Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200

Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200 201 North Scoville Avenue  Oak Park, IL 60302-2296

TO:

Board of Education

FROM:

Tod Altenburg, Chief School Business Official

DATE:

September 23, 2014

RE:

Swimming Pool Information

Background and Information At the August 28 Board of Education meeting, there was a request for more information to better understand the two-year history of how swimming pool options were chosen and studied, including the options remaining on the table. Attached to this memo you will find a document that provides a historical timeline of the swimming pool discussions. In order to simplify this narrative timeline, you also will find a chart that pulls out from the timeline the swimming pool sites, along with why they were included and why they were removed from consideration. Given the expedited nature of the parking/traffic study, we will have a representative from KLOA to provide an overview of its findings. The final documentation with the findings will not be completed before Tuesday evening.

Next Step Approve a site for the swimming pool.

TEL: (708) 383-0700

WEB: www.oprfhs.org

TTY/TDD: (708) 524-5500

FAX: (708) 434-3910

OPRF High School Pool Project Timeline 2011 – 2014

Summer 2010 First time the Board is made aware of a pool issue: Pools undergo construction to replace the drain grates, per the requirements of the 2007 Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. When applying for a permit from the state, the contractor mistakenly categorized the work as maintenance rather than construction. The permit was rejected, but a subcontractor plumbing company had performed the work anyway. The school and subcontractor were fined $45,000, which the contractor paid. Pools pass inspection in late fall. Remain closed due to leaking until repaired in early winter. Fall 2010 District issues RFQ for architects, having decided to use an architect for designs, drawings, and bid specs, and a separate company for construction management. (The previous contractor did both design and build out.) Contract with Legat approved in February 2011. August 2011: Concordia University permanently closes its indoor pool, eliminating the only local yearround, non-membership community pool. The closing activates local residents who would like to see another such facility made available. Fall 2011: The Park District of Oak Park (PDOP) begins to finalize plans for Ridgeland Common redo. Survey feedback from 2010 and public comment from October 2011 indicate significant public desire for a covered, year-round pool. Winter 2012 ●

● ●

Early January: Diving board removed from East Pool for scheduled replacement. o Vendor subsequently informs OPRF that the height/depth of diving well is out of compliance with safety standards. o With removal of board, OPRF loses grandfather status under state and federal safety standards enacted in 2010. Diving board cannot be replaced unless standards are met. Diving program is relocated off-site. January 19 Board meeting: Many public comments about inadequacy of OPRF pools. Students complain about dirty water, high chlorine levels, vermin, decrepit locker rooms. Late winter: PDOP officials approach District 200 Board members to discuss possibility of an indoor pool at Ridgeland Common. PDOP executive director Gary Balling tells the Wednesday Journal, “While everybody sees an apparent need for this in the community, nobody can identify the financial resources to support an indoor pool.”

Spring 2012 ● March 8: Board approves proposal from Stantec Consulting Firm to assess pools and determine needs. Stantec chosen over competing consultant (Water Technology Inc.) because Stantec has a degree of local expertise; PDOP already is working with the firm to determine options for renovating the Ridgeland Common pool.

●

● ●

March 13: Dee, Sharon, Steve, Cheryl, John Stelzer, Robert, Gail, and Rob Wroble meet with River Forest resident Dr. Barb Langer regarding the desire for an indoor, community swimming facility. Dr. Langer was approaching both OPRF and the PDOP, and we invited her in to listen to her. The discussion focused on whether a dome could be built over an outdoor Ridgeland Common pool in order to make it an indoor pool. Dr. Langer shared that she had met with a park district in Utah and the builder for its domed pool. This information becomes part of the OPRF knowledge base as study of our pools unfolds. (In addition to the pool discussion, three other residents attended to ask D200 to support a playground initiative.) April 4: Meeting with Stantec, PDOP, and YMCA to review facilities and discuss partnership potentials. May 30: Stantec Pool Committee meets for the first time. o Charge is twofold: 1. Determine whether we need to modify current pools or build new one(s). What are our pool needs—six lane, eight lane, eight-lane stretch, Olympic? 2. If need is to build new pool(s), determine where. o Process of coming to a recommendation is not linear. Many discussions about whether to modify existing pools or build a new one, and where pool(s) could possibly be sited. Potential costs not part of evaluation. o Committee develops extensive matrices to evaluate usage needs. ▪ Seven sites are studied: Tennis courts, East Pool/South Gym, athletic fields, Fieldhouse, West Pool, North Cafeteria, parking garage. ▪ Evaluation criteria include: ● Impact on pool programs ● Impact on other programs/events ● Displacement impacts ● Construction impacts ● Location impacts ● Cost impacts ▪ Committee members assign numerical values of 1 through 5 to each site-impact combination, with 5 being the most important and 1 being not important. This becomes a quantitative study for tallying and determining potential sites. o Stantec tells committee that the most realistic opportunity to partner with PDOP for an indoor pool is in 10 years, when the Ridgeland Common pool needs replacement.

September 2012 ●

Sept. 18: Stantec Committee evaluates matrix of seven potential sites: o Tennis courts o East Pool o Lake Street Field o Field House o West Pool o North Cafeteria o Parking deck (building inside lower level)

●

River Forest residents Dr. Barb Langer and Virginia Thomas gather nearly 4,000 signatures in support of an advisory referendum on whether OPRF should use its fund balance to construct a year-round community pool facility. Ballot question will be placed on April 9, 2013, ballot.

November 2012 ●

●

Focus groups on facility master plan are held in November as well as January 2013. Discussions touch on pool because of the ongoing Stantec Committee work. However, pool is not the main focus of the groups, and pool drawings are not presented. There is a lot of overlap between Stantec Committee and Long-Term Facility Planning Committee (LTFPC) discussions.

December 2012: Pool committee receives initial draft of Stantec report. January 2013: Mounting public criticism of the district’s fund balance leads to very rough estimates of various future spending needs. Included in the needs is a new pool, at a projected cost of $20 million. This figure is based on the cost-per-square foot for the Niles North Aquatic Center, an eight-lane stretch pool that was designed by Legat and cost $16 million. Estimate does not include site development and other potential additions to the building (parking, tennis courts, etc.). February 2013 ●

●

Feb. 19: Stantec Committee reviews draft report and makes preliminary recommendations. Committee’s preferred option is an eight-lane competition stretch pool with seven-foot-wide lap lanes, an integrated one-meter diving well, and a movable bulkhead. This option provides a 70% larger body of water than the two existing pools, and would be more cost-effective than operating two pools. Feb. 28: Wednesday Journal publishes leaked conceptual blueprints presented by Legat to the LTFPC. The article describes a single large pool area that would replace the current pools, either in the southeast corner of the Fieldhouse (where the East Pool and weight room are) or in a portion of the Fieldhouse gym.

March 2013 ●

●

Early March: Steve receives report from pool-community stakeholders. The report includes information about the aquatics facilities and associated programs on the community, and also gives information about other pool facilities at large high school districts. The report recommends that the ideal pool would be a 50-meter x eight-lane diving pool, followed second by an eight-lane stretch pool, and lastly by a 25-yard pool with either six or eight lanes. The report included proposals for how the space could be used to generate income as well as photos of different facilities. Report leads to consideration of 50-meter pool. March 29: Stantec issues its “Report for Competition Pool Upgrade/Relocation Study.” o Report notes that “a clear decision on a site will require a more detailed evaluation to account for the complexities of the compact and well developed school campus.” o Though not within the scope of the study to determine costs, the report estimates a range of $7 million – $10 million for a new pool, and as much as $15 million if other campus improvements were included.

April 2013 ● ● ●

● ●

April 8: Ballot question regarding pool fails to pass, with 48% in favor and 52% against. Tom Cofsky, Steve Gevinson, Jackie Moore, and Jeff Weissglass win election as new BOE members. April 10: Final Stantec Committee meeting. o Goal is to finalize top site, as determined by the total scores from the Site Evaluation Matrix. To the surprise of the committee, no clear winner emerges. Instead focus narrows to three sites: 1. East Pool/South Gym 2. Parking deck (tear it down) 3. Combination of Fieldhouse/West Pool o Committee decides that rather than revisit and rehash the entire process, the results of the study and the four recommended sites will be moved along to the LTFPC for further study, because the various pool options will have an impact on other needs and programs in the building. Is the solution accomplishing both current needs and taking into account future growth and needs? These considerations were not a part of the Stantec discussions and needed to be folded into the LTFPC discussions. April 10: Legat presents potential sites to the LTFPC, which does not like tennis courts option because it is too far away from Athletics wing. April 23: LTFPC meeting includes discussion of pool sites, revisiting the tennis courts and adding the baseball field: o Tennis courts (not favored, too far) o East pool, use lockers in existence (possibly favor, near PE) o Parking garage (favor, near PE)--tear it down; didn't know if the district could take control of the parking lot o Baseball field (goal was to keep athletics near athletics) Decision to use eight-lane stretch as a placeholder for budgeting. Also went with the idea we would have a new pool but keep an old one operating until it dies. Then all moves to the new pool. Stantec overlaid the stretch pool in the proposed locations to view site feasibility.

May 2013: New Board seated. July 1, 2013: New CFO Tod Altenburg begins work. September 2013 ● ●

Sept. 16: Finance Committee meeting includes discussion of pool, including what type/size, pros and cons of various sites, and a possible schedule. Sept. 26: Board meeting— o Public comment at Board meeting advocates for 50-meter pool. Board receives the Stakeholder Natatorium Proposal from a person speaking at public comment. o Rob and Patrick present the LTFPC report and pool report. They present the Board with four potential sites, all for an eight-lane stretch pool: ▪ Tennis courts ▪ In southeast corner of existing building

o o

▪ Parking garage ▪ North of Stadium field, with tennis courts on top When asked to give an estimate, the quote was $15-22 million for building costs (not total project costs). Based on the Niles project and per foot costs. Board requested that that this go back to the Finance Committee and come to the full Board when ready.

October 2013 

Internal pool committee (Phil Prale, Tod Altenburg, Nate Rouse, John Stelzer, Robert Zummallen, Clay Reagan, Karin Sullivan) works through logistics in preparation for further Board presentations. This group discusses the implications of the East Pool site, which are: 1. The location was at this time the most costly. 2. This site would mean eliminating the AD office, 1 East classroom, Weight Room, 1 East PE office, and girl’s locker room space. 3. It also is believed that the Fieldhouse would be affected and track space would be lost. 4. Along with the losses on the 1st floor, the 2 East Dance Studio would also be taken in order to make a two-story space for the pool. During construction both 3rd floor gyms would be unavailable.

●

Oct. 23: Planning meeting covers several key points: o Community wants 50 meter x 25 yards. o Backup option is 40 meter x 20 meter. o Move ahead with study of three sites: 1. Parking garage 2. Baseball field 3. Tennis courts

November 2013: Report to Finance Committee and moved to the full Board. Indicated to the Board that the East Pool site would be eliminated and gave pros and cons for the remaining three sites (garage, tennis courts and baseball field). December 2013: ●

Proposal for feasibility studies brought to the Finance Committee and moved to the full Board. Feasibility studies to include conceptual planning, soil borings on proposed sites, preliminary costs, construction timeline, etc. Board authorizes the administration to work with Legat and Henry Brothers on feasibility studies for the three sites (garage, tennis and baseball). Internal ad hoc pool committee leans toward Olympic size rather than eight-lane stretch, because of uncertainty that a stretch pool could accommodate PE needs.

January 2014 ●

●

●

Jan. 13: Committee meets and discusses when feasibility study will be done. Asks question about repurposing existing pool spaces, though no robust discussion. Discussion about current work on existing pools. Jan. 21: Administrative subcommittee on pool established. Meeting #1. o John Phelan and Tom Cofsky join Tod, Steve, Robert, Legat, Henry Bros. o Parameters for study were established: ▪ Look into 50-meter ▪ 400 spectators ▪ Ideally decision made asap after feasibility completed ▪ The more options, the longer the process will take ▪ 18- 20 months for actual construction ▪ Connect the dots from Stantec to now o The Stantec Committee had evaluated potential sites before determining what size pool might fit into the sites. In comparison, this Pool Committee started with the assumption that an Olympic-size pool was preferred and looked at where it could fit. Part of the rationale for Olympic was that this is a very long-term decision and we need to plan several decades down the road; an Olympic was not significantly more money than an eight-lane stretch pool yet provided greater flexibility and opportunity for students. Jan. 30: Pool Committee meeting: o Decides to focus on 50-meter only o Models with maps are presented o Tennis court options eliminated

February 2014 ● Feb. 11: Steve, Phil, Tod, Nate, John S., Robert, Karin meet. o Begin to answer questions for clarity o Swimming curriculum: what we require vs. what state requires o Parking ideas o 500 seats for hosting ● Feb. 27: Board meeting. Dr. Langer comments that we should cooperate with PDOP for lap swimming. March 2014 ● March 3: Administration works with Legat to get as much clarity and understanding of the numbers as possible from the feasibility study, and to determine the appropriate format for bringing this information to the Finance Committee. The final draft to be presented to Pool Committee on March 28. ● March 28: Pool Committee meeting. Costs are reviewed for the first time. John P., Tom, Al, Rob, Tod, Robert introduce the costs, based on the feasibility study. Consider questions and clarity about numbers as presented. Begin to look at appropriate format for bringing to April Finance Committee and to the full Board to understand all of the related costs, which at the high end are estimated at upward of $69 million (including site, building, contingencies, labor).

April 2014 ●

●

●

April 11: Pool Committee looks at reducing square footage; compared to other Cook County pools. Legat says that we can put the largest footprint on each site but can reduce square footage of the building. Committee gives recommendations on how to make the information on costs understandable, by clustering them into categories or a menu of sorts. April 21: Feasibility study and costs estimates for two sites--parking garage and the baseball field-presented to Finance Committee. The study involved numerous options for each site. The menu of costs was provided for site preparation, building, amenities, hard and soft construction costs, and contingencies. Report moved on to the full Board meeting. April 24: Full Board meeting. The two sites and their iterations are presented. Mr. Phelan suggests a quick study be done on a potential third site, closing Scoville Avenue south of Lake Street and locating the pool south of Lake Street.

May 27, 2014: John P., Tom, Steve, Tod, Robert, Legat and Henry Bros. hold discussion of Scoville as potential site. Begin to ask what we need to investigate. Also begin to ask questions about use of and impact on Lake Street fields. What are agreements about track? Need to have discussions with park district and village. Overall none of the three scenarios is perfect--what will have the least short- and long-term effects on other programs? John S. and Clay invited to next series of meetings. June 2014 ●

●

June 3: Pool Committee meeting. Focus on impact of pool on Lake Street fields. Preliminary discussion with village about Scoville Avenue. Begin discussion about the field space south of Lake Street, as well as tennis court usage in their current location. Got an idea of how frequently pools are used and the swimming curriculum. New clarifying questions about contracts/ordinances/IGAs for south field. PE state law vs. our own requirements. June 10 until August Board meeting: Committee met almost weekly to develop and refine the matrices that were presented to the Board in August.

August 2014 ●

● ●

●

Aug. 19: Special Board meeting: o Pool Committee presents recommendation of baseball field. o Large public turnout for public comment. Mixed community support, with several residents questioning whether a pool could in fact fit on the baseball field without negatively affecting all playing fields. Follow-up: Measurement incorrect. Aug. 26: o Pool Committee meeting: Baseball field site can work but it is too tight to be viable. o Press release issued retracting recommendation for baseball field site. Aug. 28: Board meeting o Public comments indicate general support for pool and for pausing the process to reevaluate site options. o Mr. Phelan polls Board on four points: 1. Build a new pool? Majority supports.

2. Build as Olympic size? Majority supports. 3. Which site? No consensus. Dr. Gevinson and Dr. Lee raise the possibility of sites that have may not have been considered. 4. Hold an advisory referendum on whether or not to build a new pool? Majority supports.

OPRFHS Potential Pool Site Chronology Initial Stantec Comm. Ranking

Revised Stantec Comm. Ranking

Site

Why included

Concept of offcampus pool

Part of the brainstorming effort.

1

2

East Pool/South Gym

Identified as an option in initial meeting between Stantec and OPRF staff from facilities, athletics, and PE.

2

X

Tennis Courts


X

Lake Street Athletic Fields between Scoville and East Avenues


Parking Garage

Identified as an option in initial meeting between Stantec and OPRF staff from facilities, athletics, and PE. Ranking changed due to Long-Term Facility Planning Committee, which found that demolishing and reconstructing the garage could accommodate an 8-lane stretch pool.

3

7

1

4

X

North Cafeteria

Added at kickoff meeting of Stantec committee.

5

X

Fieldhouse


6

X

West Pool


3

Fieldhouse/West Pool

n/a

n/a

Baseball Field

n/a

n/a

Lake Street Athletic Fields/Scoville “Stub”

Revised Sept. 19, 2014

Combining sites allowed exploration of an east-west orientation of an 8-lane stretch pool, which could preserve more of the existing Fieldhouse, especially the basketball gym. Adjacent to other athletic components. Construction would not affect the building. Site is large enough for an 8-lane stretch pool. Would eliminate the cost of relocating baseball/softball fields and tennis courts, losing playing seasons, and removing parking garage. Adjacent to Ridgeland Common; would be an opportunity to collaborate with PDOP.

Why removed Note: Though the Stantec Report did not explicitly detail each impact on students, the pros and cons were considered for each site. Would not be able to support PE curriculum. Stantec Committee determined on-campus options were a priority. Location was most costly. Would eliminate too many office/gym/locker room spaces. Fieldhouse would be affected. Track space would be lost. Stantec Committee eliminated because losing outdoor activity space was unacceptable. However, site was part of subsequent LTFPC discussions, because impact at least limited to tennis courts. Eliminated because too far from indoor athletic facilities and potential move of courts onto aquatics facility roof deemed unacceptable. Stantec Committee decided that losing outdoor activity space was unacceptable, because it cannot be recaptured as building space can, by using a multi-floor design. Still under consideration. Discussion did occur about building parking spaces beneath the pool to save some parking. The feasibility study showed that this was cost prohibitive. The parking garage site remains for consideration w/o parking spaces in the design. Stantec Committee decided that any potential site must be capable of sustaining—at a minimum—an 8-lane, 25yard pool; anything smaller would not be adequate for an acceptable PE and competitive swim program. Stantec Committee decided to combine with West Pool as a potential site. Combining sites allowed exploration of an east-west orientation of an 8-lane stretch pool, which could preserve more of the existing Fieldhouse, especially the basketball gym. Stantec Committee decided to combine with West Pool as a potential site. Combining sites allowed exploration of an east-west orientation of an 8-lane stretch pool, which could preserve more of the existing Fieldhouse, especially the basketball gym. Would lose most of the south end of the Fieldhouse, affecting the track and PE space. Would need to increase ceiling height to meet diving requirements. Would lose the climbing-wall gym. Still under consideration.

Still under consideration.

COLUM BI AN

LI NDEN

PRELIMINARY

N

NOT TO SCALE

WHITTIER

IOWA

LOM BARD

HARVEY

CUYLER

RI DGELAND

ELM W OOD

EAST

LI NDEN

EUCLI D

GROVE

OAK PARK

AUGUSTA

FAI R OAKS

IOWA

CHICAGO

GROVE

SCOVI LLE

CHICAGO

SUPERIOR

CUYLER

RI DGELAND

SUPERIOR

LI NDEN

LOM BARD

ERIE

ERIE

BEYE

GARAGE

LOT 22

HARVEY

PARKING

ELM W OOD

OPRF HS PARK

SCOVI LLLE

ONTARIO

RI DGELAND

L AK E

NORTH

EUCLI D

OAK PARK

GROVE

SOUTH

PLEASANT

SCOVI LLE

EAST

PLEASANT

RANDOLPH

LOM BARD

HARVEY

CUYLER

ELM W OOD

W ESLEY

RANDOLPH

WASHINGTON BLVD.

PERCY JULIAN

MADISON

LEGEND - HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS - PRIMARY STUDY AREA - SECONDARY STUDY AREAS

PROJECT:

Oak Park and River Forest High School Oak Park, Illinois

TITLE:

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STUDY AREAS

Job No: 14-204

Figure: 1

COLUM BI AN

LI NDEN

PRELIMINARY

N

NOT TO SCALE

WHITTIER

IOWA

LOM BARD

HARVEY

CUYLER

RI DGELAND

ELM W OOD

EAST

LI NDEN

EUCLI D

GROVE

OAK PARK

AUGUSTA

FAI R OAKS

IOWA

CHICAGO

GROVE

CHICAGO

CUYLER

RI DGELAND

SUPERIOR

LI NDEN

LOM BARD

ERIE

ERIE

BEYE

OPRF HS

HARVEY

PARK

SCOVI LLLE

ONTARIO

PARKING GARAGE

LOT 22

RI DGELAND

L AK E

NORTH

EUCLI D

OAK PARK

GROVE

SOUTH

PLEASANT

SCOVI LLE

EAST

PLEASANT

RANDOLPH

LOM BARD

HARVEY

CUYLER

W ESLEY

ELM W OOD

RANDOLPH

WASHINGTON BLVD.

PERCY JULIAN

LEGEND

MADISON

- HIGH SCHOOL RESERVED PARKING - UNRESTRICTED PARKING (AVAILABLE FOR USE BY STAFF/STUDENTS) - RESTRICTED PARKING (NOT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY STAFF/STUDENTS) PROJECT:


TITLE:

WEEKDAY/SCHOOL DAY ON-STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY

Job No: 14-204

Figure: 2

N

(00) - AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR (3:00-4:00 PM) [00] - PM PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00 PM) <00> - SATURDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR (11:00-NOON)

22 (3) [6] <25>

405 (390) [476] <472> 150 (122) [128] <115>

651( 491 )[608] <522>

35 ( 64)[53] <1 08>

0 (0) [0] <0>

90 ( 8)[1 1 ] <61 >

261( 203)[1 97] <254>

PARKING GARAGE

1( 2)[1 ] <0>

1( 1 )[3] <2>

3 ( 1 )[3] <3>

4 (95) [41] <143>

NOT TO SCALE

93 ( 54)[84] <66>

234 ( 1 21 )[1 63] <1 01 >

00 - AM PEAK HOUR (7:15-8:15 AM) RI DGELAND AVENUE

26 ( 4)[24] <1 0>

SCO VI LLE AVENUE

PRELIMINARY

LEGEND

37 (45) [91] <44>

290 (314) [409] <326>

230 (208) [274] <197>

46 (47) [38] <40>

123 (125) [141] <101>

1 9 ( 21 )[24] <1 2>

726 ( 607)[735] <622>

31 (8) [26] <23>

97 ( 82)[96] <1 09>

70 ( 67)[1 1 9] <73>

73 (74) [76] <94>

1 1 9 ( 1 01 )[1 06] <1 23>

66 ( 32)[38] <40>

52 ( 5)[0] <1 1 >

1 4 ( 1 1 )[1 2] <1 4>

7 ( 9)[9] <22>

13 (10) [23] <36>

32 ( 64)[25] <43>

32 (20) [11] <41>

39 ( 30)[28] <48>

65 ( 54)[60] <64>

1 68 ( 1 41 )[1 51 ] <1 34>

49 ( 42)[44] <44>

111 (75) [88] <70>

3 ( 0)[1 ] <2>

54 (62) [109] <71> 230 (222) [265] <153>

1 1 3 ( 71 )[1 22] <87>

80 (8) [23] <49> 364 (329) [479] <361>

1 1 3 ( 74)[1 1 3] <79>

4 (0) [0] <0> 367 (305) [393] <350>

632 ( 545)[721 ] <51 2>

LAKE STREET

58 (38) [58] <22>

238 (226) [311] <224>

245 (231) [326] <221>

137 (151) [224] <85>

27 (23) [29] <20>

6 (7) [10] <13>

23 (35) [42] <26>

28 ( 30)[41 ] <30>

41 (30) [33] <45>

28 ( 31 )[26] <39>

7 ( 4)[9] <1 1 >

EAST AVENUE

PROJECT:

7 ( 3)[1 2] <1 3>

5 (11) [8] <12>

1 00 ( 1 2)[20] <31 >

110 (73) [110] <80>

18 (12) [18] <21>

43 ( 25)[28] <26>

54 (26) [36] <48>

24 ( 34)[23] <24>

40 (21) [16] <21> 176 (119) [152] <144> 21 1( 1 49)[1 82] <1 08>

29 (15) [15] <8> 113 (74) [93] <82>

695 ( 649)[846] <639>

SOUTH BOULEVARD

TITLE:


EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Job No: 14-204

Figure: 3

<00> - SATURDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR (11:00-NOON) 00 (00)

- PEDESTRIAN VOLUME - BICYCLE VOLUME

5 (3) [3] <0>

79 ( 77)[40] <35>

4 (2) [8] <16>

2 ( 3)[7] <7>

EAST AVENUE

56 ( 2) [1 0] <20>

249 ( 1 24)[66] <61 >

1 (4) [3] <3>

1 (4) [2] <7>

SOUTH BOULEVARD

48 (55) [30] <42>

5 ( 3)[7] <5>

4 (1) [11] <6>

53 ( 72)[40] <52>

53 ( 1 1 0)[28] <1 25>

47 ( 43)[30] <47>

33 ( 1 02)[26] <44>

99 (48) [55] <33>

20 (23) [44] <37>

46 ( 6) [3] <1 2>

LAKE STREET

3 ( 3)[6] <6>

40 ( 4)[0] <9>

2 ( 27)[1 0] <28>

53 ( 7)[7] <1 4>

10 (23) [15] <21>

4 (6) [8] <8>

78 (38) [30] <51>

6 (11) [7] <32>

2 (2) [7] <5>

21 2 ( 99)[66] <47>

106 (102) [55] <53>

20 (79) [29] <161>

0 (0) [9] <8>

NOT TO SCALE

1( 2)[6] <3>

00 (00)

1 1 2 ( 50)[2] <395>

6 (5) [6] <8>

1( 1 )[6] <21 > 76 ( 0)[33] <33>

[00] - PM PEAK HOUR (5:00-6:00 PM)

1 50 ( 1 97)[51 ] <1 36>

1 78 ( 228)[61 ] <99>

4 (9) [12] <18>

1 (0) [4] <13>

PROJECT:

N

(00) - AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR (3:00-4:00 PM)

17 (129) [35] <421>

25 (60) [37] <157>

8 (3) [6] <7>

296 ( 782)[240] <34>

1( 1 5)[3] <1 >

0 ( 46)[1 1 ] <1 3> 250 ( 1 48)[39] <65>

18 (243) [71] <203>

00 - AM PEAK HOUR (7:15-8:15 AM) RI DGELAND AVENUE

13 (9) [9] <12>

PARKING GARAGE

SCO VI LLE AVENUE

PRELIMINARY

LEGEND

TITLE:


EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Job No: 14-204

Figure: 4

PROJECT:

TITLE:


STUDY AREA

Job No: 14-204

Figure: 5

Oak Park and River Forest High School District 200

Recommend Documents