Title
title
A Presentation and Discussion of the Village of Oak Park’s Electric Shuttle Feasibility Assessment
..end
Introduction
overview
This is a presentation of the Village of Oak Park’s Electric Shuttle Feasibility Assessment. Staff are seeking Board direction on next steps related to the electric shuttle project.
end
body
Recommended Action
Provide Staff with guidance on the preferred shuttle service type and ownership model and direct staff to seek out grant opportunities and partnerships with local transit agencies for future implementation.
Prior Board Action
The Board has taken the following prior action(s):
• On November 7, 2025, the Village Board approved a second amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with TYLin to increase the not-to-exceed amount to $68,130.
• On September 9, 2025, the Village Board approved an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with TYLin to $65,732.
• On March 11, 2025, the Village Board approved a Professional Services Agreement with TYLin for the completion of an Electric Shuttle Feasibility Assessment in an amount not to exceed $58,114.
Background
The purpose of this item is for the Board to review the results of the Electric Shuttle Feasibility Assessment. The report provides a high-level overview of potential shuttle service models that may work well in Oak Park, as determined through surveys, stakeholder engagement, and focus groups. Staff is seeking Board direction on which service and ownership model is preferred by the Board, and direction on how Staff should pursue that service.
From 2004 - 2008, the Village of Oak Park operated a shuttle service that moved people through core areas of the Village between Garfield and Chicago and from Harlem to Lombard. The service was discontinued in 2008, in part because of low ridership. In 2022, the CROP plan was adopted, which included action VT04, conduct a feasibility analysis of reintroducing the Oak Park shuttle with an all-electric fleet.
On December 3, 2024, the Village issued an RFP for an electric shuttle feasibility assessment. The Village only received one proposal from TYLin, and staff decided to accept that bid.
The objectives listed in the RFP include:
• Provide an analysis and needs assessment which evaluates Oak Park’s demographics, socio-economic profile, population trends, land use, travel patterns, geography, economic vitality, and employment centers, as well as evaluate gaps in service and available opportunities of the existing transit systems;
• Consider the type of service which would best be able to meet the goals and desired outcome of the Village (fixed route, on-demand, hybrid) and the ownership model best suited to the Village (turnkey vendor services, in-house ownership and management, hybrid);
• Assess the potential for such a service to reduce vehicle miles travelled in the Village, increase the use of transit, reduce traffic congestion, and reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions;
• Assess the potential impact of such a service on the economic vitality of the business districts in the Village, as well as enhance quality of life in residential areas adjacent to business districts;
• Highlight Oak Park’s commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion by examining the impacts of different service models and the potential for such a service to more effectively and accessibly connect residents with jobs, essential services, and needed resources; and
• Use a data-driven approach to recommend potential service models to best meet the sustainability, economic vitality, and DEI goals stated above. Develop a method of data collection to continuously evaluate the program outcomes and recommend implementation methods which are adaptable to changing needs.
The resulting report assessed current conditions for travel around the Village and included significant stakeholder engagement to develop several shuttle service concepts that may meet the needs and expectations of the Village. Those concepts are outlined in the report and presentation.
This item achieves the 24/25 Village Board Goal 5.1.f.i: Evaluate the return of various shared-mobility programs and the CROP action VT04: Conduct a feasibility analysis of reintroducing the Oak Park shuttle with an all-electric fleet.
Timing Considerations
There are no specific timing considerations associated with this item.
Financial Impact
The Electric Shuttle Feasibility Assessment cost $68,130 which was allocated in account GL# 2310.41020.101.570853.0000 in the 2025 fiscal year.
Operating Impact
During 2025 Sustainability Staff spent an average of 10 hours a month on this project, including project update calls, review of deliverables, and public outreach.
Staff from Development Services and Public Works participated in bi-weekly calls and as members of stakeholder groups. Staff from Economic Vitality reviewed the final report and provided comment.
Exploring a preferred option further will require staff time from multiple departments, including Sustainability, Economic Vitality, Development Services, and Public Works. Implementation of a shuttle service will require additional Staff to manage and operate the shuttle program.
DEI Impact
The Feasibility Assessment included DEI considerations through the stakeholder engagement and focus groups, ensuring representation across ages, abilities, and income.
A shuttle service in Oak Park has the potential to increase access to regional transit systems, provide greater mobility for marginalized populations, expand on the service offered by the Township, and alleviate the need for car ownership and the expense of ride hailing and parking.
Community Input
In 2024, the Village published a survey on Engage Oak Park to solicit input on an Electric Shuttle program. 187 residents responded to the survey.
During the course of the study, the Village and Consultant conducted extensive community engagement.
Virtual stakeholder interviews were conducted with the following groups in May 2025:
• Infrastructure and Operations: ComEd, VOP Public Works
• Transit: Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and Pace Suburban Bus
• Business Leaders: OPRF Chamber of Commerce, Southtown Business District, Downtown Oak Park, Business Advisory Council.
• Community Destinations: D97, D200, Oak Park Public Library, Park District of Oak Park.
• Accessibility: Disability Access Commission, Aging in Communities Commission, VOP DEI Office, COP Public Health Department, Oak Park Township
Two in-person focus groups were held in July 2025. For the first group, the target audience included renters, car-free residents, and workers in Oak Park. Participants were recruited with the assistance of the Community Relations Coordinator and the OPRF Chamber of Commerce. The second focus group targeted parents, seniors, students, and homeowners. Participants were recruited with the assistance of the Oak Park Township and OPRF High School. Both Focus Groups were advertised through the Village’s channels.
Village Staff sought input from additional Village Committees and Councils, which was incorporated into the final study report. This included the Environment and Energy Commission, the Transportation Commission, and the Oak Park Business Advisory Council.
Staff Recommendation
Provide Staff with guidance on the preferred shuttle service type and ownership model, and direct staff to seek out grant opportunities and partnerships with local transit agencies for future implementation.
Advantages:
• Waiting until grant funding is secured will reduce the capital expense of a shuttle service.
• In the future, Pace may have more capacity to support expanded services in Oak Park with electric vehicles.
• This option does not require the Village to expend significant staff time or financial resources until the future, when there may be more resources available.
• This option provides the Board an opportunity to reevaluate the shuttle when there is a sustainable financial plan.
Disadvantages:
• This recommendation delays implementation of a shuttle service to a future date.
Alternatives
Alternative 1:
Provide Staff with guidance on the preferred shuttle service type (fixed, on demand, routes) and ownership model (Village-owned, contractor-owned), and direct staff to explore the option and bring it back for Board consideration with programming for review, along with detailed budget and operational impacts.
Advantages:
• This option allows Staff to explore more in-depth the costs and operating impact of the preferred service model.
• Staff will provide the Board with more exact budget numbers and operating impacts to consider.
Disadvantages:
• This option continues to utilize Staff time.
• This option does not result in an operational shuttle service, but is another planning step towards that service.
Alternative 2:
Provide Staff with guidance on the preferred shuttle service type and ownership model, and direct staff to bring back options for a pilot program with a service provider.
Advantages:
• A pilot service will help the Village assess ridership and test routes and systems before investing in the full service and fleet.
• Starting with a pilot allows the Village more control over the budget before committing to a full launch.
Disadvantages:
• It is unlikely the Village will find a service provider with a fully electric fleet for a pilot of a fixed route shuttle and may need to operate the pilot with gas vehicles.
• Significant staff time will be required to stand up a pilot shuttle program.
• Funding the pilot will require a budget amendment.
Alternative 3:
Direct staff to initiate a partnership with ride-hailing companies to provide discounts to certain trips within Oak Park with electric vehicles.
Advantages:
• Allows the Village to increase trips in electric vehicles without an investment in infrastructure.
• Utilizes existing ride-hailing services.
• Provides an incentive for ride-hailing drivers to invest in electric vehicles and provides additional revenue to ride-hailing drivers who have made an investment in electric vehicles.
• Major ride-hailing companies have the systems in place to allow the Village to create a subsidy for specific types of trips and can provide accessible rides.
• This system allows the Village to set a budget and adjust the level of service based on that budget.
• Provides the Village with an opportunity to create branded signage and advertising of the discount, which could be posted in key locations (train stations, business districts, parking garages) and shared through other Village communication channels.
• This alternative could be operated in a pilot capacity as it would not require a long-term commitment and would be highly adaptable to changing budget, level of service requirements, and duration of the program.
Disadvantages:
• This alternative does not achieve the goal of alleviating traffic, as ride-hailing vehicles will need to circulate the Village waiting for rides.
• This alternative is limiting for riders who may not have access to smartphones.
• This alternative provides fewer opportunities for placemaking as these vehicles will not be conspicuously part of an Oak Park mobility program in the way a wrapped trolley or van would be.
• This alternative may not provide the desired wait times if the inventory of available electric ride-hailing vehicles is low.
• This alternative may limit accessible rides depending on the inventory of accessible ride-hailing vehicles.
Alternative 4:
The Board can direct staff not to move forward with an electric shuttle service.
Advantages:
• No budget or staff resources will be required to launch the service.
• Waiting to launch the shuttle may allow for future resources to come online, such as an increase in electric vehicles in the Pace Suburban Bus fleet or a renewal of Federal interest in and support of electric transportation.
Disadvantages:
• There will be no shuttle service in Oak Park at this time.
Anticipated Future Actions
Depending on the Board’s direction Staff will return with a proposed program design for future review. Depending on the Board’s direction, Staff will return as needed with necessary budget amendments or future budget year requests to fund the desired program.
Prepared By: Lindsey Roland Nieratka, Chief Sustainability Officer
Reviewed By: Jack Malec, Assistant to the Village Manager
Approved By: Kevin J. Jackson, Village Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Electric Shuttle RFP
2. EngageOakPark Electric Shuttle Report
3. TYLin Proposal
4. Electric Shuttle Feasibility Assessment