and network effects for
productive service and have not yet begun operating in any suburbs of the metro area.

;;

The Divvy bikesharing network is limited to the City of Chicago and one northern suburb, andthe system has been slow to expand to the south and west of downtown. The nearest station
is some 5 miles from Bedford Park at S Damen and W 61st Street.

;;

As its service is focused largely on trips in and out of the urban core, Via’s service to Midway
largely duplicates CTA Orange Line service for the purposes of reaching Bedford Park.

;;

Until recently Chariot was the only major microtransit operator providing services in the
Chicago region. However, in January 2018, Chariot announced that they will be closing forbusiness, calling into question the viability of microtransit.

;;

The average price for an UberPool ride originating within the Bedford Park-Clearing Industrial
Area to the Midway Transit Hub is approximately $10 (a costly commute for those individuals
using this transit mode daily).

;;

In Bedford Park and its nearby transit hubs, vehicle supply appears to be at its lowest in theweekday early mornings, as well as late in the day on weekends, when TNC activity are known
to be concentrated on nightlife areas of the city, north and northwest of the Loop.

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

67

LAST MILE GAP ASSESSMENT: BY
CORRIDOR

THE FIVE PRIMARY CORRIDORSThe previous section assessed Bedford Park’s last
mile challenges associated with five interrelatedtransportation networks. This section provides anassessment of Bedford Park’s last mile challenges
associated with the Village’s five primary corridors(Figure 3.16) and each corridor’s attributes(Figure 3.17).

There are five primary arterial corridorsthat surround the Bedford Park Industrial
Area:²⁴;;

North Corridor. 65th Street fromHarlem Avenue to Cicero Avenue;;

East Corridor. Cicero Avenue
from 65th Street to 73rd Street;;

South Corridor. 73rd Street from
Sayre Avenue to Cicero Avenue;;

West Corridor. Harlem Avenue
from 65th Street to;;

Far West Corridor. Archer Road
from 71st Street to 65th Street

Figure 3.16. The Five Primary Corridors

The project team defined the center line of the corridors by the five primary arterials that traverse them. To capture side streets,
business campuses that extend beyond or are set back from the primary arterials, pedestrian routes, parking lots, and other site-specific conditions that may influence commuters’ last mile journey the corridor boundaries were expanded approximately 2-4 blocks
beyond the center of the corridor. The five primary corridors should therefore be considered general areas of focus rather thanstrictly defined geographies. A high-level description of the land use and transportation patterns, market conditions, and last milechallenges and opportunities is provided for each of the five corridors.
24

68

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.17. Corridors Attributes

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

69

North Corridor
65th Street from Harlem Avenue to
Cicero Avenue
The North Corridor is bounded by 63rd Street to
the north, the Belt Railway of Chicago (BRC) rail
yard to the south, Harlem Avenue to the west,
and Cicero Avenue to the east. For purposes ofmapping travel distances to the corridor, theintersection of 65th Street and Narragansett
Avenue is the geographic center of the corridor.
The North Corridor is the longest of the five
primary corridors. It is home to the largest numberof businesses (238) and the largest number of
employees (6,000).
In terms of land use, the portion of the corridor
that is located south of 65th Street includes
predominately industrial, warehousing, and officeland uses. The area north of 65th Street falls within
the City of Chicago’s Clearing Community Area andincludes multi-family and single family, bungalowstyle, housing.²⁵ Most of the area north of 65thStreet has a housing density of 6-12 households
per acre, but there is an area with a household
density of 12+ households per acre.
In terms of transportation, the North Corridor has
an approximately 40% complete sidewalk networkin varying states of repair. The nearest transit stops
are the Midway Orange Line station (2.5 miles
to the center of the corridor) and the Summit
Metra station on the Heritage Route (3.4 miles tothe center of the corridor). The North Corridor isserviced by CTA bus routes 165, 63W, and 55 N, andPace Routes 386 and 307. In 2017, 63rd Street had
an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) count of
12,816 vehicles per day. The Shared Mobility Score
for the North Corridor is “medium”, according the
SUMC’s Shared Mobility Mapping Tool.

The Midway Hotel Center, located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of 65th Street andCicero Avenue, is a key point of interest along
this corridor. This district includes ten branded
hotels with more than 1,600 rooms and several
restaurants. The Village is also in the process ofdeveloping a multipurpose sports, event, andconvention facility (“Event Center”) at 65th Street
and Laramie Avenue. Strengthening the Midway
Hotel Center and developing the Event Center are
key economic development priorities identified byVillage leadership and staff.
There are 38 Manufacturing firms that are primarily
located along the south side of 65th Street. There
are also 23 Wholesale Trade and 16 Transportation
firms dotted throughout the corridor. Most hotels,
restaurants, and retail establishments are locatedalong the east end of the corridor near the Midway
Hotel Center. Manufacturing (16.0%), Retail Trade(12.6%), and Accommodations & Food Services(9.2%) are the top three industries in the North
Corridor.
Last mile mobility to and from the corridor
is impacted by several local and regional
factors. Last mile challenges include, among
others: an incomplete sidewalk network andpoor sidewalk conditions, the lack of 24-hourbus service, poor lighting, and dangerous
intersections and pedestrian crossings. Last
mile connection opportunities include, among
others: implementing targeted pedestrian safety
improvements, “right-sizing” the corridor right-ofway (ROW) and launching a 24/7 last mile shuttle
service that connects employees in the corridor to
nearby transit hubs and neighborhoods.²⁶ A visualassessment (Figure 3.18) and a more detailed
discussion of the North Corridor’s last milechallenges and opportunities is provided in Figure
3.19

The Village’s corporate boundary extends to the back of curb on the north side of 65th Street. Sidewalks north of 65th fall under
the City of Chicago’s Jurisdiction (Wards 13 and 23).
26
Such as the recently completed crossing improvements at West 65th Street and Sayre Avenue.
25

70

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.18. Visual Assessment of the North Corridor
125201 W 65th St

5333 W 65th St

35757 W 65th St

456233 W 65th St

18 Narragansett Ave

6

76051 W 65th St

W 65th St between S Cicero Ave and Lavergne Ave

1

2

3

4

This image shows a sidewalk gap due to a parking
lot extending to the back of curb. Providing
design guidance to developers can help ensure acomplete and continuous network of sidewalks.
This image shows sidewalk that is narrowed due
to overgrown brush and which lacks a Buffer
Zone. To avoid the brush, pedestrians must walkeven closer to fast moving traffic.
This image shows a sidewalk along a side street
that connects to W 65th Street that lacks pedestrian
access.
This image shows a Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) that provides a mid-block crossing
opportunity, but lacks curb ramps and curb cuts
necessary to provide ADA access through thecenter median.

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

5

6

7

This image shows faded crosswalk pavement
markings, which reduces visibility of pedestriancrossing area.
This image shows a bus stop with no shelter orbench, which could be improved by working
with the adjacent business to install a shelter on
its property.
This image shows fencing along W 65th Street,
which bars pedestrians from accessing hotels
and restaurants at non-driveway locations.
Providing access points away from driveways forpeople and adding sidewalks or striping throughparking lots could improve pedestrian safety

and experience.

71

Figure 3.19. North Corridor Challenges and Solution Opportunities for Each Transportation Network

North
CorridorPedestrian

Bike

Transit

Vehicle /Freight

Last Mile Challenges

Solution Opportunities• Long walks for people coming from bus
stops on Cicero Avenue and Harlem Avenue• Sidewalk gaps through commercial parking
lots along the south side of W 65th Street• Vegetation encroaching on sidewalk
adjacent to vacant properties• No buffer between fast-moving travel lanes
and pedestrians on sidewalk• Many crosswalk markings are faded or are
not visible to drivers, especially commercial
drivers• Some intersections lack ADA-compliant
curb ramps• There are few controlled crossings thatenable pedestrians to cross from north tosouth side of W 65th Street• There is no dedicated pedestrian accessfrom sidewalks to the Midway Hotel Center• Connect sidewalk gaps so that there is acomplete sidewalk network on the south
side of W 65th Street and along other sidestreets in the corridor• Develop design guidelines for businesses
to ensure pedestrian access fromsidewalks to building entrances• Trim vegetation that is encroaching on
sidewalks• Continue to update intersections with ADA
compliant curb ramps• Coordinate with CDOT to restripe
crosswalks• Coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions
to improve the safety for people walking
into the Bedford park-Clearing Industrial
Area surrounding areas• Ensure snow removal on sidewalks and at
curb ramps• No bike facilities throughout the corridor• The narrow off-street ROW limits theopportunity for installing an off-street
bikeway or cycle track• Current speed limits and volume of freighttraffic creates unsafe biking conditions• Explore the feasibility of right-sizing
65th Street by removing two travel lanes,
installing a continuous center left turnlane and installing bike lanes or a cycle
track• The limited frequency and poor reliabilityof transit leaves commuters with few otheroptions than driving alone to work
• Bus stops lack space for shelters andamenities• Bus stops are abundant, but there are few
safe (i.e. controlled) crossing opportunities
to access stops• Install pedestrian safety improvements at
uncontrolled crossings at high-use bus stops
located between traffic signals• Improve amenities by providing more
benches and shelters where space permits• Develop incentive program for businesses
to host bus shelters on properties, where
space permits• Faded and missing pavement markings• Congestion is the #1 last mile challenge• The North Corridor has several at-grade
railroad crossings that cause severe delays• Poor road condition• Use Traffic Demand Management
strategies and other incentives that makeit safer and more convenient to walk, bike,or take transit• There are no existing shared mobility
services in the North Corridor

SharedMobility72• The North Corridor has a “medium”
Shared Mobility Opportunity Score, but
expansion of shared mobility options may
require subsidies, cost-share, or otherincentives)• Establish a shuttle-based circulator route• Explore the feasibility of creating a network ofbike facilities through the corridor

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

East Corridor
Cicero Avenue from 65th Street to73rd Street
The East Corridor is bounded approximately by
63rd Street to the North, 75th Street to the south,
the Belt Railway of Chicago rail yard to the Westand Ford City Mall to the East. The intersection of
71st Street and Cicero Avenue is the approximate
geographic center of the corridor. The East
Corridor, which is centered on Cicero Avenue
is the busiest corridor in terms of average daily
traffic. In 2017, the corridor had an Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT) count of 48,033 vehicles perday, including a truck volume of 5,425 trucks perday. Along with Harlem Avenue, Cicero Avenue
is a critical north-south corridor that connects
commercial traffic originating from Bedford Parkand surrounding communities either to I-294 to
the south and I-55 to the north.
The East Corridor is comprised almost entirelyof commercial land uses on either side of Cicero
Avenue, except for where the corridor crosses over
the rail yard. Bedford Park’s Local Business District(B1) covers all of Bedford Park’s portion of thecorridor (i.e. everything west of Cicero Avenue),
which includes the Midway Hotel Center to thenorth end of the corridor and a large commercial
district consisting of big box retailers, strip malldevelopment, and Ford City Mall to the south.
In terms of transportation, the East Corridor has anearly complete sidewalk network on both sides
of Cicero Avenue. However, the prevalence ofsidewalk gaps, parking lot driveways, intersections
lacking pedestrian safety features (e.g. pedestrian
actuated signals, pedestrian crossing pavement
markings, ADA curb ramps) collectively makefor a dangerous and disorienting pedestrianenvironment. The nearest transit stop is the
Midway Orange Line station (1.7 miles to thecenter of the corridor).

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

The East Corridor is serviced by CTA bus routes
54B and Pace Bus Routes 379, 382, 383, 384 385,
390. In 2017, the segment of Cicero Avenue within
the East Corridor had an Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) count of 48,033 vehicles per day.
The Shared-Mobility Opportunity Level for the East
Corridor is “medium,” but some areas to the northand east of the corridor—where many Bedford
Park employees reside—have a “high” SharedMobility Opportunity Level.
There are 236 businesses along the East Corridor,
which generate approximately 10,007 jobs for thecommunity. This corridor is also home to Bedford
Park’s largest collection of big box retailers, which
are concentrated along Cicero Avenue south of therail yard and that extend southward beyond theVillage’s limits. Walmart is the largest employer
in the corridor, but other big box retailers include
Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Ford City
Mall in Chicago. Despite the abundance of retailbusinesses, the Retail Trade industry accounts for
only 21% of the workforce. The largest industry
in the corridor, in terms of employment is
Manufacturing, which accounts for 42% of the jobs
in the corridor.
Last mile mobility to and from the corridor is
impacted by several local and regional factors.
Last mile challenges include, among others:a dangerous and disorienting pedestrianenvironment along Cicero Avenue; the lack of bikefacilities; and truck bottlenecks and congestion.
Last mile connection opportunities include,
among others: implementing targeted pedestriansafety improvements; launching a crowdsourced
carpool or shuttle service that could connect
people from neighborhoods northeast, east, andsoutheast of Bedford Park into the industrial area;
and creating a mobility hub near Ford City Mall.
A visual assessment (Figure 3.20) and a list of theEast Corridor’s last mile challenges and solution
opportunities is provided in Figure 3.21.

73

Figure 3.20. A Visual Assessment of the East Corridor
1

2

Various locations along S Cicero Ave

7000 S Cicero Ave (west side of S
Cicero, Ave across from Walmart on
southernmost part of overpass)

3

4

5

7100 S Cicero Ave

7200 S Cicero Ave

7601 S Cicero Ave

6

7

Various locations on west side of S Cicero Ave
1

This image shows a utility pole that impeded theClear Path Zone along S Cicero Avenue. To be ADA
compliance there must be at least four feet ofclearance from utilities.

2

This image shows a sidewalk that lacks a Buffer
Zone between pedestrians and travel lanes. This
design is common throughout the Village.

3

This image shows a sidewalk that stops abruptly
just north of Target, which creates safety hazard forpedestrians and is not ADA compliant. Developing(and enforcing) design guidelines for developers
can reduce occurrences of this in gap in the future.

474This image shows an intersection that does notprovide pedestrians the option to cross from west to
east. While a pedestrian actuated signal is installed,
the signal does not appear to be functioning.

6601 S Cicero Ave
5

6

7This image shows a wide intersection crossing
with no pedestrian countdown signal. Pedestrians
had no indication of whether it was safe to
cross, so they returned to their car instead ofcommuting a short distance by foot.
This image shows pedestrians ducking undertrees. While trees can improve the pedestrianexperience by providing shade and reducing
stress, poorly managed tree canopies and green
infrastructure can create a mobility impediment.
This image shows overgrown brush that is
obstructing the Clear Path Zone and a CTA bus
stop. This obstruction forces pedestrians to crossdangerously close to high-speed traffic along S
Cicero Avenue.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.21. East Corridor Challenges and Solution Opportunities for Each Transportation Network

East
CorridorPedestrian

Bike

Transit

Vehicle /Freight

Last Mile Challenges

Solution Opportunities• Long walks for people coming frombus stops on Cicero Ave. to centers of
employment to the west
• Sidewalk gaps
• Light poles obstruct sidewalks, which resultsin pedestrian infrastructure that is not ADAcompliant• Limited to no buffer between fast-moving
travel lanes and sidewalk• Improve sidewalks by increasing width andreducing obstructions from public utilities,
so that they are ADA compliant• Remove obstacles such as overgrown treesthat impede the Clear Path Zone
• Ensure continuation of sidewalks so they
do not abruptly terminate• Improve signaling so that all crosswalks
work for pedestrians when walk buttons
are pressed• No bike facilities throughout the Cicero
Avenue corridor• Very high-speed freight trucking trafficthat utilizes full extent of the right-of-way.
Speed limits and volume of freight trafficcreate unsafe biking conditions• Minimal feasibility for bicycle lanes
along Cicero Avenue without extending
the right-of-way or dedicating a lane
previously used for automobile traffic for a
mixture of bike lanes and increased spacefor pedestrians• There is a relatively large number of bus
stops (covered and uncovered) throughout
the Cicero Ave. corridor. However, limited
frequency and reliability of transit forces
people to drive alone• Improve bus transit connections at major
destinations such as Midway Airport andFord City• Faded and missing pavement markings• Congestion is the #1 last mile challenge• Poor road condition• Use Traffic Demand Management
strategies and to incentivize people totake other modes of transit• No existing shared mobility services in thearea• The East Corridor has a “high” Shared
Mobility Opportunity Score (i.e. expansionof shared mobility options is a highpriority for this high-traffic area)• Consider introducing a shuttle-based
circulator route from Midway Airport
south along Cicero Avenue and west along
65th, 73rd, and 79th

SharedMobility

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

75

south Corridor
73rd Street from Sayre Avenue to
Cicero Avenue
The South Corridor is bounded by the Belt Railwayof Chicago rail yard to the North, 75th Street tothe south, Sawyer Avenue to the west, and Cicero
Avenue to the east. The intersection of 73rd
and Mason Ave. is the approximate geographic
center of the corridor. The South Corridor, whichis centered on 73rd Street, is the second-longest
arterial in the Village and home to some of theVillage’s largest employers, including Walmart,
Cintas, FedEx, and Pactiv. With 197 businesses
and 6,110 employees, the South Corridor is key to
Bedford Park’s economy.
The South Corridor is comprised of mostly
industrial, transportation, and commercial land
uses. The type and distribution of zoning in thecorridor include: 50% Light Manufacturing (L1),
40% Heavy Industrial (H1), and 10% Motor Freight
Terminal (F).²⁷ The Village’s Local Business Overlay
District covers approximately 15% of the Corridor
on the east edge along Cicero Avenue. The portionof the Village of Burbank that is immediately to thesouth of the corridor is predominately a singlefamily residential area and has a household densityof 3 to 6 households per acre. The area to the west
and south of Reavis High school has a slightly
higher population household density of 6 to 11
households per acre.
In terms of transportation, the South Corridor
has an approximately 60% complete sidewalk
network, which is generally in a state of good
repair. The nearest transit stops are the Midway
Orange Line station (3.4 miles to the center of thecorridor) and the Ashburn Metra station on Metra’s
Southwest Service Line (3.4 miles to the center ofthe corridor). The South Corridor is serviced only
by CTA bus route 54B (South Cicero), and PaceBus Routes 382, 383, and 386, which runs along
Harlem Avenue just to the west of the corridor.
In 2017, the segment of W 73rd Street that runs
27

76

through the corridor had an Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) count of 14,500 vehicles per day. The
Shared Mobility Score for the South Corridor is“medium,” according the SUMC’s Shared Mobility
Mapping Tool.
The eastern end of the South Corridor has ahigh concentration of big box retailers including
Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Ford
City Mall, which is located just east of Village’s
limits in the City of Chicago. Manufacturingbusinesses—many of which that have two or threework shifts—dominate the center of the corridor,
and FedEx and UPS anchor the west end of thecorridor. In terms of employment, manufacturingindustry is the largest employer and employs
32.7% of all employees in the corridor. The Retail
Trade industry accounts for 16.6% of all employees
and 19.8% of all businesses. No other industry has
double-digit employer or employee totals along
the South Corridor.
Last mile mobility to and from the corridor is
impacted by several local and regional factors. Last
mile challenges include, among others: long walks
into the center of the corridor from Cicero Avenueand Harlem Avenue, an incomplete sidewalk
network (e.g. there are long stretches along thesouth side of 73rd Street that have no sidewalks),
lack of 24/7 transit service, limited frequency
and poor reliability of transit into the corridor,
poor lighting, and dangerous intersections andpedestrian crossings (e.g. the intersections of Sayre
Avenue and 75th Street, and Central Avenue and75th Street). Last mile connection opportunities
include, among others: implementing targetedpedestrian safety improvements, optimizing thetransit network and schedules, and launchinga 24/7 last mile shuttle service that connects
employees in the corridor to nearby transit hubs
and neighborhoods (e.g. SeatGeek Stadium, Ford
City Mall, and Burbank). A visual assessment(Figure 3.22) and a more detailed discussionof the South Corridor’s last mile challenges andopportunities is provided in Figure 3.22

Zoning summaries include only the portions of the corridor that are within Bedford Park’s corporate boundaries

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.22. A Visual Assessment of the South Corridor
125879 W 73rd St

5809 W 73rd St

3

4

5

6399 W 73rd St

5851 W 73rd St

5851 W 73rd St

6

7

Various locations

Intersection of S Sayer Ave and W 75th St

1

This image shows a gap in the sidewalk network.
Pedestrian “desire lines” can be used to identify
priority locations for sidewalk expansions.

2This image shows a sidewalk gap and illustrates
the lack of a Buffer Zone between travel lanes
and the sidewalk. To cross this gap, pedestrians
must either walk through parking lot, over grass,or in traffic.

3This image shows an intersection with faded
pavement markings. The lack of clearly-marked
pedestrian crosswalks create confusion formotorists and pedestrians that are attempting tocross the road.

4

This image shows a Pace bus stop with limited
amenities and which is located in an area withrelatively low employment density.

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

5

6

7

This image shows a non-ADA accessible curb
cuts and curb ramp, which are a common gap in
the Pedestrian Network throughout the South
Corridor.
This image shows a sidewalk gap resulting fromutility work. A policy requiring companies torepair disrupted sidewalk segments after utility
work would minimize these gaps.
This image illustrates a pedestrian making aillegal crossing at the intersection of W 75thStreet and S Sayre Avenue. Pedestrians comingfrom S Harlem Ave/W75th Street 386 Pace stopand heading to/from the FedEx, UPS, and USPS
facilities in the South Corridor must (illegally)
cross a physical barrier and a dangerous
intersection with not formal pedestrian crossing.

77

Figure 3.23. South Corridor Challenges and Solution Opportunities for Each Transportation Network

South
CorridorPedestrian

Bike

Transit

Vehicle /Freight

SharedMobility78

Last Mile Challenges

Solution Opportunities• Long walks for people coming from bus• Connect sidewalk gaps so that there is astops along Cicero and Harlem Avenues
complete sidewalk network on at least one• Sidewalk gaps, especially along the south
side of 73rd Street
side of W 73rd Street• Require contractors to promptly• Limited to no Buffer Zone to protect
reconstruct sidewalk segments disrupted
pedestrians from fast-moving traffic
due to construction or utility work
• Most intersections lack ADA-compliant curb • Require employers to remove snow alongramps
the sidewalks in front of their business• Missing or faded pavement markings
throughout• There are limited bike facilities throughout
the corridor• Current speed limits and volume of freighttraffic create unsafe biking conditions• Explore the feasibility of installing a bikelane or cycle track along W 73rd Street• The large right-of-way and setbacks
along W 73rd Street could potentially
accommodate a cycle track along thenorth side of the street• The limited frequency, lack of 24-hourservice, and poor reliability of transit leaves
commuters with few other options thandriving alone to work
• Some bus stops are in areas with limited
employment density• 90% of employees in the corridor drivealone to work

• Close, consolidate, and/or relocate bus
stops to areas with highest employment
density and demand• Improve bus station amenities at highdemand locations (e.g. shelters, benches,heating)• Faded and missing pavement markings• Congestion is the #1 last mile challenge• Excessive speeding along W 73rd Street (bypersonal vehicles and commercial trucks)
was observed during the site assessment
and was cited as a high priority concern bysurvey respondents• Poor road condition• Install traffic calming features along W
73rd Street leading up to intersections
with high volumes of pedestrian traffic• Use Traffic Demand Management
strategies to incentivize people to takeother modes of transit• Install a traffic light at the intersection of
W 75th Street and Central Avenue• Other than Uber and Lyft, there are no• The South Corridor has a “medium” Sharedexisting shared mobility services in the area
Mobility Opportunity Level (i.e. expansion of• The average cost of an UberPool (i.e. Uber’s
shared mobility options may require subsidies,cheapest service) ride from the Bedfordcost-share, or other incentives)
Park Clearing Industrial Area to the nearest • Establish a shuttle-based circulator routetransit hubs is approximately $10.60.
through the industrial corridor• The South Corridor has a “medium” Shared- • Launch a 24/7 last mile shuttle service that
Mobility Opportunity Level, but the areas
could connect people from nearby transit hubs
to the south provide a more challenging
and neighborhoods
environment for Shared-Mobility

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase Iwest Corridor
Harlem Avenue from 65th Street to 73rd Street,
71st Street, and Sayre Street
The West Corridor is bounded by 63rd Street
to the North, 75th Street to the south, Harlem
Avenue to west and Sayre Avenue to the east. Theintersection of Harlem Avenue and 71st Street isthe approximate center of the corridor. The West
Corridor also includes segments of 71st Street andSayre Avenue. This corridor is primarily utilized asa north-south thoroughfare connecting residential
and commercial areas north and south of the railyard. Together, Harlem Avenue and the various raillines that run parallel and underneath it, createa physical boundary that divides the Bedford
Park-Clearing Industrial Area east of Harlem from
Bedford Park’s residential area and the industrial
area along Archer Road and the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal (i.e. Far West Corridor).
The portion of the West Corridor that falls within
Bedford Park is comprised primarily of industrial,
and transportation, distribution, and logistics (TD&I)
land uses. The type and distribution of zoning in
the corridor include: 50% Heavy Industrial (H1),
30% Light Manufacturing (L1), 10% Motor Freight
Terminal (F), and 10% other industries. Much of thesouthern portion of the West Corridor, including
the areas south of 71st Street and west of Harlem
Avenue, are within the Village of Bridgeview. The
portion of Bridgeview that is located immediately
southwest of Bedford Park is comprised of mostly
single-family residential neighborhoods with ahousing density of 1.5 to 3 households per acre andmoderate density commercial development along
Harlem Avenue.
In terms of the corridor’s transportation networks,
the West Corridor has highly variable sidewalk
conditions. The nearest transit stop is the Summit
Metra station (3.3 miles to the center of thecorridor). The West Corridor is serviced only by
Pace bus routes 386 and 856, the Toyota Park - East
Loop Express, which provides weekday rush hour

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

service between the Toyota Park Transit Center(now “Bridgeview Transit Center”) at Toyota Park
(now “SeatGeek Stadium”) in Bridgeview and theEast Loop in Chicago. In 2017, the segments ofHarlem Avenue within the West Corridor had an
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) count of 43,200
vehicles per day, including a relatively high rateof truck traffic with 7,200 commercial vehicles perday. The Shared-Mobility Opportunity Level for
the West Corridor is “medium.” Adjacent west andsouth areas of the corridor, bordering the Sanitary
and Ship Canal and in the shadow of I-55, provide amore challenging environment for shared mobility
services, even with public-sector support. This isdue to the low population and workforce density, as
well as other transportation, land use, and socioeconomic factors.
The West Corridor along Harlem Avenue has amoderately dense concentration of employment
with 107 employers and approximately 2,699
employees along the 1.8-mile long corridor. Argo
Community High School anchors the northern endof the corridor, SeatGeek Stadium, and the FedEx
and UPS facilities the southern end. Harlem Avenue
serves as a critical north-south thoroughfare thatconnects Bedford Park to I-294 to the south andI-55 to the north. Cicero Avenue and Harlem
Avenue are the only two north-south crossings over
the Clearing Yards for about a 5.26-mile stretch (i.e.
from S Pulaski Road to S Archer Road). The limited
north-south connectivity over the Clearing Yards is
one of the key reasons why both Harlem Avenue
and Cicero Avenue are Truck Bottlenecks.
Last mile mobility to and from the corridor is
impacted by several local and regional factors.
Last mile challenges include, among others:
an incomplete sidewalk network along Harlem
Avenue; severe truck bottlenecks along Harlem
Avenue and at the intersection of 71st Street andSayre Avenue, and 73rd Street and Sayre Avenue;
limited pedestrian connectivity from Harlem
Avenue bus stops in Bridgeview to companies in
the South Corridor (e.g. FedEx and UPS facilities).
Last mile connection opportunities include,79among others: expanding the sidewalk network;
implementing targeted pedestrian safety andcrossing improvements; collaborating with Pace toexpand the usage of the Bridgeview Transit Centerand expanding the mobility hub’s multimodaland shared mobility connectivity into the Bedford
Park-Clearing Industrial Area; and continuing tocoordinate with Pace on the implementation of
the Pulse route along Harlem Avenue. A visualassessment (Figure 3.24) and a more detailed
discussion of the North Corridor’s last milechallenges and opportunities is provided in Figure
3.25.

80

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 3.24. A Visual Assessment of the West Corridor
126876 W 75th St

7098 W 75th St
53

4

W 74th St and Harlem Ave

Oak Park Ave and W 65th St

This image shows pedestrians walking to/fromparcel carrier facilities must walk long stretchof W 75th Street, which (according to survey
respondents) is often not cleared of snow during
winter months.

42This image shows how pedestrians coming fromthe S Harlem Avenue/W 75th Street Pace Route#386 bus stop and heading to/from FedEx,
UPS, and USPS facilities must (illegally) cross aphysical barrier and a dangerous intersection
with not formal pedestrian crossing.

5

3This image shows a Pace bus stop at W 74th Street
and S Harlem Avenue with limited amenities
facilities for transit riders.

1

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

W 65th St and S Harlem Ave

This image shows a CTA bus stop where bus
riders must board or exit the bus at an area
where the sidewalk is in very poor condition.
Improving the user experience will require
coordination of transit agencies and local
municipalities.
This image shows a sidewalk lacking a curb anda well-defined defined Clear Path Zone along W
65th Street, east of S HarlemAvenue.

81Figure 3.25. West Corridor Challenges and Solution Opportunities for Each Transportation Network

West
CorridorPedestrian

Bike

Transit

Vehicle /Freight

SharedMobility82

Last Mile Challenges

Solution Opportunities• Stretches of road with no sidewalks near
65th and Harlem Avenue• No sidewalk or passthrough available topedestrians at 75th and Sayre• Limited crosswalks throughout West
Corridor• Turning truck traffic and no walk signals• Connect sidewalk gaps so that there is acomplete sidewalk network on at least one
side of 65th Street near Harlem Avenue• Implement targeted crosswalks
improvements and pedestrian safety
improvements in areas with highemployment density and foot traffic• Limited bike facilities throughout thecorridor• Roads are not conducive to bike traffic• Volume of freight traffic creates unsafe
biking conditions• No bike lanes and high traffic speeds onHarlem Avenue• Explore the feasibility of installing a bikelane or cycle track along Harlem Avenue• Poorly marked transit stops and difficult
pedestrian access• CTA bus route #165 has eight westboundtrips during the AM peak, and eight
eastbound trips in PM peak. CTA service
during off peak hours and the weekend islimited.

• Relocate bus stops to areas with highest
employment density• Add additional amenities at bus stops (e.g.
shelters, benches, heating)• Coordinate bus schedules with major shiftchanges• Continuous truck back-up at CSX turn-in• Optimize traffic signals to allow for longer
locationand increased number of trucks to turn• Left turn lane at 71st & Harlem quickly• Add Pedestrian Actuated Signals
backs-up, traffic coming over south over hillat increased speeds forced to stop quickly.
• Poor road conditions (e.g. faded roadmarkings, potholes)• No existing shared mobility services in thearea• Limited shared mobility opportunity along
western end of the Village due to the low
population and workforce density, as wellas other transportation, land use, andsocio-economic factors• Establish a shuttle-based circulator route
through the industrial corridor• Work with Pace to expand the usage of Pace
Transit Center at Harlem Avenue and W 71
Street• Create multimodal and shared mobility
connections between the Pace Transit Centerand Bedford Park’s industrial area
• Continue to coordinate with Pace on theimplementation of the Pulse route along
Harlem Avenue

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Far west Corridor
Archer Road from 71st Street to65th Street
The Far West Corridor runs diagonally along theArcher Road in parallel to the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. The north end of the corridor
is 63rd Street and the south end is 71st Street.
The corridor extends two blocks east of Archer
Road to include the Village’s residential area. The
approximate center of the corridor is slightly northof the intersection of Archer Road and 68th Street.
This corridor is primarily utilized as a northeastsouthwest thoroughfare connecting travelers to
I-55 and I-294. Archer Road is classified as a minor
arterial and used heavily by truck traffic flowing
from the industrial areas between Archer Road andthe Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which include
Ingredion, ACH Food, and other heavy industrial
companies.
Archer Road splits Bedford Park’s Far West Corridor
into two very distinctive areas. The area west ofArcher Road is characterized by heavy industrial
and logistics land uses whereas the area east ofArcher Road is characterized by residential andinstitutional land uses. Bedford Park’s Village Hall,
Police Department, Library, Park District, Walker
Elementary School, the Swanson Center, and only
residential area are located east of Archer Road.
The type and distribution of zoning in the corridor
include: 30% Heavy Industrial (H1), 20% Light
Manufacturing (L1), 25% Residential, 15% Parks,
and 10% Institutional. The north end of the corridor
leads into a commercial corridor in the Village ofSummit after crossing under the Indiana Harbor
Belt (IHB) Railroad bridge. The southern end of thecorridor includes transportation, distribution, andlogistics (TD&L) companies; and the Resurrection
and Bethania cemeteries, which are located justsouth of the corridor in the Village of Justice.
In terms of transportation, the residential area
within the Far West Corridor has a complete
sidewalk network in excellent condition. However,the sidewalk network on the west side of Archer

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

Road ends south of the Institute for Food Safety
and Health campus. The nearest transit stop is
the Summit Metra station (1.3 miles north of thecorridor). The Far West Corridor is not currently
serviced by CTA or Pace buses, but there is abus terminal at 63rd Street and Archer. In 2017,
Archer Road had an Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT) count of 24,466 vehicles per day, including
a relatively high rate of truck traffic with 2,750
commercial vehicles per day. Due to the area’s low
population and employment density and disturbed
land use, the corridor provides the most challenging
environment for shared mobility services.
The Far West Corridor has the lowest employment
density within the village with less than 15
employers. Village Hall, Bedford Park District, andWalker Elementary School are centrally locatedalong the eastern portion of the corridor with agrid of streets and sidewalks servicing the entire
residential area, including a park with two baseballdiamonds and a greenway network surrounding
the residential area. While the eastern portion of
the corridor is primarily residential, the western
portion of the corridor includes some of the largest
employers in the village, namely Ingredion, Inc.,
which is a global provider and manufacturer ofingredients for the food manufacturing industry.
Last mile mobility to and from the corridor is
impacted by several local and regional factors.
While the eastern portion of the corridor (i.e.
Bedford Park’s residential district) has a nearlycomplete sidewalk network in excellent condition,
the sidewalk network west of Archer Avenue isvirtually non-existent. There is a stretch of sidewalk
starting at 65th Street that leads north to Summit,
which permits pedestrian access to Ingredion’s
campus and the Illinois Institute of Technology fromthe north. Taken together, the minimal pedestrian
facilities, the lack of transit service, and limited
Shared-Use Opportunity makes this corridor very
difficult to reach by any mode other than a personal(or shared) vehicle. A more detailed discussionof the North Corridor’s last mile challenges andopportunities is provided in Figure 3.26.

83

Figure 3.26. Far West Corridor Challenges and Solution Opportunities for Each Transportation Network

Far WEst
CorridorPedestrian

Bike

Transit

Vehicle /Freight

SharedMobility84

Last Mile Challenges

Solution Opportunities• The sidewalk network along the west sideof Archer Road is only 30% complete andpermits pedestrian access only from thenorth• The entrance drive to Ingredion’s Gate
5 and Ace Hardware’s Lumber Yard
creates a dangerous crossing situation
for pedestrians walking into the Far West
Corridor from the north• There are no pedestrian crossings acrossArcher Road connecting the Bedford Park
residential area to the industrial area

• Implement targeted pedestrian safety
improvements along the west side ofArcher Avenue• Provide high visibility crosswalks acrossArcher Road near Village Hall
• Improve sidewalks in industrial area toallow for a more viable live-work situationin the village• There are currently no bike facilities
throughout the Far West Corridor• Volume and speed of and private andcommercial freight traffic creates unsafe
biking conditions• Continue to participate in the Illinois andMichigan (I&M) Canal Trail Extension
Steering Committee and explore thefeasibility of extending the trail from
Willow Springs (where the current
terminus lies) north to the Portage
Historical Site in Forest View

• Other than the 63rd Street and Archer Road
Terminal located immediately the north ofthe corridor, there is no CTA or Pace bus
serving the Far West Corridor• Improve pedestrian connectivity from the63rd Street and Archer Road Terminal into
the Far West Corridor• Improve connections to Metra Summit
station with increased coordination with
Pace buses• High rates of heavy commercial vehicle
truck traffic cause stress to roads
and necessitates more ongoing roadmaintenance• Provide high-visibility wayfinding signage
for commercial vehicle traffic to better
understand where their access points arefor businesses, Village Hall, and othermajor destinations.
• Optimize traffic signals to allow for moretrucks to turn left at targeted intersections
to reduce truck bottlenecks• There are currently no existing sharedmobility services in the area
• The Far West Corridor has very limited
Shared- Mobility Opportunity Level due tothe area’s low population and workforce
density, dispersed land use, and othersocio-economic factors• Launch a 24/7 last mile shuttle service that
could provide last mile connectivity fromnearby transit hubs (e.g. the Summit Metra
Station and 63rd Street and Archer Road
Terminal) and neighborhoods (e.g. Summit,
Clearing) in the Far West Corridor

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

SUMMARY;;

The Last Mile Gap Assessment covers the fourinterconnected travel networks of Bedford Park
(Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, Motorist and Freight)
as well as the overarching Shared Mobility
Network and delineates five primary corridors in
the Bedford Park Clearing Industrial Area (North,East, South, West, and Far West). The corridors
are examined using the travel networks. Visualassessments of the networks and corridors help toillustrate the current transportation challenges ofBedford Park.

Transit Network. The transit network
currently is served by CTA and Pace bus
service, but it is infrequent, has poor
reliability, lacks late-night and weekend
routes, and requires long walks to nearest
transit stations. Expanding conventional
fixed-route bus service is not necessarily
a viable solution. Alternatively, transit
solutions could include other options
and innovative public-private partnershipmodels for delivering last mile mobility,
such as a last mile microtransit.

;;

Motorist and Freight Network. This
vehicle network includes many SOVs
and commercial vehicles which resultin bottlenecks and traffic congestion,
including long delays from rail traffic andlong red lights. Enhancing the motorist
and freight network with traffic calming
and Traffic Demand Management could
make the network inherently safer forother modes of transportation, such aspedestrians and cyclists.

;;

Shared Mobility Network. SUMC
defines the shared mobility network as“transportation services and resourcesthat are shared among users, either
concurrently or one after another.”28
The Shared Mobility Network includes
challenges surrounding infrequentand costly TNCs, lack of proximate car
sharing vehicles, and lack of mobility
sharing systems. Overall, Bedford
Park has a “medium” shared mobility
opportunity and given the right policy
or financial supports, mobility services(e.g. carsharing, bike sharing, scooter
sharing, TNCs, Microtransit, On-Demand
Carpooling) might do well.

Collectively the transit networks are affectedby the type of infrastructure, demographics,
travel patterns, land use constraints, operational
challenges, and disruptive technologies.
;;

;;

28

Pedestrian Network. The pedestrian
network has deficiencies such as lackof buffer zones, infrequent mid-blockcrossings, lack of amenities, and routes
in need of repair, resulting in safety
challenges. Improving and expanding
the routes pedestrians frequent will
promote a safer and more enjoyable
walking experience for all users of thecommunity’s pedestrian network.
Bike Network. Bike routes in Bedford
Park do not connect to the broader
network and lack bike facilities (e.g. off
street and protected bike paths), creatinga dangerous bike network. Providing
more bike facilities will improve the safety
and promote bike commuting in BedfordPark.

https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/what-is-shared-mobility/

Bedford Park’s Last Mile Assessment

85Each corridor faces similar challenges and solution
opportunities.

86;;

North Corridor. A major collector
street with a “medium” shared mobility
opportunity, long walks, limited bikefacilities, high-speed traffic, poor roadconditions, and traffic congestion.

;;

East Corridor. A principal arterial with a“high” shared mobility opportunity, longwalks, no bike facilities, high-speed traffic,
limited transit frequency, congestion,
missing pavement markings, and noshared mobility services.

;;

South Corridor. A major collector
street with a “medium” shared mobility
opportunity, long walks, no buffer zone,
limited bike facilities, high speed traffic,
limited transit frequency, and congestion.

;;

West Corridor. A principal arterial withno existing shared mobility services in thearea, long stretches without sidewalks,
limited bike facilities, poorly marked
transit stops, continuous truck back-up,
and poor road conditions.

;;

Far West Corridor. A minor arterial
with no existing shared mobility services,limited sidewalk network and pedestriancrossings, no bike facilities, loud andhigh-speed traffic, and high rates ofcommercial vehicle truck traffic.

Solutions for the corridors include, but are notlimited to, connecting the sidewalk gaps andmaking improvements to sidewalks and signaling;
installing more bike facilities; improving bus transit
connections; using Traffic Demand Management;utilizing traffic calming strategies; optimizing
traffic signals; providing pedestrian actuatedsignals; wayfinding with high-visibility; and a 24/7
last mile shuttle service.
The next section, Chapter 4, provides a moredetailed discussion of potential last mile solutions.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Chapter 4

Last Milesolution toolkit

This chapter provides a Toolkit of potential last mile solutions that the Village,
regional agencies, mobility providers, and other partners can deploy in responseto the challenges described in Chapter 3. The following Last Mile Solution
Toolkit (“Toolkit”) (Appendix G) is structured in accordance with our framework
for an integrated and equitable mobility system and includes solutions for thePedestrian, Bike, Transit, and Motorist and Freight transportation networks.

89

LAST MILE SOLUTION TOOLKITHOW TO USE THE TOOLKITThe Toolkit presented here describes an arrayof potential solutions that can be applied to
the Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, and Motorist andFreight networks in Bedford Park. The Toolkit
includes both pragmatic and innovative solutions
that address Bedford Park’s unique Last Mile
Challenges. The Toolkit includes four solutions
for each of the transportation networks (e.g.
Pedestrian Network, Bike Network, Transit
Network, Motorist and Freight Network). Eachsolution includes a set of more specific treatments
and implementation actions. The Toolkit provides
a snapshot of useful descriptive information andevaluation criteria for each solution that the Village
staff and partners can reference when making
planning and capital improvement decisions; theseinclude:;;Challenges Addressed. A list of the last
mile challenge(s) that are addressed by
the solution (e.g. Long Walks, Limited
Transit Supply and Reliability, Degraded
Infrastructure, Dangerous Travel
Conditions, Restrictive Right of Ways,
Poor Transit Legibility and Alignment);;;

Type of Intervention. The primaryintervention a solution encompasses (e.g.
Infrastructure Improvements, Technology
Deployment, Operational Changes,
Policy/Partnership/Program); and;;Evaluation. A high-level evaluationof each Last Mile Solution (e.g. Safety
Improvement, Affordability, Community
Preference, Feasibility/Readiness, Transit
Benefits).

Each solution was evaluated by five guiding
principles, shown below. Solutions were assigned
a score based on the degree to which it performed
against the evaluation criteria. Scores weregenerating using the Delphi Method and based ona scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being lowest performanceand 10 being highest performance.²⁹
The purpose of this Toolkit is to provide Bedford
Park decision-makers and partners with a targeted
set of solutions for the area’s last mile challenges.
Additional information on treatments and action isprovided in Appendix G.

FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Safety. Last mile solutions improve travel safety for all users, especially the most vulnerable.
Affordability. Last mile solutions address mobility challenges in a way that is cost effective
for the Village and for commuters.
Community Support. Last mile solutions respond to community concerns and leveragecommunity strengths.
Feasibility. Last mile solutions are planned, designed, and implemented in a way thatrecognizes fiscal, political, and operational constraints.
Supportive of Transit. Last mile solutions support the use of public transit and othersustainable modes of transportation.
The Project Team reviewed information and data gathered through the following sources to assign a score for each evaluation criteria: the mobility survey (Appendix D); resource group meetings; the last mile assessment; case studies (Appendix B); infrastructure
cost tables (Appendix H); and the last mile mobility demo day.
29

90

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 4.1. How to Use the Last Mile Toolkit

Refer here for guidance on which last milechallenge(s) each solution addresses and thetype of intervention(s) the solution entails.

There are four broad Last
Mile Solutions for eachtransportation network.

Each solution has several specific treatments
and actions which are listed in the Toolkit.

Each solution was evaluatedbased on the following fiveevaluation criteria.

Figure 4.2. Last Mile Solution Toolkit and Map

Challenges Addressed

Last Mile Solutions

Type of Intervention

Evaluation

Pedestrian Network
Repair and Maintain Existing Sidewalks
Expand the Sidewalk Network







Implement Targeted Crossing Improvements
Install Shared Mobility and Other Amenities

Bike Network
Install Conventional Bike Lanes
Install Protected Cycle Tracks and Bike Trails
Expand Dock-Based Bike Sharing Services
Expand Dockless Bike Sharing/Micromobility Services

Transit Network
Optimize Transit Schedules and Routes

 




 
 


Formalize Transit Lanes and Transitways
Incentivize and Promote Transit
Expand Microtransit and Mobility on Demand Services

Motorist and Freight Network
Adopt and Implement a Complete Streets Policy

Utilize Corridor Management and TDM Strategies
Create Mobility Hubs
Expand Carsharing/Ridesourcing/Ridesharing Services




 


 
 











 

 
 





 
 





  
 



  






  

   






 
 
 


 
 








Performance Score

92

High

MediumLow

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

TOOLS FOR THE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
Every trip begins and ends with walking, soeveryone is a pedestrian at some point.³⁰
Pedestrians need continuous and unobstructed
paths, well-lit spaces, shaded places to rest
and walk, and clear wayfinding signage fora safe and comfortable last mile experience.
Pedestrian networks should be safe, comfortable,
and enjoyable for all users, especially the mostvulnerable users: the young, elderly, and people
with disabilities.

PEDESTRIAN NETWORKLAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Repair and Maintain Sidewalks
2. Expand the Sidewalk Network
3. Implement Targeting Crosswalk
Improvements
4. Install Shared Mobility and Other
Networks

Bedford Park’s sidewalk network is constructed, likemany communities, to support primarily residential
uses. However, with such a heavy influx ofworkforce entering the community daily, bringing
existing sidewalks and crosswalks up to a state ofgood repair would be an appropriate and useful
initial effort. Then, filling in gaps and expanding
the sidewalk network—especially in high foottraffic areas and corridors leading to- and fromtransit stops—would enhance commuters’ last
mile journey and improve access to transit. Other
pedestrian amenities, such as pedestrian-scaled
lighting, additional seating and weather protection,
and wayfinding signage, can be installed asneeded and would further enhance the pedestrianexperience. Below is a discussion of several
Pedestrian Network solutions and treatments that
could readily be prioritized.

30

Or rolling in the case of people with disabilities.

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

931. REPAIR AND MAINTAIN SIDEWALKSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

Conduct a village-wide sidewalk assessment;;

Identify and repair high priority sidewalks;;

Create buffer zone where feasible;;

Improve snow removal practices;;

Install green stormwater infrastructure

Figure 4.3. Sidewalk Improvment Treatments

94

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

2. EXPAND SIDEWALK NETWORKTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Connect gaps in sidewalk network;;

Widen sidewalks and create buffer zones;;

Install mid-block crossings where appropriate;;

Formalize pedestrian cut-throughs and improve internal parking lot circulation;;

Provide high-quality sidewalks

Figure 4.4. Sidewalk Expansion Treatments

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

95

3. IMPLEMENT TARGETED CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

Install and maintain ADA curb ramps, tactile pads, and high visibility crosswalks;;

Install accessible pedestrian countdown signals with leading pedestrian intervals;;

Install pedestrian refuge islands where appropriate;;

Create bump-outs and curb extensions;;

Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)

Figure 4.5. Crossing Improvements

96

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

4. INSTALL SHARED MOBILITY AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Create TNC pickup and drop-off zones;;

Install pedestrian-scaled lighting;;

Install more seating and weather protection;;

Install pedestrian-scaled wayfinding signage

Figure 4.6. Pick-up and Drop-off Zone Concept

Alta Planning

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

97

TOOLS FOR THE BIKE NETWORK
Cycling is a healthy, affordable, equitable, andsustainable mode of transportation, with positive
impacts on congestion and road safety. Cities
that have invested in bike facilities have seen
congestion levels decline and streets becomesafer for all users.³¹ Communities are well-served
prioritizing cycling by ensuring that comprehensive
cycle networks are planned and implemented.
Offering a range of bike facilities that provide safe,
convenient, and connected routes will help cyclists
to reach key destinations without the need for
motorized travel.

BIKE NETWORKLAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Install Conventional Bike Lanes

2. Install Protected Cycle Tracks andBike Trails
3. Expand Dock-Based Bike Sharing

4. Expand Dockless Bike Sharing andOther Micromobility Services

Bedford Park and the surrounding areas currently
present a challenging environment for biking.
However, CMAP and several neighborhood
communities have proposed a network of bikefacilities that could improve bike access to the
Bedford Park area. For example, proposed sidepaths, bike trails, bike boulevards in Summit,
Burbank, Justice, and Chicago—if implemented—
would improve access for the 38% of Bedford
Park’s workforce who live within a bikeable
distance. The challenge, however, will be
constructing a connected network of bike facilities
that make it safe to bike throughout the Bedford
Park-Clearing Industrial Area. Given the prevalenceof commercial traffic and other design constraints,
this local network of bike facilities would haveto utilize more off-street and protected bikefacilities which are costlier and more challenging
to implement. Below is a discussion of several Bike
Network solutions and treatments that could beconsidered alongside other last mile solutions.

31

98

Thomas Gotschi, “Costs & Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon.” Journal of Physical Activity & Health 8 (2001), 49-58.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

1. INSTALL CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Create bikeways using sharrows, marked shared lanes, and buffered bike lanes;;

Install colored bike facilities;;

Install bikeway signage

Figure 4.7. Conventional Bike Lane Treatments

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

99

2. INSTALL PROTECTED CYCLE TRACKS AND BIKE TRAILSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

Install protected cycle tracks;;

Install raised cycle tracks;;

Install two-way cycle tracks;;

Install off-street trails / paths;;

Continue to support the I&M Canal Trail expansion efforts

Figure 4.8. Protected Cycle Track Treatments

100

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

3. EXPAND DOCK-BASED BIKE SHARING

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Partner with Divvy;;

Promote Divvy for Everyone (D4E);;

Install bike racks and corrals;;

Identify candidate bike sharing station locations

Figure 4.9. Divvy Bike Sharing Station

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

101

4. EXPAND DOCKLESS BIKE SHARING AND OTHER MICROMOBILITY SERVICES

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

Launch a micromobility pilot program;;

Pilot and evaluate dockless bike sharing;;

Pilot and evaluate e-scooter sharing;;

Partner with micromobility providers;;

Scale up micromobility services if pilot is successful;;

Install micromobility parking, charging stations, and other supportive infrastructure

Figure 4.10. . Micromobility Parking Facility

102

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

TOOLS FOR THE TRANSIT NETWORKFrom fixed-route bus and rail services to small,on-demand paratransit services, transit offers asustainable and efficient way to move people inurban areas. Transit is complementary to walking
and cycling and enables people to take longer
trips without the use or ownership of a private
vehicle. Providing dedicated space within the roadright-of-way helps transit networks to deliver
reliable, convenient, and frequent service topassengers without delays from mixed traffic.

TRANSIT NETWORKLAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Optimize Transit Schedules andRoutes
2. Formalize Transit Lanes andTransitways

3. Incentivize and Promote Transit

4. Expand Microtransit and Mobility
on Demand Services

Transit plays a critical role in ensuring equal
access to jobs and economic opportunity. While
new mobility technologies, services, and businessmodels are transforming the urban mobility
industry, public transit will continue to be thebackbone of an integrated and equitable mobility
system in Bedford Park and the broader region.
Bedford Park leaders and staff should continue
to work with neighboring municipalities, transit
agencies, Cook County, employers, and other civic
partners to advocate for solutions that improvethe convenience, frequency, reliability, and overall
user experience of existing transit service in thearea. Improvements, such as better aligningtransit service schedules with work schedules, andimproving bus stops, would encourage transit
ridership and help ensure that transit remains a
convenient and popular means by which to get
to Bedford Park. Bedford Park should also explore
innovative partnerships with last mile mobility
provides to expand the reach of transit into areasthat are not readily served by conventional fixedroute bus and rail service. Below is a discussion ofseveral Transit Network solutions and treatmentsthat could be considered alongside other last milesolutions.

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

103

1. OPTIMIZE TRANSIT SCHEDULES AND ROUTESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Align bus schedules with shift changes;;

Optimize routes and service type;;

Provide feedback to CTA and Pace regarding shift change times and user requests

Figure 4.11. Examples of Pace Bus Service Types

104

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Formalize Transit Lanes / Transitways

2. FORMALIZE TRANSIT LANES AND TRANSITWAYS
Description

Evaluation

This Last Mile Solution includes treatments with the following characteristics

Score: 0 - 4 = low / 5 - 7 = medium / 8 - 10 = highChallenge(s) Addressed

Safety Improvement

4

Affordability

2

Community Preference

7

Feasibility / Readiness1

Transit Benefits

9Type of Intervention(s)Limited Transit Supply and Reliability
Degraded Infrastructure
Restrictive Right of Ways
Poor Transit System Legibility and Alignment
Infrastructure Improvements
Technology Deployment
Operational Changes,
Policy/Partnership/Program

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Support the implementation of Pace’s Pulse Route on Harlem;;

Advocate for bus route improvements that support more reliable bus service including:□□

Dedicated Bus Lanes□□

Bus Pull-Offs□□

Peak-Only Bus Lane

Figure 4.12. Rendering of Pace Pulse Bus Station

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

105

3. INCENTIVIZE AND PROMOTE TRANSITTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

Promote Ventra’s pre-tax benefit program;;

Recognize employers that provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees;;

Encourage carpooling

Figure 4.13. Explanation of Ventra’s Transit Benefits Programs

106

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

4. EXPAND MICROTRANSIT AND MOBILITY ON DEMAND SERVICES

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

On-Demand Public Transport;;

First/Last Mile Service;;

Late Night Service/Guaranteed Ride Home;;

Accessible Services

Figure 4.14. Picture of Via’s Platform

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

107

TOOLS FOR THE MOTORIST AND FREIGHTNETWORKMoving people and goods safely and efficientlyis critical for the economic health of Bedford Parkand the region. However, individual and freightmobility is impacted by commuters’ reliance on
single occupancy vehicles (SOVs), truck bottlenecks,
at-grade railroad crossing delays, and otherfactors that contribute to road congestion. In
addition to managing highly congested roads, theVillage is also faced with the ongoing challengeof maintaining and repairing a road network thatreceives a high degree of stress from commercial
truck traffic. 85% of the area’s workforce drives
alone to work and some of the area’s primaryarterials see over 50,000 vehicles per day.
Conventional transportation planning interventions
and operations and maintenance (O&M) activities,
such as modifying the timing of traffic signals androad geometries, repairing potholes, repavingroads surfaces, and restriping road markings, arenecessary, but are not sufficient for maintaining ahigh-quality transportation system that delivers ahigh level of service under these conditions.

hour. That is over 15 times more people moving
capacity than a lane transporting SOVs! Figure
4.15 illustrates the people moving capacity ofdifferent modes of transportation.

MOTORIST & FREIGHT NETWORKLAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Adopt and Implement a
Complete Streets Policy
2. Utilize Integrated Corridor
and Transportation Demand
Management Strategies
3. Create Mobility Hubs
4. Expand Last Mile Carsharing/Ridesourcing / Ridesharing
Services

Bedford Park, regional transit agencies, andother local and regional stakeholders can reduce
congestion in the area by working together toimplement solutions that make it safer and moreconvenient for commuters to take alternativemodes of transportation (e.g. walking, biking,transit, shared mobility). Shifting commuters from
SOVs to other, more-space efficient modes oftransportation, would reduce congestion is simple
geometry. Consider the following: a typical 10foot travel lane can only facilitate the movementof 600-1,600 people in private (or shared) motor
vehicles per hour.32 On the other end of thespectrum, that same 10-foot lane—if converted
into a dedicated transitway—could facilitate
the movement of 10,000 to 25,000 people per

In Chicago, the minimum lane width in a work zone is 10 feet on residential and 12 feet for all other streets, unless otherwise approved (Source: Chicago Department of Transportation: Rules and Regulations for Construction in the Public Way (Chicago, 2019)32

108

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 4.15. People Moving Capacity by Street Design

1. ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Develop a Complete Streets Policy;;

Adopt Complete Streets policy;;

Measure progress towards implementing Complete Streets;;

Engage stakeholders in on-going efforts to promote walking, biking, and transit

Figure 4.16. Complete Streets Concept for 71st Street in Bedford Park

Image created using Streetmix.net licensed under Creative Commons.

110

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

2. UTILIZE INTEGRATED CORRIDOR AND TRANSPORTATION DEMANDMANAGEMENT STRATEGIESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;;;

Implement congestion-reducing corridor management strategies, such as:□□

Smart intersections and ramp meters□□

Active arterial management□□

Congestion pricing/managed lanes□□

Dynamic parking management

Implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and policies

Figure 4.17. Integrated Corridor Management Concept

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

111

3. CREATE MOBILITY HUBSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Create a multimodal mobility hub that includes:□□

Dock-based/dockless bike sharing□□

Real-time transit info□□

TNC pick-up/drop-off zones□□

Electric vehicle charging stations□□

Protected bikeways□□

Smart parking

Figure 4.18. Mobility Hub Concept112

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

4. EXPAND LAST MILE CARSHARING/RIDESOURCING/RIDESHARING SERVICES

TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Partner with transit agencies and mobility companies to provide:□□

On-Demand Public Transport□□

First/Last Mile Service□□

Late Night Service/Guaranteed Ride Home□□

Accessible Services

Figure 4.19. Screenshot from a Lyft Ride Spot Check

Last Mile Solution Toolkit

113

Chapter 5

The Path Forward

NEXT STEPS
In sum, this Phase I Report defines Bedford Park’s regional and last milechallenges and puts forth a toolkit of potential solutions for addressing theVillage’s mobility challenges. Completion of this Phase I Report is the first stepof a broader process of discovering, piloting, and scaling last mile and new
mobility solutions throughout the region (Figure 5.1).

115

THE PATH FORWARD
Figure 5.1. The Big Picture

Moving forward, the Village should continue toengage village staff and leadership, employers,
employees, and other regional partners andmobility providers in a collaborative effort focusedon identifying the specific local last mile solutions
that: 1) address Bedford Park’s unique mobility
challenges and opportunities; 2) are physically,
fiscally, and operationally feasible; and 3) and thatcan be readily scaled throughout other industrial
areas in the region.

A key output of Phase II will be a Last Mile
Mobility Action Plan for Bedford Park. In addition
to this Action Plan, Phase II will also produce
valuable lessons-learned, relationships local andregional stakeholders and mobility providers,which will collectively serve as springboard for
implementing a full-scale pilot program.

Towards that end, Phase II of this project includes
the following actives:
1. Targeted outreach to local and regional
stakeholders and mobility providers;
2. A Last Mile Mobility Demo Day; and3. Development of a Last Mile Mobility
Action Plan for Bedford Park

116

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure 5.2. Getting from Point A to Point B

The list below outlines specific next steps that canbe implemented to get from Point A to Point B.
;;;;

Implement the Phase II of this project□□

Targeted Outreach□□

Last Mile Mobility Demo Day□□

Tactical Urbanism Event

Develop a Last Mile Mobility Action Planfor Bedford Park□□

Review this Phase I Report andutilize when creating the Last Mile
Mobility Action Plan□□

Develop targeted last mile
improvement recommendation foreach transportation network and/or
corridor□□

Finalize the plan and incorporate
into ongoing capital improvement
planning and implementation
efforts.

The Path Forward;;

Develop and implement a full-scale
Mobility Pilot Program□□

Develop and refine the Pilot
Program design (e.g. scope, goals,
objectives, and performance criteria,etc.) through Phase II activities□□

Issue a draft Pilot Program Request
for Proposal (RFP) for review andcomment by public and private
partners□□

Secure funding for the pilot
program, and procure a last milemobility technology and service
provider(s), and implement the pilot
program117References

119

REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. “Mobility: engine of our regional economy,” (Chicago, 2018).
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, “Transit Trends,” (Chicago, IL).
Florida Department of Transportation Transit Ridership, Reliability, and Retention (National Center forTransit Research, 2008).
Illinois Department of Transportation, “Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts,” https://www.
gettingaroundillinois.com/.
INRIX “Global Traffic Scorecard” (2018) http://inrix.com/scorecard/.
LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S Census Bureau, 2002-2015).
Planning Commission TOD Committee Walking Distance Research (Fairfax County, VA, 2012).
Smart Growth America “What are Complete Streets?” (Washington, DC) https://smartgrowthamerica.org/
program/national-complete-streets-coalition/publications/what-are-complete-streets/.
The Belt Railway Company of Chicago “Connecting Chicago Since 1882” http://www2.beltrailway.com/.
Thomas Gotschi, “Costs & Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon.” Journal of Physical
Activity & Health 8 (2001), 49-58.
U.S Census Bureau 2015 American Community Survey, five-year estimates (Washington DC, 2015).
U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program [distributor], accessed on
March, ss2019 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version]
Untokening. “1.0 – Principals of Mobility Justice,” (Untokening Collective, 2017).
William J. Mallett, Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy (Federation ofAmerican Scientists, 2018).

CHAPTER 2
Chicago Department of Transportation: Rules and Regulations for Construction in the Public Way(Chicago, 2019).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Private Transit: Existing Services andEmerging Directions. The National Academies Press. (Washington, DC 2018).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Shared Mobility and the Transformation of
Public Transit. The National Academies Press. (Washington, DC 2016).
SUMC. TCRP Research Report 195, Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit,
Shared Mobility, and Personal Automobiles. Transit Research Board of the National Academies (2018).

120

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

CHAPTER 3
Center for Neighborhood Technology. “All Transit.” 2019. Accessed on 18 March 2019. https://alltransit.cnt.
org/.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. “Bikeway Inventory System (BIS).” CMAP Data Hub. 2018 Q2.
Accessed on 16 March 2019. https://datahub.cmap.illinois.gov/dataset/bis.
Illinois Department of Transportation. “Annual Average Daily Traffic.” Getting Around Illinois. Accessed on
16 March 2019. http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/gai.htm?mt=aadt.
Illinois Department of Transportation. “Technology Transfer Center.” 2018. Accessed on 16 March 2019.
http://apps.dot.illinois.gov/gist2/.
Illinois Department of Transportation. Illinois Roadway Crash Data. 2012-2016. Accessed on 17 March
2019. http://www.idot.illinois.gov/transportation-system/safety/Illinois-Roadway-Crash-Data.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Shared Mobility and the Transformation of
Public Transit. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC: 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/23578.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism. NACTO: 2017.
https://nacto.org/publication/bau/.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Transit Street Design Guide. NACTO: 2016. http://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. NACTO: 2014. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. NACTO: 2013. http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/.

References

121

CHAPTER 4
Accessibility – Metro Magazine. U.S. Commuters Wait Approximately 40 Mins. A Day for Public Transit.
Metro for Transit & Motorcoach Business: 2014. http://www.metro-magazine.com/accessibility/
news/292870/u-s-commuters-wait-appoximately-40-mins-a-day-for-public-transit.
Active Transportation Alliance. Complete Streets Complete Networks: A Manual for the Design of Active
Transportation. ATA: 2012. http://www.atpolicy.org/design.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, andOperation of Pedestrian Facilities. AASHTO: 2004. http://www.transportation.org.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, 4th Edition. AASHTO: 2012. http://www.transportation.org.
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals. Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines. APBP: 2015.
http://www.apbp.org/?page=Publications.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Parking Strategies to Support Livable Communities. CMAP:
2012. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/document/20583/c224c06f-2735-4400-8281-d3c263ce5ba6/.
City of Chicago. Chicago’s First on-Street Bike Parking Corral Installed. City of Chicago: 2011.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/procdrs/bike/news/2011/jul/chicago_s_first_onstreetbikecorralinstalled.html.
City of Memphis. Memphis Complete Streets Project Delivery Manual. Memphis, TN: 2015. https://bikepedmemphis.wordpress.com/plans-and-publication/complete-streets-project-delivery-manual/.
Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. US
Department of Transportation: 2014. http://www.pedbikesafe.org
Federal Highway Administration. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access. US Department ofTransportation: 1999. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/index.cfm.
Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. US Department ofTransportation: 2009. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.
Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. US
Department of Transportation: 2013. http://www.pedbikesafe.org
Illinois Department of Transportation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Bureau of Design &Environment Manual. US Department of Transportation: 2011. http://www.dot.state.il.us/desenv/BDE%20
Manual/BDE/pdf/Chapter%2017%Bicycle%20and%20Pedestrian.pdf.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Shared Mobility and the Transformation of
Public Transit. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC: 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/23578.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism. NACTO: 2017.
https://nacto.org/publication/bau/

122

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Transit Street Design Guide. NACTO: 2016. http://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. NACTO: 2014. http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/.
National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. NACTO: 2013. http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Freight-Supportive Guidelines. Ministry of Transportation: 2013.
https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p80100/118334E.pdf.
Pace Suburban Bus. Transit Supportive Guidelines. Pace: 2013. http://pacebus.com/guideliens/index/asp.
Parzen, Julia. Shared-Use Mobility Reference Guide. Shared-Use Mobility Center: 2016. http://www.
sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/reference-guide-editsweb-version-10.24.2016.
pdf.
Regional Transportation Authority. Interagency Transit Passenger Information Design Manual. RTA: 2016.
http://www.rtams.org/pdf/planning/SignageDesignManual.pdf.
Seattle Department of Transportation. Commute Seattle Toolkit. Commute Seattle: 2017. https://commuteseattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSToolkit_TBT.pdf.

References

123

Appendices

APPENDIX A: PLAN INVENTORYAPPENDIX B: CASE STUDIESAPPENDIX C: FIRST/LAST MILE ASESSMENT TOOLAPPENDIX D: EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY DATAAPPENDIX F: SHARED MOBILITY RESOURCES
APPENDIX G: ADDITIONAL LAST MILE SOLUTION TOOLKIT RESOURCES
APPENDIX H: COST TABLES

125

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A: PLAN INVENTORY
LIST OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS POLICIES
1. CMAP ON TO 2050 Comprehensive Plan (2018)
2. RTA Invest in Transit: 2018-2023 Regional Transit Strategic Plan (2018)
3. RTA & Pace Pulse Central Harlem Avenue Corridor Study (2018)
4. MPC Transit Means Business (2018)
5. VBP Indoor Multipurpose Sports & Event Facility (2018)
6. VBP Comprehensive Zoning Map (January 2017)
7. Summit Active Transportation Plan (June 2017)
8. Connecting Cook County: Long Range Transportation Plan (2016)
9. Tax Increment Financing Corridor Studies (2015)
10. Cicero Avenue Corridor Plan (2014)
11. Southwest Conference of Mayors 2012 Bicycle Plan (2012)12. Harlem Avenue Corridor: Existing Conditions Report (2011)
13. VBP 65th Street Corridor: Redevelopment Plan (2006)
14. South Cicero Corridor Study (2005)

126

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

1

ON TO 2050

CHICAGO METROPOLITANAGENCY FOR PLANNING (2015)

Overview;;

Inclusive Growth: Long-term regional
prosperity requires economic opportunity
for all residents and communities.

;;

Resilience: Our region and its communities
must anticipate and adapt to futurechallenges—both known and unknown—
driven by climate, commerce, technology,
and other factors.

;;

Prioritized Investment: We must carefullytarget public resources to maximize regional
benefits for mobility, the economy, andquality of life for all residents.

Key Takeaways;;

At current funding levels, the conditions of regional transportation systems are declining while
the costs to repair them are increasing. In replacing our aging infrastructure, we can take theopportunity to modernize, to increase efficiency, and improve mobility.

;;

Coordinating infrastructure operations and maintenance maximizes public investment. Units ofgovernment should partner to deliver infrastructure projects, enhance cooperation to improveroadway operations, share highway traffic management resources, and integrate local goals withroadway regulations.

;;Walkable communities and safe, connected networks for bicycling can reduce the number of
automobile trips, reduce vehicle miles travelled, and improve the overall performance of thetransportation system.

;;

Complete Streets is a transportation policy and design approach that requires streets to beplanned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel
and access for all anticipated roadway users, regardless of their age, abilities, or mode of travel.

;;

Existing and emerging technologies, such as real-time data and expanded communications
capabilities, can help us make more effective use of the transportation system.

;;

The region should avoid prohibiting or mandating specific technologies and focus on integrating
new technologies into existing transportation systems and services in ways that leverage the newservices’ strengths and help achieve reinvestment in existing communities, inclusive economic
growth, congestion management, and emissions reduction.

;;

Effective and competitive transit service requires not only strategic investments in service andinfrastructure, but also coordinated land use planning and appropriate pricing for roads andparking. To ensure better and more equitable access, the region should diversify and increase
funding sources as well as better link housing, transit, and jobs.

The full report is available here: https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/onto2050
Appendix A

127

2

RTA INVEST IN TRANSIT: 2018-2023
REGIONAL TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLANREGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2018)

Overview;;

Pursue dependable funding streams that will enable
the region’s transit agencies to provide this vital service
well into the future;;

Support a thriving, resilient region with transit systems
that provide attractive, cost-effective travel options andhelp reduce congestion;;

Advocate for region-wide policies and pricing
strategies that support transit

Key Takeaways;;

Focus limited resources on making targeted improvements and increasing transit speeds in
multi-modal corridors in order to connect and strengthen communities.

;;

Adapt to the future by applying best practices to our operations, partnering with freight androadway agencies to prioritize transit, and piloting new technology and mobility solutions.

;;

There has been a 5.7 percent region-wide growth in zero-vehicle households happening
primarily in Chicago and suburban Cook County.

;;

In the southwest and northwest neighborhoods, carpooling is used for a greater share of work
trips. These same neighborhoods with lower transit mode share and high carpool mode share
have greater concentrations of workers employed in manufacturing.

;;

Manufacturing workers have lower TUP (Transit Use Propensity) scores and manufacturingjobs are located in areas with lower than average Accessible Places Scores. This means thesejobs are more challenging to connect to using transit and may be part of the reason theseneighborhoods have lower transit mode shares, with people using carpooling for their commute.

;;

Suburban markets are challenging for transit because of low densities, lack of pedestrian
infrastructure, land use, different types of employment with non-traditional shift times, and lackof last mile connections. Serving these markets will require innovative transportation solutions.

;;Midway-Bedford Park is included in the list of corridors that are relatively difficult to reach bytransit even though workers come from areas with relatively good transit access.

The full report is available here:
https://www.rtachicago.org/sites/default/files/documents/strategicprograms/strategicplan/Invest%20
in%20Transit_weboptimized_1.12.2018.pdf

128

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

3

RTA & PACE PULSE CENTRALHARLEM AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY
RTA & PACE (2018)

Overview;;

Increase passenger and pedestrian safety;;

Improve bus speed and reliability;;

Enhance pedestrian connectivity to current and futurebus stop locations;;

Promoting transit-oriented development;;

Preparing the corridor for eventual Pulse arterial rapid
bus transit service

Key Takeaways;;

This study of Harlem Avenue was jointly initiated by Pace and the Regional Transit Authority(RTA) as a part of the RTA Community Planning Program and the Pace Rapid Transit Program.

;;

By providing funds and technical assistance to complete plans as well as support to implement
those plans, the RTA’s Community Planning program encourages municipalities in the region
to develop walkable and more sustainable communities near transit stations and along transit
corridors.

;;

Over the past two decades, Pace has been implementing the recommendations of the Vision2020 Plan, which is the strategic plan governing service development. As part of this process,Pace has established the Rapid Transit Program to guide corridor development, which includes
Harlem Avenue – one of Pace’s seven near-term priority corridors for implementing Pulse arterial
rapid bus service.

;;

While Pulse service has not yet been designed for this corridor, the recommended improvements
will help prepare the corridor for future Pulse implementation.

The full report is available here:
http://pulse.pacebus.com/images/Harlem/Harlem-OH2-Boards.pdf

Appendix A

129

4

MPC TRANSIT MEANS BUSINESSREGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2018)

Overview;;

Businesses are choosing to locate near transit toaccess larger labor pools.

;;

Locations near transit offer businesses increased
resiliency.

;;

Transit-accessible locations outperform the regional
average on job growth, especially near rail.

;;

Transit is a real benefit when the employer pays the
fare.

;;

Last-mile solutions to connect mass-transit
to places of employment has resulted in thedevelopment of employer-sponsored last-mile
alternatives and new public transit solutions
addressing employer needs.

Key Takeaways;;

Transit has a net economic benefit: Investing in transit results in regional economic growth.

;;

The Chicago region receives a higher net economic benefit—$1.21 to $3.00 worth of economic
benefit for every $1 invested in transit—than any other region throughout the country based onrecent transit studies conducted by consulting firms and transit agencies.

;;

The economic benefits of transit in Chicago include access to talent, less traffic, more disposable
household income, more well-paid jobs, and increased local revenue from new development
near transportation and infrastructure investments.

;;

Additional benefits to Chicago resulting from transportation investment included: increased
productivity, higher property values, equitable and affordable transportation, reduced vehicle
emissions, reduced fatalities and injuries, and improved health outcomes.

;;

Public transit was the 10th largest employer in the Chicago region in 2017.

;;

Transit is a real benefit when the employer pays the fares. Some firms in Chicago have begun
subsidizing mass-transit and bikeshare memberships for their employees.

The full report is available here:
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ba52f91e783e250be30249b/5bc60eae0d28c745f3a46256_transitmeans-business.pdf

130

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

5

VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK INDOOR
MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS & EVENTS FACILITYVILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK (2018)

Overview;;

A multipurpose sports and event facility at 65th andLavergne is planned near the Midway Hotel Center,
which will impact future transportation needs for the
area.

;;

This will increase traffic flow through 65th Street near
hotel center and Cicero Avenue.

;;

Development team interested in autonomous vehicles.

;;

Need to plan early for autonomous vehicle routes toaccommodate users and visitors to the sports andrecreation center.

Key Takeaways;;

The Village anticipates attracting weekend business and users with the long-term goal of
convention and consumer shows, which will increase traffic demand to the area.

;;

It is anticipated that the facility will be net negative at first and break even in a few years. The
Village will be responsible for debt service while the selected operator will be responsible for
operations costs. Additional budgeting for roadway and transit improvements have not been
determined; however, the Village is interested in improving mobility and utilizing autonomousvehicles to access the facility.

;;

Hunden Strategic Partners issued a Request for Indications of Interest for a Proposed Indoor
Sports and Event Facility.

;;
The original Request for Indications of Interest and Addendum #1 are available here:
https://hundenpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Bedford_Park_Addendum_1.compressed.pdf

Appendix A

131

6

VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARKCOMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP

VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK (2017)

Overview;;

Residential zoning is concentrated primarily
to the western portions of the Village, directly
north of Bridgeview and north of Justice.

;;

Heavy industrial throughout the central andnorthern portions of the Village.

;;

Light manufacturing throughout the southern
portion of the Village.

;;

Local businesses are zoned along Cicero on
the eastern edges of the Village.

Key Takeaways;;

Majority of the Village’s Land Use is dedicated to and/or occupied by Heavy Industrial use.

;;

A Local Business Overlay District creates the eastern border of VBP.

;;

Multiple rail lines and the world’s busiest Railroad Yard run east and west dissecting the VBP and
creating accessibility issues.

;;

Last mile challenges result from lack of connectivity between industrial and manufacturing
employers and transit corridors.

;;

Last mile challenges also result from the lack of connectivity between the hotels in Bedford Parkand the Midway Airport train station.

The Village’s zoning map is available here:
http://villageofbedfordpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/B.P.-Zoning-Map-1.12.17.pdf

132

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

7

SUMMIT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE (2017)

Overview;;

Develop an Active Transportation Plan anda Complete Streets policy. The Complete
Streets policy outlines strategies for Summit
to consider all modes of transportation when
maintaining, constructing, and reconstructing
its roads.

;;

Near-term and long-term pedestrian
and bicycle focused projects to improveconnectivity with neighbors such as Bedford
Park regional routes.

;;

Recommendations of policies and programs
that the Village can pursue to encourage
more walking and bicycling trips.

Key Takeaways;;

Goal: To prioritize creating safe, accessible, hospitable, and welcoming streets that connect
people to local businesses, school, and parks in Summit and its neighboring communities, suchas Bedford Park.

;;

Proposed Active Transportation Network that includes a Bike Priority Corridor bordering theVillage of Bedford Park and Trail Alternatives near Bedford Park.

;;

Policy level recommendations include budgeting for Complete Streets and Safe Routes to School.

The full report is available here:
https://atpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ATP_Summit_Final-Plan.pdf

Appendix A

133

8

CONNECTING COOK COUNTY: LONG
RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
COOK COUNTY (2016)

Overview;;

PRIORITIZE transit and other transportation
alternatives.

;;

SUPPORT the region’s role as North America’s
freight capital.

;;

PROMOTE equal access to opportunities.

;;

MAINTAIN and MODERNIZE what already exists.

;;

INCREASE investments in transportation.

Key Takeaways;;

New shared-use mobility services like Zipcar could reduce private car ownership and increase
reliance on other modes.

;;

Transportation makes manufacturing, distribution, and logistics key sectors of the County’s
economy, supporting over Jobs 176,000 and generating billions in personal income.

;;

Cook County’s large and expansive transit system provides 650 million trips per year representing
11 percent of all trips taken regionally and within the County. The public transportation network
plays a vital role in reducing congestion on area roads and highways as well as providing
mobility—and access to jobs—to residents without a vehicle.

;;

Cars, of course, will continue to have a central place in serving the mobility needs of County
residents. However, in recent years, it has even become apparent that new road capacity can leadto more traffic, offsetting any temporary reductions in congestion.

;;

Need to consider redesigning existing streets and intersections to provide enhanced mobility
for bicycling, walking, and transit; and for senior citizens, families with young children, and thosewith disabilities, by adding bike lanes, sidewalks, and improved compatibility with bus traffic.

;;

Bike sharing and car sharing, for example, can provide crucial “last-mile” connections from transit
stops to final destinations. Other times, modes such as buses and passenger cars compete forlimited space and resources.

The full report is available here:
http://www.connectingcookcounty.org/pdf/CookCounty_LRTP_FINAL_WebVersion.pdf

134

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

9

TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
CORRIDOR STUDIESVILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK& TESKA (2015)

Overview;;

Goal: To spur industrial development thatwill generate local jobs and expand the tax
base.

;;

Impact: Improvement of existing utilities
and roadways to enhance the potential fordevelopment and accessibility of redevelopment sites.

;;

Opportunities: New infrastructure can be funded that promotes integrated mobility acrosstransportation modes.

Key Takeaways;;

Teska has assisted Bedford Park with the establishment and maintenance of multiple Tax
Increment Financing Districts. The collective success of the Village’s TIF districts has provided
significant economic benefits to the Village through improvements to infrastructure andrecruitment and retention of commercial and industrial businesses.

;;

Relevant TIF districts include: 72nd/Cicero TIF, 65th Street TIF, Archer Road Industrial TIF, andHotel TIF.

;;

The Village engaged Teska Associates in 2015 to evaluate vacant parcels along Archer Road for
TIF eligibility. These parcels include the recently vacant Landmark Banquets facility, and numerous
industrially zoned vacant parcels. These industrial parcels had remained vacant for many years
and qualified as an Industrial Park Conservation Area eligible for TIF designation.

;;

The impact of these TIF districts has been increased development, specifically industrial
development throughout Bedford Park, which has resulted in new safety challenges fortransportation users. However, it has also provided new opportunities to fund new transportation
infrastructure investment.

The full report is available here:
http://www.teskaassociates.com/portfolio/bedford-park-tif

Appendix A

135

10 SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE OF

CICERO AVENUE CORRIDOR PLAN
MAYORS (2014)

Overview;;

Creating a cohesive identity for the Corridor;;

Improving pedestrian mobility and safety along
and across the Corridor.

;;

Balancing the needs of local communities withtravel characteristics of a regional north-southarterial.
Providing solutions for roadways and intersections focused on safety for vehicles, pedestrians,
and transit access.

;;;;Improving access to transit to increase the use of transit service.

;;

Providing provisions for pedestrian crossings at all cross-streets with signalized intersections andbus stop locations.

;;

Providing pedestrian and bicycle improvements and connections focused on access to land uses
along Cicero Avenue plus cross-streets and regional facilities.

Key Takeaways;;

The Cicero Avenue Corridor Plan is a transportation and economic development plan for thenine-mile segment of Cicero Avenue from 55th to 127th Street, which include six municipalities:
Bedford Park, Chicago, Burbank, Hometown, Oak Lawn, and Alsip.

;;

Cicero Avenue is a major transportation corridor in the southwest suburban Cook County area.
Daily passenger vehicle traffic on Cicero Avenue averages 35,400 vehicles per day in the Study
Area.

;;

Cicero Avenue functions as an Urban Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) route designated as Illinois
Route 50 and falls under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). As astate route, Cicero Avenue serves a regional travel function and facilitates the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods.

;;

Priorities for the City of Chicago in this study area are to maintain the safe function and quality
service of Midway Airport, reinforce the vitality of local industrial tenants and retail nodes, andsupport multi-modal transportation mobility and efficiency.

;;

The Village’s priorities for the Corridor are business development and diversifying the economic
base, improving transportation safety and mobility, and enhancing aesthetics and appearance ofboth the public way and private properties fronting the Corridor.

The full report is available here:
http://www.rtams.org/reportLibrary/3337.pdf

136

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

11

SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
2012 BICYCLE PLAN

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE (2012)

Overview;;

Create a safe network of bicycle facilities that willconnect residents to parks, schools, and other regional
destinations, as well as create an implementation strategy.

;;

Recommendations for preparing local bike plans.

;;

Creating bicycle safety, education, and encouragement
programs.

;;

Installing regional signage.

Key Takeaways;;

Require new housing developments to provide secure and convenient bike parking, much like theparking spaces required for residents’ cars.

;;

Require new retail developments to provide pedestrian facilities like sidewalks that connect
storefronts to the public right-of-way for safer accessibility on foot.

;;Require new industrial and office developments to provide lockers and showers to encourage
active transportation among employees.

;;

Ensure transportation equity: The elderly, children, and economically disadvantaged do not haveaccess to private automobiles, and are frequently underserved by traditional mobility-basedtransportation planning.

;;

Ensure choice and accessibility: Many people want to make the choice to use active transportation,
but the network currently undervalues this form of transportation.

;;

Ensure safety: Designing streets for bicycle and pedestrian access reduces vehicular conflicts andrelated crashes. Improved lighting can also reduce crime.

The full report is available here:
https://atpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SCM_Bike_Plan_Jan29_Web_Res.pdf

Appendix A

137

HARLEM AVENUE CORRIDOR:
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT

12 SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE OF
MAYORS & URS (2011)

Overview;;

To unite the Corridor, its activities andcharacter, and to make it a more highly
functioning transportation corridor.

;;

Turn this Corridor into an activity center forthe southwest suburbs.

;;

This planning project is designed to complement, not supersede, the existing plans of the Harlem
Avenue Corridor communities: Bedford Park, Burbank, Oak Lawn, Chicago Ridge, Palos Hills,
Orland Park, Bridgeview, Worth, Palos Heights, and Tinley Park.

;;

Non-motorized users face numerous challenges within the Corridor. The existing sidewalk gaps
make walking and bicycling difficult at many locations. In some cases, even where sidewalks exist,
walking can still be a challenge as the sidewalks are often narrow, have obstructions (i.e., utility
poles, signs, etc.) that must be alleviated.

Key Takeaways;;

In many cases, the Corridor right-of-way restricts, or prohibits, any significant improvements thatwould enhance walking and bicycling.

;;

Heavy traffic volumes and high truck percentages, in particular in the northern section of Harlem
Avenue, are not conducive to non-motorized users.

;;

Recent access management and sidewalk improvements benefit non-motorized users.

;;

Most of the major intersections within the Corridor widen to six through lanes, and include
exclusive turn-lanes, to accommodate heavy traffic volumes, which creates mobility challenges
for non-motorized transportation users.

;;

From a non-motorized perspective, these large intersections are problematic as pedestrians havenumerous travel lanes to cross, have heavy conflicting left-turn movements, have a short amountof time to cross, and often do not have sufficient median refuge if they are unable to cross thestreet during the appropriate signal timing phase.

The full report is available here:
https://www.olpl.org/documents/HarlemAvenueCorridorPlan2011.pdf

138

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

1365TH STREET CORRIDORREDEVELOPMENT PLAN
VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK &URS (2006)

Overview;;

Two-phase plan completed in 2006: Market& Land Use Analysis; Programming &Implementation.

;;

TIF district currently defined by boundaries:
Cicero Avenue on the west, LeClaire Avenue on
the east, 65th Street on the north, and 67th Street
on the south.

Key Takeaways;;

This TIF district was defined to enable the redevelopment of this site into the now-thriving Midway
Hotel Center.

;;

Several surface parking lots north of 65th street for the businesses in Bedford Park’s commercial
core. Many are in disrepair and some are being sold for residential use.

;;

Proposed Transportation Infrastructure Improvements include Central & Narragansett Corridor
Alternatives and the Chicago Regional Environmental & Transportation Efficiency.

;;

Overall plan seeks to redevelop the 65th street corridor through updated zoning ordinances,
design guidelines, improved rights of way, specific commercial & industrial uses, and increased
retail.

Appendix A

139

SOUTH CICERO CORRIDOR
STUDY

14 VILLAGE OF BEDFORD PARK
& URS (2005)

Overview;;

Examines demand and supply characteristics
of suburban markets surrounding Midway
Airport along Cicero Avenue;;

The Study sets forth recommendations on
how future development can be captured
within the Study Area and lead to new
economic vitality in this key Chicago corridor.

Key Takeaways;;

The Study Area contains a tremendous density of transportation and infrastructure rights-ofway, the intersection of which often results in traffic delays and reduced quality of transportation
service.

;;

Several major initiatives are intended to provide relief to traffic congestion and improve qualityof movement and access, and are in various stages of planning. These include:□□

Central Avenue Overpass Alternative□□

Chicago Regional Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE)□□

Extension of CTA Orange Line to Ford City Mall□□

Midway Express□□

Mid-City Transitway

The full report is available here:
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Planning_and_Policy/Publications/South_
Cicero_Corridor_Redevel_Plan/South_Cicero_Redevelopment_Plan_Part%201.pdf

140

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase IAPPENDIX B: CASE STUDIESLIST OF LAST MILE CASE STUDIES
1. RTD Denver Autonomous Shuttle (CO)2. CTA & Divvy Ventra Integration (IL)
3. Go Centennial Pilot (CO)
4. West Salem Connector On-Demand Transit Project (OR)
5. Carpool to Transit (CA)6. HART HyperLINK (FL)
7. RFP: KCATA – On Call Innovative Service Model Research (KS, MO)
8. Rabbittransit – Geisinger Transportation Program (PA)
9. Pierce County/ Lyft Agreement (WA)
10. Denton Co. Transportation Authority On-Demand Self- Driving Car Service (TX)
11. Pinellas Co. – TD Late Shift (FL)
12. Detroit – Woodward 2 Word (MI)13. Oak Brook – Chariot Last-Mile Pilot (IL)
14. Arlington – Drive.ai Pilot (TX)

CAST STUDY LOCATIONSAppendix B

141

RTD DENVER AUTONOMOUS
SHUTTLE1

DENVER, COLORADO

Overview
On Monday, December 4, 2017 a demonstration
kicked off what the State of Colorado hoped to be a
new normal in last mile mobility. The EZ-10 shuttle
was tested to move passengers from the 61st andPena Station to the nearby office buildings or bus
stop in an autonomous shuttle. This initial shuttle
ran 5 mph on a set route and used 12-15 sensors tomonitor speed or any obstacles.
In January 2019, RTD kicked off a second pilot
project in the same area called the 61AV Project. This
shuttle can carry up to 12 passengers at a time andconnects the Pena Boulevard Station with a Park-nRide facility, while also making several stops throughPanasonic’s “Smart City” campus. Rides are freeduring the four-to-six-month trial period.

Key Takeaways

142

;;

EZ-10, the autonomous shuttle, was part of a public-private partnership between RTD, CDOT, andPanasonic to help solve the region’s “last mile” commuting issues;;

Sensor sensitivity still needs refinement. During a demo, a small tumble weed on the route caused
the shuttle to stall.

;;

Autonomous vehicles are not legal on public roads in CO. The companies had to work with CDOT
to close off a portion of a road just for the shuttle to travel.

;;

Federal regulators require that an operator be inside EZ-10.

;;

EZ-10 pilot program was used to rollout a second pilot program with 61AV.

;;

Autonomous vehicles can provide additional connectivity between stations and businesses.

;;

Autonomous vehicles can potentially be used to connect future growth in this newly developed
business district.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

CTA & DIVVY VENTRAINTEGRATION

2CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Overview
CTA received funding for a project thatincorporates the local bike sharing provider, Divvy,
Chicago’s nearly 600-station bikeshare service,into CTA’s Ventra trip planning/payment app. The
integration will allow users to find available bikes
and docks and check out or pay for bike rentals
through the same app they use to plan and pay fortransit trips.
Divvy is an integral part of Chicago’s transit systemand plays a key role in first/last mile connections.
Multi-modal trips are common for transit users,
so streamlining the process can make Divvy
seamless and more attractive to transit users. The
project was part of the FY 2016 Mobility on Demand
Sandbox (MOD) Sandbox Grant Program.

Key Takeaways;;

CTA and the City hope that tighter integration between transit and bikeshare system will further
cement Divvy’s role as an extension for the public transit system.

;;

CTA and Divvy integration will occur after the Ventra app is rolled out.

Appendix B

143

GO CENTENNIAL PILOT

3

CENTENNIAL, COLORADO

Overview
The Go Centennial Pilot was a public-private
partnership between the City of Centennial,
CH2M, the Denver South Transportation
Management Association, Southeast Public
Improvement Metropolitan District, Lyft, Via
Mobility Services, and Xerox (Conduent) toaddress the first and last mile problem – howto get travelers to/from transit stations. Thismodel applied an on-demand, demandresponsive mobile platform to provide efficienttransportation connections to and from theRegional Transportation District (RTD) Dry
Creek Light Rail Station in Centennial, Colorado.
Travelers used the Go Centennial App to book first or last mile trips. The App communicated directly with
the Lyft platform to order a car (including WAVs). Lyft rides were available M-F 5:30am-7:00pm to riders
traveling to/from Dry Creek Station and a service area in the City of Centennial.

Key Takeaways

144

;;

Accessible service was a required piece of the pilot, with WAVs operating throughout the
program’s service hours and made available through the Lyft platform. Though this provided
excellent mobility for persons with disabilities, the contract structure for this “always on” WAV
availability, which was constantly billing whether it was providing rides or not, significantly drove
up both the per-trip and overall project costs.

;;

The program ran in parallel to the area’s existing RTD Call-n-Ride service; the majority of its
riders seem to have come from this service rather than representing new riders.

;;

Ridership was far lower than expected, with about 1,300 trips provided over a year of service.
And while it was hoped that the service would provide much lower costs than the existing Calln-Ride, this was the case only for per-trip costs on the Lyft side of the program. The total costof about $130,000 (including Lyft and WAV operations, software development and marketing)penciled out to a cost of about $100/trip.

;;

The pilot is largely regarded as a cautionary lesson for three reasons: first, it duplicated an
existing Call-n-Ride service and did not sufficiently differentiate itself in the value that it hoped
to provide. Second, it provided a key example of how not to structure the WAV component of an
on-demand ride. Third, it showed that an on-demand program needs a sufficiently large service
area to succeed at scale.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

WEST SALEM CONNECTOR

4

ON-DEMAND TRANSIT PROJECT

Overview

DENVER, COLORADO

Looking to solve the first-and last-mile issue, Chariot
began operating the West Salem Connector on June
1, 2015 as a pilot project in Salem, OR. The West
Salem Connector was a reservation-based, sharedride transit service that ran Monday-Friday, 6am to9pm. When riders booked trips online or by calling,
the booking software automatically generated a trip
manifest. That information was then relayed to thebus drivers via on-board tablets.
Drivers picked up and dropped off riders in a
14-passenger cutaway bus on a route that changed
every hour based on demand. The only scheduled
element of the system is at a Transit Center, where
the bus had 10-minute layover. West Salem ceased operations of the Connector and in January 2018
began operating regular bus service in West Salem, through Chariot. Two new regular bus routes, as wellas two adjusted regular routes, were implemented to better serve the area.

Key Takeaways;;

Riders were able to connect to fixed bus routes.

;;

Project created difficulty to coordinate with users without a smartphone.

;;

Confusion and overbooking issues were caused by real-time and in-advance booking being
available.

;;

West Salem Connector program illustrated the need for regular bus service in specific areas.

Appendix B

145

CARPOOL TO TRANSIT

5

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA,CALIFORNIA

Overview
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) received
funding through the FY 2016 Mobility on Demand
Sandbox (MOD) Grant Program for an integrated
carpool to transit program that helped users findcarpool matches as well as match them to their transit
destinations. The project provided a seamless way
to reserve and pay for in-demand parking spaces
at BART stations, allow preferential parking for
carpoolers, while also increasing transit ridership byimproving access to BART stations.
Today the Casual Carpooling program has designatedover 20 pick-up locations in the Bay Area to allow
commuters to find a car- pool match. The area’s
bikeshare program is also located at over half of the
carpool pick-up locations.

Key Takeaways

146

;;

Software allows users to find carpool matches and match them to their transit destinations.

;;

Users can reserve and pay for in-demand parking spaces at BART stations.

;;

Preferred parking for carpoolers at busy stations used to discourage single occupancy vehicles.

;;

Integrating bikeshare stations at the pick-up locations has given commuters more options.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

HART HyperLINK

6HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,FLORIDA

Overview
HART’s HyperLINK was a first/last mile solution
implemented in Hillsborough County, Florida.
HyperLINK was fully ADA accessible and designed asa shared-ride service. Based on research, residents
who have more accessibility to public transit will takeadvantage of it.
The door-to-bus smartphone app (also available
through call center) made booking and catchinga ride on HyperLINK easy. The costs were $1 toconnect to a designated HART stop, within thezone. Or, if riders need to connect anywhere within
the zone, they paid $3. HART paid Transdev, therideshare provider, $10 for each ride. Rides were subsidized 70-90% with state grant funding and HART’s
budget. On July 31, 2018 HART ended HyperLINK service in the area.

Key Takeaways;;

First/Last Mile solution that is fully ADA accessible and designed as a shared-rider service.

;;

On-demand feature made trips more convenient and accessible to residents in select locations.

;;

The need to add a concierge number highlights the importance of catering to riders with andwithout a smart phone.

;;

Program drew negative feedback when Teslas were integrated into the fleet.

;;

Public questioned use of funds being used on this program.

Appendix B

147

RFP: KCATA | ON CALL INNOVATIVESERVICE MODEL RESEARCH7KANSAS CITY, KANSAS / KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

Overview
The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority(KCATA) is the regional transit authority in the Kansas
City metropolitan area. As a way to increase overall
ridership on the transportation services offeredby the transit agency, KCATA put out a request for
proposals from a qualified and experienced firm(s)to provide on-call services in the areas of innovative
service model research, planning, crowd-sourcing/hackathon management, implementation, andevaluation services.

Key Takeaways
In the RFP, the organization looks to contract with firms for the following services:

148

;;

Ideation Strategy/Management for Emerging Technology and Service Model Assessments: Toenhance service, implement new on-demand service models, and collect and monetize data–
through technological engagement strategies.

;;

Market Analysis: To understand the market for mobility services, formulate market strategies,
understand consumer and potential consumer profiles, and develop consumer service adoption
strategies.

;;

Service Evaluation and Impact Analysis: Evaluate the economic, environmental, ridership, andfinancial impacts.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

RFP: RABBITTRANSIT | GEISINGER
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

8SCRONTON AND DANVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA

Overview
Geisinger Health System partnered with
Rabbittransit, a regional transportation company that
operates in 10 counties in central and southcentral
Pennsylvania in order to address “no shows” atGeisinger Health System facilities.
Patients will be referred to the program by Geisinger
staff. Rides are then coordinated through community
organizations that Geisinger Health has partneredwith. The pilot program will be conducted in two
locations: the Scranton area, within 25 miles, to test
an urban setting, and the Danville area, within 50
miles, to test a rural setting.

Key Takeaways;;

Pilot program is offering rides free of charge to gauge use and interest.

;;

Nearly 150,000 people missed doctor’s appointments in the Geisinger Health System in 2017.

;;25% of “no shows” to appointments were attributed to lack of transportation.

;;

Two locations chosen for pilot to better understand if there is an impact based on geography:;;□□

Scranton, PA (urban setting)□□

Danville, PA (rural setting)Rabbittransit is also able to arrange patient transport in additional counties in Geisinger’s coveragearea through its partnerships with other transportation companies in the region.

Appendix B

149

PIERCE COUNTY | LYFT
AGREEMENT9

PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Overview
Pierce County Transit in Washington state received
funding through the FTA’s MOD Sandbox Grant
program to fund its “Limited Access Connections”
program. The County entered into a general services
agreement with Lyft in March of 2018 to address first/
last mile accessibility issues.
Pierce Co Transit identified specific zones throughout
the county that transit riders experienced first mile/last mile accessibility issues. Lyft rides provided
connections to transit stops within the previously
identified zones. The County paid for “Eligible Rides”
within those zones.
□□

48 rides per user per month□□

Max paid under agreement $152,653

Key Takeaways

150

;;

The program was created to help both “first/last mile” connections and students at Pierce Collegewith transit options after the Pierce Transit fixed route service ends for the day.

;;

Improved efficiency by using fixed zones and set time parameters.

;;

Needed to create alternatives for people without a smartphone- concierge hired midway throughpilot.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

10

DENTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
ON-DEMAND SELF-DRIVING CAR SERVICE
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS

Overview
In July 2018, Drive.ai kicked off a six-month pilot
program to bring on-demand self-driving car-service
to Frisco Texas. This pilot program is a model for the
deployment of self-driving vehicles in a public setting,one of the first of its kind not only in Texas, but thenation, and a major step forward for the industry.
Drive.ai’s self-driving on-demand service will be
operated in conjunction with Frisco Transportation
Management Association, a public-private
partnership dedicated to bringing innovative last-miletransportation options to Frisco, Texas.
Pilot offered rides to over 10,000 people within ageofenced area consisting of office, retail, and entertainment. Riders used a ride-hailing smartphone app
to hail complimentary on-demand rides in self-driving cars that connect to popular destinations. The pilot
required a driver to be in the vehicle at all times, in case human intervention was needed.

Key Takeaways;;

Drive.ai fleet conducted several testing rides prior to pilot launch. Over 1 million simulated miles
were logged along the fixed route prior.

;;

Program has already expanded pilot to Arlington, Texas.

;;

Multiple public meetings, with over 200+ attendees, held prior to the launch of pilot.

;;

DCTA involved throughout the project to ensure safe operations and provide public education on
the new mobility option.

;;

Demonstrations and meetings with first responders to educate them on the vehicles conductedprior to launch.

Appendix B

151

11

PINELLAS COUNTY | TD LATESHIFTSHUTTLEPINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

Overview
Pinellas County is a large tourism destination on Florida’s
Gulf Coast with many service industry workers who work
late hours at local nightlife establishments. Workers
had trouble getting to/from work in the late or earlyhours of the day. Fixed-route service in the sprawlingsuburban area does not run overnight, making transit
an impractical choice for one side or the other of many
workers’ commutes. As a result, employees without
access to a car walked or rode bikes in non-pedestrianfriendly areas.
In response to these mobility issues, Pinellas County
launched the TD (Transportation Disadvantaged) pilot
program in 2016. This State-funded initiative cost users$20/month for a monthly bus pass + 25 free on-demand
trips through Uber, United Taxi, or Wheelchair Transport. On-demand trips were limited to rides to/fromwork at times buses were not running. To qualify, residents needed to lack reliable transportation andhave a household income below 150% of the federal poverty line (or about $38,000 for a family of four).

Key Takeaways

152

;;

Pilot was developed around a focused target market.

;;

To date, the pilot program has resulted in increased ridership.

;;

Employees able to work more shifts, spend more time with family, and get more sleep.

;;

Pilot slated to run through 2019.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

12

DETROIT | WIIDWARD 2 WORKDETROIT, MICHIGAN

Overview
Detroit’s Department of Transportation (DDOT)
launched the Woodward 2 Work pilot in May 2018 toincrease transit access for late shift workers. Detroit
has many residents working late shifts who lackreliable and safe door-to-door commuting options.
The Woodward 2 Work (W2W) pilot provides
discounted Lyft rides to anyone going to or froman eligible bus stop on the Route 53-Woodward
bus line. Route 53 was identified through a public
outreach process. The bus route runs 24 hours aday, beginning just south of Eight Mile Road at thenorthern edge of the city and connecting straightto the heart of downtown (approximately 9 miles). DDOT chose Route 53 because of the large number ofriders it could reach, especially those working later shifts.
Riders text the project hotline between 12am and 5am. In response, they receive a code to enter into the
Lyft app for a $7 discount on any ride.

Key Takeaways;;

The Woodward 2 Work pilot is a Public- Private Partnership between DDOT and Lyft to provide
residents working late a ride to/from their bus stop on Woodward.

;;

Route 53 Woodward bus line selected because it runs 24 hours a day and reaches a large numberof riders who work later shifts.

;;

The pilot was guided by community outreach to identify community challenges and build a projectfrom those needs.

;;

Community outreach component of the pilot planning process ensured the end user was involved
from the beginning.

;;

A Lyft concierge service is also available for those who do not have a smartphone.

Appendix B

153

13

OAK BROOK | CHARIOT/RTA/
METRA LAST MILE PILOTOAK BROOK, ILLINOIS

Overview
Chariot was a “microtransit” service that provided a flexible,on demand service in passenger shuttles along presetroutes. Founded in the Bay Area in 2014, Chariot used amodel that “crowdsourced” routes from the general public
and available to anybody who downloaded Chariot’s
hailing/payment app, as well as establishing “private”
routes servicing specific employers or districts. Chariot was
acquired by Ford Smart Mobility in 2016. At its height, thecompany was operating in at least 7 US metros, as well as London.
In July 2018, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and the west suburban Village of Oak Brook announced
a pilot that provided rides over the ~5 miles between Metra’s Elmhurst station and Oak Brook’s Commerce
Drive commercial district. Chariot Trips were free for employees of participating businesses, or $6.30 for thegeneral public. The rides were provided in 14-passenger vans equipped with wi-fi and driven by professional
employees of Chariot.
Six months into the pilot, Ford announced that Chariot would be ceasing all operations as of March 2019,and immediately began winding down the company’s services, including the Oak Brook pilot. As of February
2019, RTA was searching for another partner to continue service.

Key Takeaways

154

;;

Though Chariot as a product offering was terminated by Ford before the pilot could be formallyassessed, anecdotally it had solid and increasing ridership.

;;

Ford’s shuttering of Chariot was the latest in a number of failures in the microtransit sector. Though
the business model generated much interest and venture capital investment starting in the early2010s, other providers that have shuttered over the last several years include Bridj, Split, and Leap.

;;

The microtransit business model appears to have a number of challenges compared to some of theother emerging modes (particularly ridesourcing, which is based entirely on using contractors whobring their own vehicles):□□Microtransit is a more capital-intensive business model, involving the leasing or purchase ofvehicles and employment (rather than contracting) of professional drivers.

□□

Too much operating similarity to transit to survive without subsidy. Almost no public transit
survives on farebox revenue alone.

□□Insufficient demand: it takes time for new modes of travel to get established with a large
enough group of users to support it. Microtransit may have less “runway” in which to getover this initial building of a customer base.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

14

ARLINGTON | DRIVE.ai
ARLINGTON, TEXAS

Overview
In October 2018, the City of Arlington launched its
second autonomous vehicle pilot program, operating
shuttles on streets within Arlington’s Entertainment
District and surrounding areas. This on-demand ridehailing system, connects passengers with employment
centers, restaurants, entertainment venues, public
recreational spaces, and the Arlington Convention
Center.
Kiosks at designated pick-up locations or a mobile
app that riders can download, allow users to request
a vehicle. The shuttle service is free of charge andavailable to the general public. The shuttle ran on a
fixed route within a defined service area and includes
special routes during Cowboy’s home games.

Key Takeaways;;

Shuttles ran on-demand on a fixed route within a defined service area in Arlington’s entertainment
district.

;;

The shuttles only picked-up and dropped-off at pre-determined points within the service area.

;;

The shuttles hold three passengers.

;;

A human driver is still always in the vehicle for human intervention if needed.

;;

Weather can affect the shuttle’s capability; shuttles will not run in weather more than a light rain.

;;

The “Entertainment District” pilot program area allowed for many people to see and try out the
shuttle.

;;Shuttles are not wheelchair accessible.

Appendix B

155

APPENDIX C: FIRST/LAST MILE ASSESSMENT TOOL

156

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Appendix C

157

158

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Appendix C

159

APPENDIX D: EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS
SURVEY TOOL – PAGE 1

160

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

SURVEY TOOL – PAGE 2

Appendix D

161

SURVEY RESULTS

162

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Appendix D

163

164

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

NOTES;;The Survey Tool: The Employee Survey (see above) was published in print and digital formats.
Surveys were available in both English and Spanish.

;;

Distribution Methods: The Employee Survey (see above) was distributed in print and online
channels (via Survey Monkey). Printed surveys were made available in large numbers at Resource
Group meetings and through the village staff. Resource Group participants and other businesses
helped to distribute the survey link or hard copy surveys to employees before or after shifts.
Some businesses elected to have computers on-site for employees to participate. The Village
of Bedford Park staff also distributed hard copy surveys to those who inquired and utilized
Municipal Hall and the Fire Station as survey collection locations.

;;

Employer Survey: An Employer Survey was also developed and distributed to Resource Groupparticipants and through the Bedford-Park Clearing Industrial Association (BPCIA). Thirty
employers completed the Employer Survey. Information collected through the Employer Survey
was used to provide anecdotal information used throughout this Phase I report and to identify
employers for Targeted Outreach activities in Phase II.

;;

Next Steps: Both the Employer Survey and Employee Survey will remain open throughout Phase
II of this project.

Appendix D

165

APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY DATAKEY DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRAVEL INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND
WORK IN BEDFORD PARK

Residents
People who live in Bedford Park
Population, 20171: 604

Workforce
People who work in Bedford Park
Total Workforce, 20152: 30,649

Employment Population 16 Years and Over1 315
Total Households1 : 248		

Number of Businesses3: 418
Worker Age2:Median Age, 20171: 40.3

Drive Alone: 83%;;

Carpool: 6.1%

;;
;;
;;

Age 29 or younger: 4,969 (16.2%);;

Age 55 or older: 7,335 (23.9);;

Mode of Travel to Work, 2017¹;;;;

Age 30 to 54: 18,345 (59.9%)

Mode of Travel to Work, 20184:

Transit: 2.2%;;

Drive Alone: 85%;;

Carpool: 5%;;

Walk or Bike: 5.4%;;

Other/Work at Home: 3.2%;;

Transit: 8%

Walk or Bike: 2%

Other/Work at Home: 0%

Average Household VMT: 28,870

Average Household VMT: N/A

Average Transportation Costs: $13,131

Average Transportation Costs: N/A

Employment of Community Residents, 2017
By Industry Sector

Employment in the Community Residents, 2015
By Industry Sector;;#1 Manufacturing: 55 (17.5%);;#3 Retail Trade: 35 (11.1%)

;;
;;
;;
;;

#2 Educational & Health Care: 49 (15.6%)#4 Transportation: 33 (10.5%)#1 Manufacturing: 55 (17.5%);;#3 Retail Trade: 35 (11.1%)

;;
;;
;;

#5 Construction: 27 (8.6%)
Other: 99 (31.4%)#3 Transportation: 3,717 (12.1%);;#2 Wholesale Trade: 6,131 (20.0%)#4 Professional: 2,020 (6.6%)#5 Construction: 2,001 (6.5%)
Other: 8,806 (29.5%)

By Residence Location#2 Educational & Health Care: 49 (15.6%)#4 Transportation: 33 (10.5%)

;;

;;

;;

Other: 99 (31.4%)

By Employment Location;;#1 Manufacturing: 7,974 (26.0%);;#5 Construction: 27 (8.6%)

;;

;;

;;

#1 Chicago: 8,742 (28.5%);;#3 Oak Lawn: 696 (2.3%)

;;
;;
;;
;;

#2 Burbank: 713 (2.3%)#4 Orland Park: 388 (1.3%)#5 Cicero: 385 (1.3%

Other: 19,725 (64.3) 10,924

2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015)
3
Bedford Park Business License Data (gathered 9/20/2018)
4
Mobility Survey Data
1
2

166

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING & ZONING MAP

Appendix E

167

BEDFORD PARK ENTERPRISE ZONE MAP

168

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

SUMMARY OF TRANSIT SERVICE IN BEDFORD PARK

Appendix E

169

MODE OF TRAVEL TO WORK

Source: Mobility Survey Data (2018); RTAMS

This map visualizes the results from the Employee Survey (See Appendix B). Each point represents thetrip origin (i.e. home) location for survey respondents and their mode of travel to work. According to
the survey, 85% of Bedford Park’s employees drive alone to work. This includes workers who live withina relatively short commuting distance (0 - 5 miles) and who could theoretically walk or bike to work.
However, local road conditions and other factors currently make it difficult to access the Bedford Park
through any means other than SOVs.

170

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase IAPPENDIX F: SHARED MOBILITY RESOURCESSHARED MOBILITY TERMS

Bikesharing

term

Meaning

Short-term bike rental, usually for individual periods of an hour or lessover the course of a membership (periods which can range from a single
ride, to several days, to an annual membership). Information technology(IT)-enabled public bikesharing provides real-time information about thelocation and demand for bikes, either docked (locked at stations at theend of a ride) or dockless (free-floating and self-locking) throughout acommunity.

Other
Names/
Treatments
Bike sharing,
dockless bikes,
docklessbikeshare

Micromobility

Carsharing

The bicycles used in bikesharing can be either traditional, fully humanpowered vehicles, or equipped with low-speed electric motors or pedalassist devices (known as e-bikes or pedelecs). Though bikesharing predates
the term, it falls under the broader category of micromobility (see below),
especially in its dockless flavors.
A service that provides members with access to an automobile for intervals Car sharingof less than a day. Major carsharing business models include traditional orround-trip, which requires users to borrow and return vehicles at the same
location; one-way or free-floating, which allows users to pick up a vehicle atone location and drop it off at another. Peer-to-peer (p2p), is an ownershiparrangement, generally deployed in a round-trip model, which allows
individual car owners to earn money at times when they are not using theirvehicles by making them available for rental to other carshare members.
An umbrella term for services based on the availability of personal mobility
devices, small enough to fit in a bike lane and generally IT-enabled. These
devices may be fully human propelled or use small, low-speed, usuallyelectric motors with a maximum speed of 25-30 mph.

Scootershare,
docklessbikeshare

The most widely known forms of micromobility are dockless bikes (bothhuman powered and electric assist; see bikesharing above) and e-scooters(small electric kick scooters), though an increasing variety of other device
types are reaching the market. While these devices are generally accessed
through a shared service, they can also be personally owned. These services
are increasingly part of a suite of mobility offerings by large, verticallyintegrated companies.

Appendix F

171

term

Meaning

Other
Names/
Treatments

Microtransit

IT-enabled, multi-passenger transportation services that serve passengers
largely on demand. Some models use dynamically generated routes,
androutes and may expect passengers to make their way to and from
common pick-up or drop-off points. Vehicles can range from large SUVs tovans to shuttle buses in the 12-20 passenger range.

Dynamic
shuttles, flexible
transit, demandresponsive
transitRidesourcing

Ridesharing

PrivateShuttlesBecause they provide transit-like service but on a smaller, more flexible
scale, these services have been referred to as “microtransit,” though inmany operational aspects they resemble the demand-responsive transit
that public agencies have been providing as “dial-a-ride” for decades.

172

Traditional private shuttle services include corporate, regional, and local
shuttles that make limited stops, often only picking up specified riders.

Employer
shuttles, “techbuses”At its core, ridesharing involves adding passengers to a private trip in which Carpooling,
driver and passengers share a destination. Such an arrangement provides
vanpooling,
additional transportation options for riders while allowing drivers to fill“slugging”
otherwise empty seats in their vehicles. Traditional forms of ridesharing
include carpooling and vanpooling. This term is sometimes used to referto ridesourcing (see below) but that is not the meaning employed in thisreport.
Ridesourcing providers such as Uber and Lyft—codified in California law
as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)—use online platforms toconnect passengers with drivers and automate reservations, payments, andcustomer feedback.
Riders can choose from a variety of service classes, including drivers who
use personal, non-commercial, vehicles; traditional taxicabs dispatched via
the providers’ apps, and premium services with professional livery drivers
and vehicles. Ridesourcing has become one of the most ubiquitous formsof shared mobility.

Transportation
networkcompany (TNC);
ridesharing;
ride-hailing;e-hailing

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Shared-Use
Mobility (SUM),
Shared Modes,
SUM operators

Ride-Splitting

term

Meaning

Other
Names/
Treatments

Dedicated operators, as well as several ridesourcing providers, havelaunched IT-mediated products that allow customers requesting aride for one or two passengers to be paired in real time with others
traveling along a similar route.

Dynamic
carpooling

In general, shared-use mobility comprises intra-urban
transportation services in which vehicles are accessed by multiple
users for a variety of trip purposes. This umbrella term includes theforms listed above along with traditional public transit, taxis, andother vehicles for hire.

Shared mobility

The terminology in this chart is based on Murphy and Feigon (2016), TCRP Research Report 188: Shared
Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation
Research Board, updated to reflect more recent market developments.
Source: National Academies of Sciences, 2016

SHARED MOBILITY OPPORTUNITYASSESSMENTCARSHARINGThe nearest station-based (round-trip) carsharing
vehicles are several Zipcars located at Midway
Airport, more than a mile from Bedford Park,and beyond that at the Pulaski Orange Line stop,
another two miles northeast. The pilot zone forfree-floating (one-way) carshare in Chicago,
centered on the Loop and Near North Side, ismore than seven miles from Bedford Park at its
closest point. This shared mobility mode, mostuseful for errands and occasional trips rather thanas part of a commute or other frequent trip, isthus far largely unavailable in Bedford Park but has

Appendix F

potential for growth, especially at the commercial
zone at the city’s southeastern flank. Results fromthe mobility survey suggest that rental car, peerto-peer, and one-way car sharing services were low
priority solutions for survey respondents.

BIKESHARING AND SCOOTERSThe Divvy bikesharing network, which was
acquired by Lyft in July 2018, is limited to the Cityof Chicago and one northern suburb, and thesystem has been slow to expand to the south andwest of downtown. The nearest station is somefive miles from Bedford Park at Damen Avenue
and 61st Street. Chicago’s 2018 dockless bicycle
pilot, centered on several far South Side wards
south of 79th Street, but reached no closer than173

four miles from Bedford Park. Under a proposed
agreement with the City of Chicago’s Departmentof Transportation (CDOT), Lyft would invest $50
million to expand Divvy over the next three
years. The expansion would bring Divvy to all 50
wards—including the 23rd, 13th, and 18th wards
that border Bedford Park—by 2021 through theaddition of about 10,500 bikes and 175 stations.
The new bikes will have electric pedal-assist andhybrid locking capabilities.
The City of Chicago also launched an electricscooter sharing pilot program in a large sectionof the Northwest, Southwest and West sides(Figure F.1. The program, which runs from June 15
through October 15, limits travel speeds to 15 mph
and restricts where the scooters can be parked.
It includes a minimum of 2,500 and a maximumof 3,500 scooters in the pilot area, divided evenly
among selected vendors. Dockless bicycle andscooter operators, which depend on density andnetwork effects for productive service, have not yet
begun operating in any suburbs of the metro area.
However, the participation of Lyft, Spin, and Lime

Bike in Bedford Park’s Last Mile Mobility Demo
Day, suggest that there is an interest in expanded
to suburban markets.

RIDEHAILING (TNCS )Bedford Park is well within the service areas of the
major TNC’s operating in Chicagoland, Uber andLyft. The analysis below details estimates about
several TNC operations in the area. The commutefocused, pooled-ride service Via (which edges into
the larger-vehicle microtransit space) operates
only in central and north Chicago (east of Western,north of 79th), and to and from the region’s
airports. As its service is focused largely on trips inand out of the urban core, Via’s service to Midway
largely duplicates CTA Orange Line service for the
purposes of reaching Bedford Park.
Figure F.2 shows an estimate of the relative
supply of Uber vehicles (derived from the average
wait time) available over the course of a week in
Bedford Park, at nearby transit stations, and forcomparison, in the central Loop. While the detail

Figure F.1. Shared Electric Scooter Pilot Program Area

174

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

is based only on data provided by Uber, spot
checks of the Lyft app suggest that the service
is generally competitive with Uber within a few
minutes and a few dollars, with many of their
independent contractor drivers providing rides onboth platforms.

MICROTRANSIT
Microtransit is a term for on-demand, pooledrides between a limited number of points invans or other larger vehicles, a service that falls
somewhere between the on-demand, point-topoint flexibility of TNCs and the capacity andefficiency of fixed-route public transit. Until early
2019, Chariot was the sole microtransit provider
in the Chicago region, including a route operated
under an RTA last-mile pilot between the Elmhurst
Metra station and Oakbrook Terrace. Chariot’s
owner, Ford Smart Mobility, announced in thefirst months of 2019 that the division wouldcease all operations, and at present no otherentity is providing microtransit services in the
Chicago region. Via, which in the Chicago market
is primarily a ridesourcing provider, also offers
microtransit services in several other US andoverseas markets.

ON-DEMAND CARPOOLING
Several platforms have begun offering carpool
services, available on demand, that match riders
with drivers who are largely going their same
direction. These services are distinct from TNCs
in that they are matching rides, not offering acommercial vehicle for hire service. The newwave of apps offers a more flexible version of
traditional carpooling in that both drivers andriders can decide when to participate or not, rather
than being locked into a daily ride with the samegroup of people. The platforms may offer features
like geofencing, linking to company emails, andguaranteed ride home that make them useful for
application by workplaces that want to provide
services for their employees or limit driving totheir facilities. The companies Waze (previously
known for their driving directions) and Scoop are
available in the Chicago market, and show several
rides available in the vicinity of Bedford Park.

Figure F.2. Relative TNC Supply by Hour

Appendix F

175

TNC RUSH HOURS
In order to estimate the relative demand forvehicles and other aspects of TNC operations inand around Bedford Park, the team gathered datafrom a public Uber API every five minutes over thecourse of ten days.³³ Though this method does
not provide information on actual ride volumes, itdoes produce insights on how demand varies overthe course of the week. We use the ratio between
the average price per mile over the course of aweek, and the price per mile within each hour, todeduce when Uber has raised prices, which it doesin response to higher demand in specific locations.
We aggregate these figures into weekday andweekend demand curves (Figure F.3). The data is
in line with what we would expect from an area
dominated by work-related travel. Demand is at its
highest on weekdays, with peaks during the 6am
and 4pm hours, and lowest over the weekend,
rarely rising above the average price even at theweekend late-night times when demand is highest
for TNCs in general.

Figure F.4 shows how demand varies hour byhour throughout the week, including Bedford Park
origins (the red line), trips starting at nearby transit
stations (green), and trips starting in downtown
Chicago (blue). The differences between the
demand patterns are clear, with downtown peaking
later in the day. Using the same process, we wereable to derive typical wait times for Bedford Park,
nearby transit stops, and downtown locations
across all of Uber’s service offerings (Figure F.5).³⁴
Bedford Park itself had slightly longer waits for thecheaper services classes than the transit stations(which includes the Midway Transit Hub).
To get a sense of how the supply of nearby vehicles
varies over the course of the week (in relative terms),
we can compare the wait time in a given hour withthe typical wait time at that location over the courseof the week (Figure F.6). In Bedford Park and its
nearby transit hubs, vehicle supply appears to be atits lowest in the weekday early mornings, as well aslate in the day on weekends, when TNC activity are
known to be concentrated on nightlife areas of thecity, north and northwest of the Loop.³⁵

Figure F.3. Estimated Relative TNC Demand by Hour

We used an automated process to gather information on the block groups that make up the three census tracts that lie at least
partially in Bedford Park, as well as for block groups in any tracts bordering those that lie in the Village. Since census units are largely
based on population, most of the 48-point locations were outside of the village limits.
34
Downtown locations saw average waits of less than 3 minutes for every class of service. While Bedford Park and its transit stops
saw average waits of under 5 minutes for UberPool and UberX: Other service classes, especially the livery-based Black and Black SUV,
saw longer waits, but the average wait was no longer than 10 minutes.
35
SUMC. TCRP Research Report 195, Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit, Shared Mobility, and Personal
Automobiles. Transit Research Board of the National Academies (2018).
33

176

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure F.4. Estimated Relative TNC Demand by Hour

Figure F.5. Average Wait Times by Service Class and Area

Appendix F

177

Figure F.6. Relative TNC Supply by Hour

Figure F.7. Average Uber Trip Costs to Freqent Origins/Destinations

178

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Figure F.8. Average Trip Price to Key Destination
To examine typical prices for trips between
Bedford Park origins and key destinations (nearby
transit stops as well as a trip to the central Loop),
we looked at the three least expensive classes of
non-cab service offered by Uber in the Chicago
region :□□ UberPool (shared rides for parties of up
to two, which may be shared with otherunrelated riders),□□ UberX (unshared rides for up to four riders ina party), and□□ UberXL (unshared rides for up to six riders ina party)

On both an overall (Figure F.7) and a per mile
(Figure F.8) basis for typical trips, little pricedifference was observed between Pool and X
rides.³⁶ Unsurprisingly, the Uber XL rides are more
expensive than either Pool or X, but if the vehicles
are filled close to their capacity (i.e. with more thanfour riders) they may be a more economical choicein terms of individual cost.³⁷

Less than a dollar difference between most Pool and X rides to transit stops in the local vicinity, but these small differences may
add up over many rides.
37
For trips between a workplace and a transit station where several riders share the origin and destination, this class of service might
be useful to consider.
36

Appendix F179

APPENDIX G: ADDITIONAL LAST MILE SOLUTION TOOLKIT RESOURCES
F.1. PEDESTRIAN NETWORK LAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Repair and Maintain Sidewalks
2. Expand the Sidewalk Network
3. Implement Targeting Crosswalk Improvements
4. Install Shared Mobility and Other Networks

F.2. BIKE NETWORK LAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Install Conventional Bike Lanes
2. Install Protected Cycle Tracks awnd Bike Trails
3. Expand Dock-Based Bike Sharing
4. Expand Dockless Bike Sharing and Other Micromobility Services

F.3. TRANSIT NETWORK LAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Optimize Transit Schedules and Routes
2. Formalize Transit Lanes and Transitways
3. Incentivize and Promote Transit
4. Expand Microtransit and Mobility on Demand Services

F.4. MOTORIST & FREIGHT NETWORK LAST MILE SOLUTIONS
1. Adopt and Implement a Complete Streets Policy
2. Utilize Integrated Corridor and Transportation Demand Management Strategies
3. Create Mobility Hubs
4. Expand Last Mile Carsharing/ Ridesourcing / Ridesharing Services

180

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase If.1. Tools for the pedestrian network
Sidewalks are critical and serve as key corridors for people, goods, and commerce. In accordance with
ADA accessibility guidelines, sidewalks should be provided on all streets in urban areas. Municipalities
should ensure that sidewalks are without major gaps or deformities that would make them nontraversable for wheelchairs and other mobility devices.

1. REPAIR AND MAINTAIN SIDEWALKSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS

Sidewalk Assessment;;

Conduct A Village-Wide Sidewalk Assessment:
Assessing the amenities and state of current sidewalks
through a collection of field observations, photos,
and mapped results will inform the Village of priority
maintenance and improvement projects. The assessment
will help ensure that projects are consistent with thescope of work of pre-existing and future plans.

;;

Identity and Repair High Priority Sidewalks:Continuous, smooth, and level sidewalks should be
provided throughout the Village. Sidewalks with cracks
and spalling are tripping hazards and could cause
injuries to pedestrians. Ensure that sidewalks are withoutmajor gaps or deformities that would make them nontraversable for wheel-chairs and other mobility devices.

;;

Create Buffer Zones Where Feasible: A minimum
Sidewalk and Buffer Zoneof 5-feet of unobstructed sidewalk space should be
provided on both sides of roads (Figure 3-5). On busier
streets, sidewalks should be 6- to 8-feet, if feasible, toprovide a buffer from moving traffic. If the right-of-way
permits, include a 4-foot wide grass buffer between
sidewalks and streets. The Buffer Zone (See The Four
Sidewalk Zones) should be at least 4’ wide, 10’ ispreferred on roads with more traffic or with bus routes toaccommodate shelters or benches and can include trees,
green infrastructure, and other landscaping, though trees
should not impede truck traffic. Sidewalk standards should accommodate higher anticipatedpedestrian volumes and provide space for an expanded Frontage Zone (the section of the
sidewalk that functions as an extension of the building), as well as other street furniture, such as
trash cans, bus stops, signage, and bike share stations.

Appendix G

Sidewalk Repair

181

;;

Improve Snow Removal Practices: Snowcovered sidewalks can force pedestrians onto
streets in the winter months, impacting theirsafety. Snow Removal is critical for WinterMobility, especially for those with mobility
impairments. A snow shoveling policy should
be enacted to ensure that sidewalks are cleared
within a specified time after a snow fall.

;;

Install Green Stormwater Infrastructure:
Street and sidewalk ponding can be a major
impediment for pedestrians, especially thosewith mobility impairments. Green infrastructure
best management practices (BMPs) mimic
natural habitats and absorb excess rainwater.
Green infrastructure is a cost-effective andresilient approach to managing stormwaterthat provides many community benefits andshould be considered as part of any streetscapeenhancement effort. Bioswales, stormwater
bumpouts, and other BMPs can provide
flood mitigation and improve the pedestrianenvironment.

A Snow-Covered Sidewalk Forces a Personwith Limited Mobility Into the Street

Green Infrastructure Along Blue Island Avenue and Cermak Road

182

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

2. EXPAND THE SIDEWALK NETWORKTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Connect Gaps in Sidewalk Network: A
complete and connected network of sidewalks
should be provided throughout Bedford Park.
Where feasible, sidewalks should be provided on
both sides of a street. Where it is not feasible,
continuous sidewalk should be provided on atleast one-side of a street and filling in gaps in the
sidewalk along that street should be prioritized.
Pedestrian “desire lines” can be used to identify
high priority sidewalk gaps.

Widen Sidewalks and Create Buffer Zones:
Continuous, smooth, and level sidewalks should
be provided, free of obstructions, such as utility
poles, signs, trees, and benches. A minimum of
5-feet of unobstructed sidewalk space should be
provided. On busier streets, sidewalks should be
6- to 8-feet if feasible to provide a buffer frommoving traffic. The Clear Path Zone should be 1.8
to 2 meters so two people using wheelchairs can
comfortably pass each other. Sidewalk design
should go beyond the minimum in both widthand amenities, especially for streets with hightraffic volumes where pedestrians may avoid thearea because they feel unsafe.
Buffer Zone

Pedestrian Desire Line Along W 75thStreet in the South Corridor;;

Appendix G

A desire path (often referred to as desireline) is a path by foot traffic. The pathusually represents the shortest or mosteasily navigated route between an origin
and destination. Width and erosion
severity can be indicators of how muchtraffic a path receives. Desire paths
emerge as shortcuts where constructed
ways take a circuitous route, have gaps, orare non-existent.

183

;;

Install Mid-Block Crossing Where Appropriate:
Marked pedestrian crosswalks between intersections at
mid-block where there is significant pedestrian desireline. Mid-Block crossings allow for safe crossings bypedestrians: they often incorporate raised crossings (toincrease visibility), pedestrian islands (to cross two-way
traffic), bulb-outs (to narrow the roadway), and yieldlines (to require motorized traffic to stop farther away).

Mid Block crossing;;

Formalize Pedestrian Cut-Throughs and Improve
Internal Parking Lot Circulation: Pedestrian circulation
to and from parking lots, bus stops, and mobility hubs
NACTO
to building entrances can be improved by installing
sidewalks, painting crosswalks, and/or striping walking
lanes. Formalized cut-throughs and shortcuts are paved
or cemented to create a complete and safe
network. Wayfinding and signage are used to Quality Sidewalks
establish the cut-through as an official route
option. These areas should be clear of snow
in the winter to increase pedestrian safety andcomfort.

;;

Provide High Quality Sidewalks: Sidewalks
are an essential part of the urban environment
and are as a key corridor for people, goods,
and commerce. They should be safe tonavigate for all users, be free of barriers, andprovide safe passage with adequate lighting,shade, and street level activity.

Pedestrian Cut-Throughs and Parking Lot Circulation

184

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

3. IMPLEMENT TARGETED CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
TREATMENTS + ACTIONS

Curb Ramps, Tactile Pads and Crosswalks;;

Install and Maintain ADA Curb Ramps, Tactile
Pads, and High Visibility Crosswalks: Curb
ramps, detectable warning pads, and crosswalks
should be provided at all intersections with sidewalks
and multi-use paths. Curb ramps enable people inwheelchairs to cross streets and detectable warning
pads direct people with visual impairments throughan intersection at a crosswalk. All crosswalks notcontrolled by signals or stop signs should havelongitudinal crosswalks, per the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)37 . Crosswalks should
be as wide as an approaching sidewalk.

;;Install Accessible Pedestrian Countdown Signals
with Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Pedestrian signals with a countdown timer indicates theamount of time pedestrians have available to cross a street. They are designed to reduce thenumber of pedestrians who start crossing when there is not enough time to complete theircrossing safely. This treatment is particularly helpful for seniors and people with mobility
impairments. Countdown pedestrian signals are required by the MUTCD for all new andrehabbed pedestrian signal installations. Signals should be set to allow pedestrians 3.5 feetper second to cross. A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) provides 3-7 seconds of lead time
for pedestrians to enter a crosswalk before the start of a vehicle signal phase. They enhancepedestrian visibility in an intersection and provide pedestrians with the right-of-way overturning
drivers. LPIs should be used at intersections with high pedestrian and vehicle turning volumes.

Pedestrian Countdown Signals

There are several types of crosswalks, including: solid, standard, dashed, zebra, and ladder. Refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways for guidance on which (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/) style of crosswalk is appropriate for agiven situation. Figure 3-10 shows a ladder style crosswalk.
37

Appendix G

185

;;

Install Pedestrian Refuge Islands Where
Crossing Islands
Appropriate: Crossing islands, also known aspedestrian refuge islands, buffer and protect
pedestrians and cyclists crossing wide or busy
streets, enabling them to cross in two stages. Where
possible, they should be wide enough to accommodate
the length of a standard bicycle with at least one footof clearance on either side, or about 7-feet. The widthof the cut-through should equal the width of thepedestrian crossing or be at least as wide as the Clear
Path Zone. Crossing islands should be paired with highvisibility crosswalks, stop bars, bollards, pedestriancrossing warning signs, or other features to protect
people waiting to cross. They are most appropriate foruse at mid-block and unsignalized crossings on 4-lane
Bump-Outs / Curb Extensions
roads. Guidance and acceptable uses will vary by
roadway jurisdiction.

;;

Create Bump-outs and Curb Extensions: Bump-outs
provide shorter crossing distances for pedestrians andimprove sightlines for both drivers and pedestrians.
In addition to improving sightlines, they can slow
the speed of turning traffic, though careful attention
should be paid to the design to accommodate turning
truck traffic. They are most appropriate for use on local
roads where they intersect arterial and collector streets.
Benches, green infrastructure, and other streetscaping
elements can be added to them, and if space permits,they can be used at bus stops to house amenities forriders.

;;186

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons(RRFBs): Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons(RRFB) are devices that use LED flashing beacons in
combination with pedestrian and bicycle warning
signs, to provide a high-visibility strobe-like warning todrivers when pedestrians and bicyclists use a crosswalk.
RRFBs can supplement standard pedestrian crossing
warning signs at mid-block and other unsignalized
crossing locations. These user-activated beacons are
FHWA-approved and promote increased yield rates
and improved pedestrian safety. They are a low-cost
alternative to a hybrid beacon and are warranted foruse at locations that do not warrant a full traffic signal.
RRFBs should be installed on each side of the road at a center island or median
if applicable.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

4. INSTALL SHARED MOBILITY AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIESTreatments + Actions

TNC Pickup and Drop-off Zone;;

Create TNC Pickup and Drop-off Zones: Transit
Network Companies (TNC) need a safe curb-spaceto pickup and drop-off passengers. Curbside zones
should be able to accommodate one to five TNC
vehicles and safe for waiting passengers. Curbsidezones could also include other pedestrian amenities
such as a weather shelter, signage, lighting, andseating.

;;

Install Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting: Lighting creates
safe and desirable streetscapes at night and during
Pedestrian Scaled Lighting
the daytime. Lighting selection can add character toneighborhoods and business districts. Pedestrianscaled lighting illuminates sidewalks at thepedestrian level. It makes pedestrians more visible
to drivers when crossing streets, provides a well-lit areafor people waiting for transit, and provides a more
hospitable environment after dark, which is especiallybeneficial for second- and third shift workers. Light
poles can be mounted on sidewalks, where spacepermits, combined with streetlights, or coordinatedwith building and property owners to be mounted
on buildings or on private property where poles
Seating and Weather Protection
would obstruct sidewalks.

;;Install More Seating and Weather Protection:
Benches and other seating areas are essential,
providing comfortable places to rest, eat, socialize,
or wait for transit. Where feasible, seating should belocated under trees or covered to protect people fromthe elements. Benches should not obstruct sidewalks.

;;Install Pedestrian Scaled Wayfinding Signage:
Informational kiosks and wayfinding signage canbe placed in key areas to direct pedestrians tobusinesses, the forthcoming event center, transit
stops, and other destinations in Bedford Park.
Bedford Park currently has motorist-oriented
signage along the South Corridor, which could
be expanded to include information useful forpedestrian, such as approximate walking distancesand maps of businesses with large campuses.

Appendix G

Wayfinding Signage in Bedford Park187

f.2. Tools for the Bike network
Bikes provide people with a faster alternative to walking. Environmentally friendly, biking decreases
congestion and emissions caused by increased vehicle traffic. Biking—by providing commuters ameans to quickly access nearby transit stations—can also encourage more people to take public transit
and is therefore becoming an increasingly popular last mile solution. Keeping bikers safe on roadways
requires the integration of a network of bike lanes with clear signage, traffics signals, and a buffer orprotection from road traffic.

1. INSTALL CONVENTIONAL BIKE LANESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS

188

Buffered Bike Lanes;;

Create Bikeways Using Sharrows, Marked
Shared Lanes, and Buffered Bike Lane: Bike
lanes provide a dedicated space for cyclists ona road and encourage drivers and cyclists tobehave predictably. They also reduce motor
vehicle speeds and lower the risk of severecrashes. At minimum, bike lanes should be 5’
wide. In absence of on-street parking, a bike lane
provides separation between vehicle lanes andabutting sidewalks. Bicycle lane markings—wordor symbol and arrow—should be used to define
and designate a bike lane. Like designatedSharrows
bike lanes, buffered bike lanes provide
a dedicated space for cyclists separated
from vehicle traffic by a painted buffer.
Buffers can be placed on the vehicle sideof the bike lane, the parking side, or both.
On roads with higher traffic volumes and/or speed limits, buffered bike lanes are more
comfortable for cyclists than a standard bikelane. Buffered bike lanes should be at least
5’ wide and each buffer should be 2’ wide.
Where buffers are used, bike lanes can be
narrower because the shy distance function
is assumed by the buffer. Marked shared lanes use a double chevron and bicycle marking, or“sharrow” (share-arrow), in the general-use lane to alert drivers to the presence of bicyclists andto encourage safe bicycle use. Chevron symbols direct bicyclists to ride in the safest location
within the lane, outside of the door zone of parked cars and areas where debris is likely tocollect.

;;

Install Colored Bike Facilities: Green pavement is painted onto the roadway to delineate a bikelane. It can be used to emphasize the presence and overall visibility of cyclists at intersections,driveways, crosswalks where multi-use paths cross streets, and other mixing zones.

;;

Install Bikeway Signage: Bike signage indicates designated bikeways, provides bike route
wayfinding, cautions vehicles to yield to bikes, and alerts pedestrians to the presence of bikers.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Marked Designated Bike Lanes, Colored Bike Facilities, Bike Signage

2. INSTALL PROTECTED CYCLE TRACKS AND BIKE TRAILSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

Protected Cycle Track

Install Protected Cycle Tracks: Protected
cycle tracts provide dedicated spacefor cyclists separated from vehicle traffic
by a curb or bollards. They should be
at least 5’ wide with a 2’ wide painted
with flexible delineator posts or curbed
buffers. Removable delineator posts canbe removed in the winter and replacedin the spring to make snow plowing andmaintenance easier. This facility type is themost comfortable for cyclists, especiallyon roads with high traffic volumes, fast
moving traffic, or heavy truck traffic.
Protected bike lanes require careful design
at intersecting streets and driveways, where motorists may not see bicyclists. They reduce therisk of injury from dooring and merging traffic, prevent double parking, improve comfort andsafety, and have a low-implementation cost by utilizing pre-existing pavement and drainage.

Appendix G

189

190

;;

Install Raised Cycle Tracks: Raised
Installation of Chicago’s First Raised and Two-Way Cycle
cycle tracks are separated vertically
Track on Roosevelt Road
from traffic by bringing bike lanes up
to the sidewalk level or in between
the street and sidewalk level. They
help to visually reduce the width of
the street and can encourage cyclists
to choose riding in the bikeway rather
than on the sidewalk. They’re bestused along higher speed streets withfew driveways and cross streets. If
constructed at the same level as asidewalk, a buffer, such as landscaping,a change in pavement type, or striping,should be provided to prevent cyclists
from riding on the sidewalk.

;;Install Two-Way Cycle Tracks: TwoWay Cycle Tracks allow bicycles to travel both directions on the one side of the road. Physicallyseparated from vehicle traffic, they share the same design and benefit characteristics of One-Way
Cycle Tracks, but may require additional planning considerations at street crossings and driveways.

;;

Off Street Trail
Install Off Street Trails and Paths:
Multi-use paths run parallel to aroad like a sidewalk and are sharedby pedestrians and cyclists. They
should be at 8’ to 10’ wide’. They
should be used on streets withlimited driveway and intersection
crossings. Like sidewalks, multi-use
paths should include a grass buffer.
A sidewalk should still be provided
on the opposite side of the road.
Off-Street Trails can fill in gaps wherea street network is incomplete orcannot accommodate a bike facility.
Trails should meet the same design criteria as shared-use paths. They function best on exclusive
rights-of-way, such as along waterways, utility corridors, or abandoned rail corridors. Although
trails are more expensive to build than on-street facilities, they provide important connections toregional destinations and can often serve as commuter corridors.

;;

Install Bike Racks and Corrals: Bike racks and corrals should be placed in highly visible locations
adjacent to building entrances or near the curb line on streets. Use u-shaped racks which arestrong and deter theft. On corporate campuses, consider installing bike racks in a covered area toprotect bikes from the elements. Bike corrals may also be installed at intersections to act as bumpouts. Bike racks and corrals can be installed as an additional buffer between sidewalk and roadtraffic. This treatment should be limited to low-speed, low-traffic volume roads to ensure safety.
Corrals typically provide room for 12 or more bicycles in a space otherwise occupied by 1 or 2 cars.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I;;Continue To Support The IandM Canal Trail Expansion Efforts: The IandM Canal Trail is a 96mile bike route along the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Both the Active Transportation Alliance andTrail Connect Chicagoland have been advocating for the IandM Canal Trail Expansion to close
gaps in the regional trail network.

Bike Corrals and Racks

Illinois and Michigan Canal Trail

TrailLink

Appendix G

191

3. EXPAND DOCK-BASED SHARING
TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;

192

Partner with Divvy: Divvy’s parent
company was recently acquiredby Lyft. There are plans to expand
Divvy docking stations city-wide
to every ward in Chicago, adding
175 stations and 10,500 bikes.
Chicago’s immediate adjacency
to Bedford Park provides theopportunity to partner with Divvy
so bike commuters have access tobikes and docking stations to andBedford Park.

Divvy for Everone (D4E)
Divvy
from

;;

Promote Divvy for Everyone(D4E): Eligible residents can partakeinthe D4E program provided
bythe Chicago DepartmentofTransportation (CDOT) that aims to
offer
all Chicagoans an affordable andDivvy
accessible transit option. The D4E
program includes a one-time fivedollar annual membership fee and available cash payment system for those individuals who do
not have debit or credit card (typically required for a standard Divvy membership).

;;

Identify Candidate Bike Sharing Station Locations: Bike share stations or corrals should beplaced in locations where demand is high, such as adjacent to major employers, transit hubs, andregional destinations. Transit bus is the most typical kind of connection, with 74.9 percent (2,531)
of bike-share stations
Divvy Bike Station
operating in the US
located a block or lessfrom a transit bus stop.
Bike share bikes may
have docking stations,like theDivvy bikes, or be
dockless.
See the Shared Mobility
Network
section for additional
guidance.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

4. EXPAND DOCKLESS BIKE SHARING AND OTHER MICROMOBILITY SERVICES
TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Partner with Micromobility Providers to Launch a Pilot Program (e.g Dockless Bikes,
Dockless e-scooters): In June 2019, neighboring Chicago launched the e-scooter micromobility
pilot program as a first/last mile solution. The Village of Bedford Park could pilot a similar
program of dockless bikes and e-scooters by partnering with micromobility providers (e.g. Divvy,
Lime, Uber, Lyft, Bird, Spin).

Chicago E-Scooter Pilot Program

Streetsblog Chicago

Appendix G

193

Micromobility pilot programs are guided by set goals and priorities and offer accessible andaffordable transit options. The Pilot program would test potential transit solutions through set
parameters for the micromobility providers and users (e.g. pilot zones, parking restrictions,prohibit sidewalk use, user charge rates). Data collected is evaluated to determine an appropriate
service model to scale up. Evaluation would review the challenges, barriers, and resolutions of
the piloted program and provide preventable measures to mitigate challenges.
;;

Scale Up Micromobility services: If the pilot is successful and deems a demand for
micromobility options, the Village of Bedford Park could scale up the micromobility services andnetwork. Scaling up will allow for more possible first/last mile connections, more micromobility
stations, and increase the availability of micromobility options.

;;

Install Micromobility Supportive Infrastructure: Supportive Micromobility Infrastructure
includes parking, charging stations, bike racks and corrals, and other supportive infrastructure.
Charging Stations, bike racks, and corals can double as micromobility parking spots and shouldbe placed in highly visible locations adjacent to building entrances or near the curb line onstreets. Use u-shaped racks which are strong and deter theft, should the dockless or personal
bikes require being locked up. Charging stations can be located off the street in parking
lots, garages, gas stations and other spots. Parking spots prevent micromobility transit (e.g.
e-scooters and dockless bikes) from creating right of way hazards and blocking the sidewalk
pedestrian traffic.

Micromobility Supportive Infrastructure

Curbed NY

194

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase If.3. Tools for the transit network
From fixed-route bus and rail services to small, on-demand paratransit services, transit offers asustainable and efficient way to move people in urban areas.

1. OPTIMIZE TRANSIT SCHEDULES AND ROUTESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Align Bus Schedules with Shift Changes: Dense employment centers create a pool ofconsistent transit users. Understanding the employers in these employment hubs, along with
their business operations and shift changes, can allow for better coordination with modes oftransit that serve employees. By creating better alignment with common shift changes, maximum
efficiency is ensured. Changes that can be made to align with shift changes include adjusting bus
schedules, increasing bus capacity, and increasing the bus frequency during those popular times ofday. Coordination across transit agencies is needed to ensure multimodal connections are efficient.

;;

Optimized Routes and Services Types: Because there is no track, rail, or other permanent
infrastructure required to operate a bus, bus routes can be adjusted and refined to better
serve existing riders and increase ridership overtime. Bus routes should be optimized to gain
the highest number of riders, while also moving those riders at an efficient pace. This includes
changes such as optimizing the schedule with shift changes and consolidating stops where lowridership slows down median travel time. Riders will walk slightly farther to access higher quality
service. Therefore, stops and routes can be spaced farther apart. The figure below illustrates
several different types of service models that Pace currently provides, which include conventional
fixed route bus service on local roads and arterials, as well as newer models for Arterial Rapid
Transit, Expressway-Based, and other Mobility On-Demand models.

;;

Provide Feedback to CTA and Pace Regarding Shift Change Times and User Requests: The
Village of Bedford Park can continue to gather insights from surveys and outreach to employers
and employees regarding shift times and relay this information to CTA and Pace. For example,
the CTA has suggested potential adjustments to the 65th Street bus to better accommodate
work shifts.

Different Types of Transit Service Options

Pace

Appendix G

195

2. FORMALIZE TRANSIT LANES AND TRANSITWAYSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Support the Implementation of Pace’s Pulse Route on Harlem: The Regional Transportation
Authority (RTA) and Pace completed a corridor study along Central Harlem Avenue to advocate
for a future Pulse Route. Pulse Routes are Pace’s new rapid transit network, to provide express
bus service that utilizes the latest technology and streamlined route design.

Pace Pulse Route on Harlem

Pace
;;

Advocate for Bus Route Improvements that Support More Reliable Bus Service Including:□□

196

Dedicated Bus Lanes: Dedicated Bus Lanes are reserved for bus transit; no other vehicles
may enter or use these lanes. Transit lanes are created A Dedicated Bus Lane in Chicago
by repurposing general traffic lanes and parking lanesto accommodate transit use. The decision to createa transit lane is determined by transit volume anddemand. Transit lanes are not physically separated
from other traffic, instead markings, signage, andenforcement maintain the integrity of transit lanes.
Signal prioritization can be included to further
prioritize buses along key routes.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

□□

□□

;;

Bus Pull-Offs: Bus pulloffs allow vehicles topass stopped buses
quickly and safely andwith higher speeds
typically 40-feet long
mid-block points.
on-street parking but
without parking areas.
because they may
traffic. However, farto cause delays,
buses can re-enter traffic at
the end of signal phase.

Bus Pull-off

NACTO

are most appropriate on corridors
and lower volumes. Pull-offs areat intersections and 80-feet long at
Pull-offs fit easily into streets withmay require road widening on streets
Transit providers often resist pull-offs
cause delays when buses re-enterside intersection pulls-offs are unlikely
asPeak Only Bus Lane

Peak-Only Bus Lanes: Peak-only bus lanes may be
implemented on streets where peak traffic flows
impact the speed and reliability of buses. During peak
hours, only buses can use lanes, which are otherwise
allowed for all vehicles during non-peak hours.
Improve Bus Stops, Stations, and Shelters including:

Improve Bus Stops, Stations, and Shelters including:□□Appendix G

Transit Shelter and Seating: Transit shelters should
be provided in any area prioritized for transit,
especially adjacent to major employers. Transit shelters
should be designed to fully shield waiting passengers
from inclement weather; prevailing winds, and storm
directions must be considered. Shelters should be atleast 5-feet deep and long enough to provide space
for three people to sit comfortably. Transit shelter
Source: LA Metro
placement should never reduce sidewalk clearance toless than 5-feet. Where bus shelters are not feasible,
benches should be provided Bus Stop Amenities
at bus stops.
See thepedestrian
section for
additional
detail.

197

□□Bus Stop Signage: Signs should be included at all bus stops. Bus Stop Signage
They should feature the route number(s) that serve the stop.
Additional signs showing routes, schedules, and places servedby the line should be provided where space permits.

□□

Bus Stop Queuing Area: Bus stops should be designed
to facilitate comfortable, easy passenger access. Bus stop
areas should be clear from obstructions, allowing adequate
room for waiting passengers who may be carrying parcels orbaggage, or who may be traveling with bicycles. The space
directly adjacent to bus loading areas should be free of all
street-level obstacles. If space is not available, these items
can be placed outside the bus loading area between the curb
and sidewalk. A clearance zone extending at least 4-feet fromthe curb is required so that street furniture does not block
opening bus doors. 8-feet of clearance from the curb should
be provided for a wheelchair lift.
Real Time Bus Trackers□□

Source: Pace

Wayfinding, Time to Station
Signage and Real TimeBus Trackers: Bus shelters
and informational kiosks can
include route maps, wayfinding
information, and schedules togive riders more information
about upcoming routes and their
expected time of arrival. Thesesigns can be installed at transit
hubs, bus stops, and at large
places of employment where
people congregate.

Bus Stop Queing Area

NACTO

198

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

3. INCENTIVIZE AND PROMOTE TRANSITTREATMENTS + ACTIONS

Employer Transit Pre-Tax Benefit Program;;

Promote Ventra’s Pre-Tax Benefit Program:
Bedford Park employers can participate in pre-tax
transit programs, allowing employee transit riders
to pay for rides using pre-tax dollars up to $255 permonth. Through this program, employers can directly
deposit monthly passes or fixed dollar amounts onto
employees’ Ventra cards. This program can save
employees up to $1000 per year. Employers can enroll
in the program through Ventra Chicago.

;;

Recognize Employers that Provide Subsidized orFree Transit Passes to Employees: To encourage
more employees to take transit to work, employers
can subsidize employees’ transit passes by providing
either a monthly stipend or paying for a monthly
pass.

;;

Encourage Carpooling□□

Source: www.transitchicago.com/transitbenefit/
Increased parking fees: Some employers
have had success reducing the number of single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips to work by charging fees to park on-site. This approachshould be coupled with increased transit service, new shared mobility options, andsubsidies to encourage non-SOV trips to be successful.

□□

Gamification: Gamification is the application of the typical elements of game play (e.g.
competition, achievement, collaboration) to ordinary tasks and activities. The task ofchoosing a mode of travel can be “gamified” in a way that rewards sustainable travel
behaviors, such as taking transit. Gamification can be combined with other strategies,
such as loyalty and reward programs, to “nudge” people towards more sustainable travel
behaviors.38
Gamification

Carpooling

Smart Commuter Metro North
MARTA
38

Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, Nudge – Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (Yale University Press, 2008).

Appendix G

199

4. EXPAND MICROTRANSIT AND MOBILITY DEMAND SERVICES;;

On-Demand Microtransit: On-demand microstransit does not have fixed route or time. This
allows for flexible and semi-fixed routes and operates on-demand basis. It includes individual
and shuttle service rides to and from destinations via ride share platforms like Uber, Lyft, and Via.

;;First/Last Mile Service: Provide options for commuters’ First/Last Mile getting to/from transit
stops to reduce long walks, improve transit usability, advance operations and maintenance,
improve safety and security, provide legible signage, and offer ROW allocation and design.

;;

ADA Accessible Services: Pace provides ADA accessible transit options including ADA
Paratransit, transferring to/from paratransit (including Dial-A-Ride), Pace Fixed Route Buses(accessible to those with disabilities), and a Dial-A-Ride program. Eligible riders can reserve a rideby making a pre-arranged trip via ADA Paratransit. Additionally, eligible riders can transfer to/from paratransit by receiving a Transfer Voucher when transferring between ADA Paratransit and/or Dial-a-Ride services and a fixed route bus. The Dial-A-Ride program would be in partnershipwith the Village of Bedford Park with specified boundaries and eligibility requirements.

On-Demand Ride Service Application Platform

ADA Accessible Services

200

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase If.4. Tools for the Motorist and freight network
Creating a successful road and freight network means creating a safer environment that also supports
walking, bicycling, public transit, and economic vitality. Road planning supports the movement andflow of traffic safely. Elements from the timing of traffic signals, the width of a road, and the pavementof that road, all contribute to the maintenance of a quality transportation system.

1. ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY;;

Repair Roads and Create Complete Streets:□□

Road Markings: Striping and markings play a critical role in roadway safety. They indicate
the correct travel path for drivers on the road, alert drivers to the presence of pedestriancrossings, and calm traffic. The role of pavement markings is most important at night,
where retroreflection comes into play. Truck routes and roads with high truck volumes will
require frequent restriping and maintenance to ensure pavement markings are visible todrivers. Communities should develop a method to monitor, schedule, and replace markingsthat have deteriorated in a timely manner, ensuring that a minimum level of reflectivity is
maintained, an approach consistent with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). The Federal Highway Association’s report number FHWA-SA-14-017 provides
detailed guidance on the steps to evaluating and maintaining pavement markings.

□□

Potholes: Potholes are challenging for all modes of travel and should be patched as soon
as possible, either as an emergency repair or incorporated into regular maintenance.
The Federal Highway Association’s report number FHWA-RD-99-168 details methods
and approaches recommended for repairing potholes. Bring existing driving and walking
surfaces up to a state of good repair is a basic, but also critical step for addressing last milechallenges.

Two Views of Pavement Markings

Appendix G

201

;;

Adopt Traffic Calming Strategies: Traffic Calming is a part of Complete Streets implementation.
□□

Horizontal Speed Controls: Horizontal speed controls make drivers slow down by either
visually narrowing a road or by curving a travel lane. There are two types of horizontal
deflection that can be beneficial – chicanes and bump-outs. Chicanes are a series of curb
extensions on alternating sides of a street that form an “s” pattern. This treatment is best foruse on low-volume roads. Bump-outs or curb extensions extend sidewalks to be even withparking lanes. See the pedestrian treatments section for more information.

Horizontal Speed Controls: Chicane (left) and Bump Out (right)□□

Vertical Speed Controls: Vertical speed controls make drivers slow down by raising thepavement. There are two primary types of vertical speed controls – speed humps and speed
cushions. Speed humps are usually 3-4-inches high and require drivers to reduce speeds
to 15-20mph. Speed humps should be placed no more than 500-feet apart on streetswith speed limits of 30mph or less. While they are the most effective tool for driver speed
control, they must not exceed 4-inches in height to be safe for bicyclists to traverse. Speedhumps may also be difficult for snow plows. Speed cushions are speed humps that include
cutouts for buses, freight, and emergency vehicles to pass through without slowing down.
This design still impacts car speeds. A speed cushion should be designed to reduce speeds
to 9mph. Gaps for large vehicle wheels should be about 1 to 2-feet wide, and each lumpshould be about 6-feet wide.

Vertical Speed Controls: Speed Hump (left) and Speed Cushion (right)

202

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I□□Interim Strategies: Many
traffic calming devices
can be implemented in
the interim before costly,
permanent investments
are made. Horizontal
speed controls can beinstalled using traffic paintand flexible delineators.
This approach, which issometimes implemented
as a “Tactical Urbanism”
project, allows communities
to test and revise trafficcalming approaches
to ensure that they are
effective and safe for allusers of the road.

WHAT IS TACTICAL URBANISM?
Communities around the world are using flexible
and short-term projects to advance long-term goals
related to road safety, public space, and more.
“Tactical Urbanism” projects are a type of low-cost,
temporary changes to the built environment thatare intended to improve local neighborhoods andcommunity gathering places. Examples include
highly-visible and formalized efforts, such as
New York City’s Plaza Program, or smaller-scale“demonstration projects” (typically lasting 1 to 7days). Tactical Urbanism projects can be led bygovernments, non-profits, grassroots groups, or
resident groups. Though the degree of formality
may vary, Tactical Urbanism projects share common
goal of using low-cost materials to experiment withand gather input on potential street design changes(Source: Tactical Urbanist’s Guide).

A Tactical Urbanism Bike Lane Project

Appendix G

203

;;

Intersection Enhancements:□□

Reduced Corner Radii: The size of the corner relates to the length of a crosswalk and the
speed of turning traffic. Smaller curb radii create a shorter crossing distance for pedestrians
and encourage drivers to slow down when making right turns. Narrower turning radii canbe challenging for truck drivers to navigate, but creative design solutions—such as shifting
the stop line marking back—can make an intersection safer for pedestrians and accessible
for both cars and trucks. Corner radii should be designed to limit turning speeds to 15mph.

Reduced Corner Radii

Protected Left Turn Phasing

□□

204

□□
Traffic Signals: Traffic signals
should be calibrated to both optimize
vehicular through-put and provide
pedestrians adequate time to cross.
Signals should be upgraded toinclude pedestrian countdown timers.
Install traffic signals, crosswalks andpedestrian crossing signals at accesses
to sites that generate regular truck
traffic. Use fixed-time signals rather
than actuated signals to increase thepredictability and ensure consistent
opportunities for pedestrian to crossand traffic to pass.

Protected Left Turn Phasing: Left turn phasing can reduce conflicts between pedestrians
and left-turning traffic by providing an exclusive left turn signal phase. Both oncoming
traffic and pedestrian crossings are prevented during the protected left turn phase. A
permissive left turn phase may also be included, e.g., the left turn phase continues throughthe signal cycle; however, this approach does not provide the pedestrian safety benefits.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I□□

ADA Curbs and Ramps: Curb ramps enable people in wheelchairs to safely crossintersections without assistance. For more detail, see the Pedestrian Network section.

□□

Pedestrian Refuge Island: Pedestrian refuge islands enable people to cross multi-laneroads in stages. This treatment is most beneficial at mid-block and unsignalized crossings,
though it can also be implemented at wide crossings with signals to reduce the distancepedestrians need to travel to reach a safe place. See the Pedestrian Network section for
Components of an ADA-Accessible Curb Ramp
more detail.

□□Raised Crosswalks: Raised
crosswalks calm traffic
crosswalk to the heightsection for more detail.

□□Leading Pedestrian
provides 3-7 seconds of lead
before the start of a vehicle
section for more detail.

at pedestrian crossings by raising theof the curb. See the Pedestrian Network
Interval: A leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
time for pedestrians to enter a crosswalk
signal phase. See the Pedestrian Network
ADA.gov;;

Measure progress towards
implementing Complete Streets:
To implement and measure Complete Streets success, the Village of Bedford Park should
identify and adopt appropriate performance measure, benchmarks, and metrics. Performancemeasurements should relate to the desired outcome of First/Last Mile solutions: They should
aim to evaluate multimodal transit level of service (including bicycle and pedestrian, not justcar and freight traffic level of service); set targets for new infrastructure construction; settargets for commonly measured performance metrics (e.g. reduced bike and pedestrian crashincidents and increased micromobility and pedestrian trips); set targets for amount of budget
and hours dedicated to Complete Streets policy implementation; and define evaluation process
and performance measures with set intervals. Recommended Benchmarks include multimodal
comfort, school access, safety for all, active transportation access, crash reduction, crime
reduction, positive environmental impact, economic vitality. The Active Transportation Alliancehas a full list of quantitative suggested metrics that can be utilized to measure progress ofComplete Streets such as, but not limited to, number of blocks with new or repaired sidewalks,
increase in transit ridership, miles of new bicycle facilities, etc.

;;

Engage Stakeholders in on-going efforts to promote walking, biking, and transit:
Successful Complete Streets
Raised Crosswalk
rely on good community
engagement. Set Goals thatreflect community priorities.
Engaging stakeholders early
and often will provide more
support for Complete Streetsplan implementation, growthin partnership opportunities,build relationships, andprovide communication of the
expectations and priorities of
NACTO
Village of Bedford Park.

Appendix G

205

2. UTILIZE INTEGRATED CORRIDOR AND TRANSPORTATION DEMANDMANAGEMENT STRATEGIESTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;;;

Implement congestion-reducing corridor management strategies, such as:□□

Smart Intersections and Ramp Meters: Smart intersections and ramp meters aim toincrease driver safety and improve traffic flow. Ramp Meters regulate traffic flow with a
two-section signal light (red and green) to reduce congestion and increase driver safety.
Smart Intersections use short range communication system technology to detect 360
degrees of an intersection’s road users, known as vehicle-to-everything (V2X) technology.
The technology communicates to approaching vehicles the position and movement ofeach object via camera, radar, and Lidar sensors thereby reducing traffic collisions atintersections. This technology can also be retrofitted to older vehicle models.

□□

Active arterial management: Arterial roads are high-capacity thoroughfares used bycommuters and freight traffic that rely on efficient and safe passage. Active Arterial
Management (AAM) maximizes safety and minimizes delays by efficiently managing traffic.
AAM can be implemented through smart technology that monitors and responds to traffic,
active signal retiming, and implementing CMAP’s Smart Corridor concepts.

□□

Congestion Pricing and Managed Access Management
Lanes: Congestion pricing is an
economic approach used in traffic
mitigation that surcharges drivers
utilizing roads that are subject toexcess demand thereby charging
more at peak hours to reduce traffic
congestion without increasing theroad supply.

□□

Dynamic Parking Management:
Dynamic parking management
allows for the management andtracking of available parking spots
in parking facilities in real-time. Thisparking management approach can
improve local traffic flow by reducing
congestion and improving safety. It
can include dynamic overflow transit parking (utilizing close vicinity overflow parking spots/
facilities), dynamic parking reservation (utilizing technology to reserve a parking space),
dynamic wayfinding (real-time parking-related information based on space availability andlocation), and dynamically priced parking (parking fees vary dependent on demand andavailability).

Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies and Policies:□□

206

Access Management: A typical 4-lane road that intersects a 2-lane driveway has 11 pointsof conflict. Access management aims to consolidate driveways and limit left turns onto andVillage of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Truck Route Signage

off-of roads to reduce congestion and reduce
the number of conflict points at an intersection.
Where possible, driveways and parking lot accesspoints should be controlled by a traffic signal ifthey intersect with an arterial or collector street,
re-routed to a side street, and/or moved awayfrom an intersection if they do not warrant a
traffic signal. On streets with the space for acenter median, the median should be raised anddesigned to prevent left turns out of parking lots,
thereby reducing the number of conflict points
and improving traffic flow.

□Truck□Route and Wayfinding Signage: Truck
route signage indicates which streets heavy
freight should use. Routes may include truck routesigns, and trucks permitted, or trucks not permitted signs. Additional wayfinding signage
should be installed to help truck drivers navigate side streets and identify appropriate
access points and navigate through parking lots at their destination. Signs should bebased on the importance of their information and present information when and where itis needed. Information should be given piecemeal to lower the amount given to the driverat any one time. Consistent coding, colors, and shapes of traffic signs should be used.
Finally, the city should work with neighboring jurisdictions to create a network of clear andconsistent way-finding tools for truck drivers traveling through the area.
□□

Appendix G

Transportation Demand Management: Transportation demand management (TDM) is theapplication of strategies and policies intended to reduce travel demand, or to redistributedemand over space or in
Integrated Corridor Management
time. TDM includes manyof the solutions included inthis Toolkit but packaged asa formal policy or program.
Managing demand (andcongestion) can be a costeffective alternative toincreasing road capacity.
A demand management
approach to transport also
has the potential to deliver
better environmental
outcomes, improved
public health, stronger
communities, and more
prosperous cities. TDM
techniques link with and support community movements for sustainable transport. The
concept diagram in Figure 3-35 illustrates how TDM, various ‘smart’ infrastructure systems,
and different transportation networks can be integrated within the framework of Integrated
Corridor Management.

207

3. CREATE MOBILITY HUBSTREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;Create a multimodal mobility hub that includes:□□

Dockless Bike Sharing: Dock-based and dockless bike- and scooter-sharing, in which
low-speed vehicles are available for short-term rental via a smart-phone app, provide anenergy- and space-efficient last-mile solution appropriate for trips in the 0.5 to 3-milerange. In contrast to docked bikeshare systems like Divvy, dockless systems have much
lower capital costs and infrastructure requirements and appear to have a lower unit costoverall. However, they may require greater attention to rebalancing (i.e. shifting bikes fromareas with many bikes to areas with few bikes) and other operational details, includingnightly charging for electric bikes and scooters. W; while the cost to the public for operatingthese systems may be zero, they do require more intensive regulation. In November 2018
the City of Chicago completed its Dockless Bike Share Pilot Project, in which Pace, Limebike,and Jump participated. In March 2019, the city introduced a new ordinance that establisheda definition for low-speed electric mobility devices (LEMDs), such as electric scootersand electric skateboards, and clarifies that e-bikes and LEMDs are legal transportation
options within the Chicago Municipal Code. The City of Chicago appears poised to expand
permitting for dockless bikes and scooters in 2019, providing an opportunity for policy or
regulatory coordination soon.

A Selection of Dockless Bike Sharing Companies

□□

208

Dock-Based Bike Sharing: Dock-based sharing requires a lock in station to start/end
trips to/from and requires a network of docking stations to make trips more convenient.
Bikeshare works best as a first/last mile transportation strategy in mixed-use neighborhoods
and near transit hubs in walkable corridors with high pedestrian traffic. Bikeshare stations
should be no more than 1,000 feet apart (about a five-minute walk). The presence ofgood bike infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes, is a key determinant of success ofbike sharing programs. One of the major operational challenges with dockless bike- andscooter share is the fact that riders can end their trip and leave the vehicles anywhere,
often blocking sidewalks or the public right-of-way. In high-demand locations, many
bikes or scooters may pile up quickly. Many jurisdictions have addressed this challenge by

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase Idesignating areas of the public right of way (in parking areas or on sidewalks) specificallyfor parking dockless vehicles, increasing predictability for users, operators, and members of
the public.
The Right Way and the Wrong Way to Manage Dockless Bike and Scooter Parking□□

Real-Time Transit Info: Transit authorities can provide riders real-time transportation
information via mobile and web-enabled devices. Real-time transit information allows riders
to adapt to unreliable or infrequent transit service.

Real-Time Transite Info

CTA

Appendix G

209

□□

TNC Pickup and Drop-off Zones: Transit Network Companies (TNC) need a safe curbspace to pickup and drop-off passengers. Curbside zones should be able to accommodate
one to TNC vehicles and safe for waiting passengers. Curbside zones could also include
other pedestrian amenities such as a weather shelter, signage, lighting, and seating.

PNC Pickup and Drop-off Zone

□□

210

Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations: Electric vehicle
demand is growing, andelectric vehicle users arelikely to drive to work.
To plan for current andfuture demands, theprovision of charging
stations will enable
drivers to commuteby electric vehicle. The
FHWA provides Surface
Transportation Block
Grant Program (STBG)
for the construction ofelectric vehicle charging
stations.

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Microgrid Knowledge

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I□□Smart Parking

Smart Parking: Sensors and real-time data collection allow for Smart Parking: It provides
real-time information on the number of available parking spaces in a specified vicinity. By
optimizing parking space usage, it can reduce fuel emissions spent idling and searchingfor available parking. Smart Parking guides drivers to available park spots and simplifies
parking. Additionally, automated parking payments can be made through web applications
or mobile apps.

Source: Teks Mobile Australia

Appendix G

211

4. EXPAND LAST MILE CARSHARING/RIDESOURCING/RIDESHARING SERVICES
TREATMENTS + ACTIONS;;First/Last Mile Service: Provide options for commuters’ First/Last Mile getting to/from transit
stops to reduce long walks, improve transit usability, advance operations and maintenance,
improve safety and security, provide legible signage, and offer ROW allocation and designFirst and Last Mile

212

;;

Late Night Service/Guaranteed Ride Home: Commuters getting to and from work duringlater evening hours need a safe mode of transit and ride home. Employers and educational
centers can provide a guaranteed ride home for late night commuters. Universities like UIC
have implemented a Night Ride program for students, faculty and staff to travel safely anddependably during after-hours via on-demand shuttle vans.

;;

Expand Car Sharing Services: The Village could work with carsharing vendors already in the
Chicagoland market (e.g. Zipcar, car2go, Maven) to expand their service areas or place vehicles
in the Village. Harmonizing regulations, permitting, and reporting with those in place in the Cityof Chicago and other adjacent jurisdictions (or creating regulatory reciprocity) can help support
this effort by reducing the administrative overhead required of vendors and increasing vehicle
utilization.

;;

Subsidy for TNC Services: Opportunity for employers to provide a TNC program subsidy
for routes within a set
First and Last Mileboundary zone and/or
a flat rate fares to selectlocations. Subsidies could
include a rideshare giftcard to make the TNC
services more accessible
for those individuals
without a credit card.

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase IAPPENDIX H: COST TABLES

Appendix H

213

214

Village of Bedford Park | Last Mile Mobility Study - Phase I

Appendix H

215