CHICAGO: Transit developments [Archive] - Page 21

emathias

Nov 29, 2007, 4:08 AM

:hell:

I'm so disgusted. I've been trying to defend the CTA from a friend of mine from Spain who can do nothing but criticize the rail system we use every day. He can't understand why such a prosperous nation can't make rail system that runs with comfortable quiet on-time trains. I try to say that we don't need to fix what's not "broken", but I have to agree. The money is there, its just that public transportation isn't prioritized. Its unbelievable that this plan failed as well. I actually hope that the operators will go on strike if it means that something will positively come about

Madrid has, in my opinion, one of the the best transit systems in the world. Barcelona has a great one, too, although Madrid's is really, really impressive. They're still expanding, but they already have the highest number of metro stations in Europe on a per-capita basis.

They also build their subway extremely cheaply. I don't know the geology of Madrid, but they're building out their subway for a mere fraction of what American subways cost to build.

If Chicago were serious about building a world-class transit system, Daley would pay Madrid transit's head whatever he wanted to come to Chicago for 5 years to remake the way Chicago does transit from the top down. Of course to do that, Daley would have to fight some politically difficult battles, but Madrid does <I>something</i> different and Chicago needs to learn what that is.

JV_325i

Nov 29, 2007, 4:10 AM

This is completely changing the subject and may seem trivial in light of the news about the transit funding plan not passing the house (which in spite of being totally fucking ridiculous I sort of knew was going to happen), but did anyone see that CTA "Holiday Train" or whatever they are calling it? Or rather did anyone see a similar one (I don't know how many they decked out). I was at the Damen blue line stop today and was waiting around for a while then lo and behold WTF is coming at me?! This thing had more lights and decorations on it than 100+ gaudy suburban homes put together. It was pretty impressive what they had done with it (inside and out). At least the CTA can have a little fun with itself even though their situation sucks ass. Sorry I don't have any pictures of it, but I had heard from someone on board that it was a "today only" deal which may or may not be true. Sorry also if this is a regular thing they do every year and you all have seen it before but this was the first time I have.

j korzeniowski

Nov 29, 2007, 4:20 AM

^ Yup. Just found the article.

The gas tax proposal was a long shot anyhow.

sorry, i have become so personally invested in this, and i have put so much of my free time into this, i was too disgusted to do anything but curse this state.

i really love chicago, but ... well, come on ...

ardecila

Nov 29, 2007, 4:41 AM

CDOT: Advance work for Grand/State Station Expansion begins 12/3

Starting Monday, December 3, the intersection of State Street and Grand Avenue will see temporary daytime closures through December. The closures will allow crews to perform underground utility work [in preparation for station construction].

One or two lanes on each street will be closed intermittently during daytime hours only, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. At least one lane will always remain open to traffic.

Lane configurations on both State and Grand will change every two days. Some sidewalk sections/crosswalks will be closed. All closures will be clearly marked with signs and barricades.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?topChannelName=HomePage&contentOID=536961838&Failed_Reason=Invalid+timestamp,+engine+has+been+restarted&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&Failed_Page=%2fwebportal%2fportalContentItemAction.do

Dr. Taco

Nov 29, 2007, 5:13 AM

Madrid has, in my opinion, one of the the best transit systems in the world. Barcelona has a great one, too, although Madrid's is really, really impressive. They're still expanding, but they already have the highest number of metro stations in Europe on a per-capita basis.

They also build their subway extremely cheaply. I don't know the geology of Madrid, but they're building out their subway for a mere fraction of what American subways cost to build.

If Chicago were serious about building a world-class transit system, Daley would pay Madrid transit's head whatever he wanted to come to Chicago for 5 years to remake the way Chicago does transit from the top down. Of course to do that, Daley would have to fight some politically difficult battles, but Madrid does <I>something</i> different and Chicago needs to learn what that is.

Honestly, that is such an absolutely great idea. They've got something that works, so why not bring them in and have them run the show? I'm sure there's got to be a really good reason why its so expensive to expand things here, but I'm so jealous of european transit. I can live with the CTA as its been, but if it can be better, why not?

BuildCTPlace

Nov 29, 2007, 6:07 AM

Montrose on Brown Line has reopened, and it looks good!

Photos from flickr
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2045/2066168069_799abf9328_b.jpg
User: vxla

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/2069504010_0ee0cbe96c_b.jpg
User: TheeErin

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2066171829_64749ed1f4_b.jpg
user: vxla

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/2066974104_78b4430c36_b.jpg
user: vxla
Wow check out that entrance. It looks too good for Chicago.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/2066969728_5cd8d8ccb9_b.jpg
user: vxla
Supposedly a mural of street names. This is what CTA capital funds buy you.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2371/2066955668_7bc7b33fbd_b.jpg
user: vxla

Attrill

Nov 29, 2007, 6:11 AM

transit plan failed.

fuck this state.

Wihtout a plan to fill the hole it left in the state budget, as well as some money for road construction to appease downstate politicians, it was doomed from the start. I was amazed it was talked up as much as it was.
The AP report that came out today about Blago lying about where the funds came from to avert the last doomsday plan probably didn't help either.

Marcu

Nov 29, 2007, 8:31 AM

Wihtout a plan to fill the hole it left in the state budget, as well as some money for road construction to appease downstate politicians, it was doomed from the start. I was amazed it was talked up as much as it was.
The AP report that came out today about Blago lying about where the funds came from to avert the last doomsday plan probably didn't help either.

They're all just playing games with each other. I'm getting too tired to keep up on who's trying to screw over who in Springfield. No one wants transit cut and no one wants to pay. Eventually, something will have to give. When it does, I'll start paying attention. Otherwise, I'll just be falling for their games.

VivaLFuego

Nov 29, 2007, 3:45 PM

Honestly, that is such an absolutely great idea. They've got something that works, so why not bring them in and have them run the show? I'm sure there's got to be a really good reason why its so expensive to expand things here, but I'm so jealous of european transit. I can live with the CTA as its been, but if it can be better, why not?

Guys, no offense, but you really just don't know how it works. You can't bring in some engineers from Madrid and have them make a system for Chicago. The legal environment here is just so drastically different: from a government/legislative standpoint, and especially from a labor (construction pricing) standpoint. The problems with the CTA are not due to uncreative engineers or administrators, but rather, as someone else pointed out, that public transit is just NOT a priority for legislators in this country. High ridership (fare revenue) and high subsidy make the operating environment for European transit agencies completely incomparable to US agencies, and further the priority given to transit projects over there makes the capital construction process much smoother and faster.

VivaLFuego

Nov 29, 2007, 3:46 PM

Supposedly a mural of street names. This is what CTA capital funds buy you.

I'd just like to point out that public art installations (something like 1.5% of the construction budget) are mandated by the federal government, so if you take any federal money for the project you have to do it.

emathias

Nov 30, 2007, 6:30 AM

Guys, no offense, but you really just don't know how it works. You can't bring in some engineers from Madrid and have them make a system for Chicago. The legal environment here is just so drastically different: from a government/legislative standpoint, and especially from a labor (construction pricing) standpoint. The problems with the CTA are not due to uncreative engineers or administrators, but rather, as someone else pointed out, that public transit is just NOT a priority for legislators in this country. High ridership (fare revenue) and high subsidy make the operating environment for European transit agencies completely incomparable to US agencies, and further the priority given to transit projects over there makes the capital construction process much smoother and faster.

There are things they do differently that can be done here. Period. There are things they do there that currently can't be done here, but could be done there with the right incentive. Period. There are things done there that won't be done here for a variety of reasons. Period.

I get tired of hearing that "it just won't work here" as an excuse to not even try.

The current failure of funding has little to do with the exorbitant cost of construction public works (not just transit) incur in Chicago. Some of that is due to political factors, some of that is due to the demand for construction services being very high right now, but a significant portion of it is due to things that can be improved through better integration. Things like a lack of coordination between the City and CTA when it came to permits for the Brown Line construction project. Things like zoning and transit not doing enough to account for each other. Things like the workers I saw for the Chicago Brown Line stop sitting in their trucks for hours on end day after day. Dollars add up fast when either project managers plan projects so poorly that men are left with no work to do, or when managers don't task employees properly, or if employees are simply alowed to be lazy (which of those is the explanation in that case, I'm not sure, but those are really the only three reasons I know of for workers to be on perpetual breaks).

Your whine about high subsidy in Europe is also a bit disingenuous since the CTA is nearly 100% subsidized for infrastructure, and probably over 70% subsidized for operations once you get into the real numbers and add back in things like the fact that the City pays for all security related to the CTA (of note, also, is that the public, RTA number of "53%" is PR bullshit - if you don't believe me, read the Auditor General's report from earlier this year).

High ridership is a valid comment, but that partly goes back to the failure of city zoning to support the use of transit by encouraging density nearest the best transit infrastructure. As long as groups like the West Loop association can browbeat an alderman into limiting density in one of the best-served transit areas in the city, transit in this city will never live up to its potential. The inconsistencies created by Aldermanic privilege does as much or more to hurt transit as poor funding does.

VivaLFuego

Nov 30, 2007, 3:54 PM

There are things they do differently that can be done here. Period. There are things they do there that currently can't be done here, but could be done there with the right incentive. Period. There are things done there that won't be done here for a variety of reasons. Period.

I get tired of hearing that "it just won't work here" as an excuse to not even try.

The current failure of funding has little to do with the exorbitant cost of construction public works (not just transit) incur in Chicago. Some of that is due to political factors, some of that is due to the demand for construction services being very high right now, but a significant portion of it is due to things that can be improved through better integration. Things like a lack of coordination between the City and CTA when it came to permits for the Brown Line construction project. Things like zoning and transit not doing enough to account for each other. Things like the workers I saw for the Chicago Brown Line stop sitting in their trucks for hours on end day after day. Dollars add up fast when either project managers plan projects so poorly that men are left with no work to do, or when managers don't task employees properly, or if employees are simply alowed to be lazy (which of those is the explanation in that case, I'm not sure, but those are really the only three reasons I know of for workers to be on perpetual breaks).

Your whine about high subsidy in Europe is also a bit disingenuous since the CTA is nearly 100% subsidized for infrastructure, and probably over 70% subsidized for operations once you get into the real numbers and add back in things like the fact that the City pays for all security related to the CTA (of note, also, is that the public, RTA number of "53%" is PR bullshit - if you don't believe me, read the Auditor General's report from earlier this year).

High ridership is a valid comment, but that partly goes back to the failure of city zoning to support the use of transit by encouraging density nearest the best transit infrastructure. As long as groups like the West Loop association can browbeat an alderman into limiting density in one of the best-served transit areas in the city, transit in this city will never live up to its potential. The inconsistencies created by Aldermanic privilege does as much or more to hurt transit as poor funding does.

Metropolitan transit subsidy per capita (e.g. per metropolitan resident) is typically 2-4 times higher in Europe than in Chicago. London is about twice as much (reflected in their very high fares), Paris is about 4 times as much. Yes CTA is subsidized alot, but it's subsidized a great deal less than European agencies, let alone even other USA agencies like MBTA, LAMTA, BART, which all have fare recovery ratios in the 30-35% range. NY MTA is supported by windfall bridge/tunnel toll revenue (thank you, Rockefeller), which is a major boon for capital investment projects. SEPTA has historically awful funding comparable to CTA, and shocka, they're always in crisis mode and getting dumped on by everyone (sound familiar?).

Construction contracts are awarded to low bidders for a fixed price (though subject to change orders, obviously). If a construction worker is idling, that's the contractor's problem, not CTA's, and in theory CTA is already paying the lowest price by having awarded to the lowest bidder (there is certainly room for graft involving sub-contractor selection in the procurement process; see Silver Shovel. But I've yet to hear any allegations, let alone substantiated allegations, in regards to the Brown Line project).

Marcu

Nov 30, 2007, 6:12 PM

emathias

Nov 30, 2007, 8:35 PM

Yes CTA is subsidized alot, but it's subsidized a great deal less than European agencies, let alone even other USA agencies like MBTA, LAMTA, BART, which all have fare recovery ratios in the 30-35% range. But I've yet to hear any allegations, let alone substantiated allegations, in regards to the Brown Line project).

Contractors don't usually lose money on public works projects. If they feel they can survive slack workers, I'd buy it being because of collusion pricing.

If you think the CTA's true fare recovery ratio is the publicized 53%, then you haven't read their actual budget numbers, and you haven't read the Auditor General's report from earlier this year. That 53% number discounts a broad range of things that are typically included in other agency's numbers. The true fare recovery ration for the CTA, if using industry-standard calculations is closer to 35%.

VivaLFuego

Nov 30, 2007, 8:59 PM

The CTA has essentially turned a blind eye to overwhelming evidence of bid collusion on several projects. When bids are coming in at 2 or 3 times over what was projected, there is good reason to investigate. The Grand reconstruction is a good example. Collusion is rampant in almost all municipal infrastructure, but not to this level. The markup is rarely this high.

In fairness, the Grand reconstruction was bid out and awarded by CDOT, not CTA (CTA's last construction contract snafu was the Brown Line, which was generally agreed to be bad cost estimating by the consultant rather than greedy construction contractors). Construction costs in general have been skyrocketing, so high bids alone don't necessarily point to collusion. And similarly, why would companies collude on a low-bid contract? How do they agree which company gets to win the contract by bidding low? And after that agreement, why wouldn't the others, with that knowledge, just bid $1 less than the agreed upon amount, thereby winning the bid for an identical profit margin? The low-bid system is sound at combating the incentive to collude, in my opinion (in contrast to the negotiated contract procurement method, which incidentally is what they used in Madrid). However, sub-contractor selection is much spottier and much more prone to corruption, in almost any form of procurement other than having the prime- and sub-contractors bid on the contract separately. (The "general public" would probably flip out if they knew the details behind the DBE/MBE/WBE programs for contract awards). If there is any collusion, it would have to be taking place at the sub-contractor level. But frankly, these issues are outside CTA's control, so is it really fair to blame CTA Construction/Engineering/Law/Procurement etc for them? Those folks aren't the ones making the rules or political environment.

Good points on the artificially low cost estimates of Euro and Candadian projects, too.

VivaLFuego

Nov 30, 2007, 9:06 PM

If you think the CTA's true fare recovery ratio is the publicized 53%, then you haven't read their actual budget numbers, and you haven't read the Auditor General's report from earlier this year. That 53% number discounts a broad range of things that are typically included in other agency's numbers. The true fare recovery ration for the CTA, if using industry-standard calculations is closer to 35%.

OK; fare recovery is closer to 40-45%, considering the city covers security services and advertising/investment revenues account for about 5% of operating revenues. So operational cost recovery is still 53%. But such scenarios and semantical distinctions are in play with all other transit systems, as well. CTA's operating subsidy per ride (ballpark of $1.30, if I remember correctly) is one of the, if not the, lowest in the country for comparable systems.

ArteVandelay

Nov 30, 2007, 11:22 PM

The CTA has essentially turned a blind eye to overwhelming evidence of bid collusion on several projects.

Do you have any basis for this statement or are you just throwing it out there with no backup whatsoever? Do you think there was collusion by the initial 2 Brown Line bidders, when their bids differed by about $100 million and both got thrown out? In the end neither of them took a single penny of Brown Line work. How about the Douglas Blue Line job in which you had three bidders in reasonable proximity? Do you even know if the companies working the Brown Line projects are making money doing so? I don't know the slightest information about Madrids transit system, or how they acheive the costs they do. I do know that the engineers estimates for infrastructure construction in the US and in turn Chicago is often dramatically off. I could get into the reasons if you would like, but there is no single simple answer. Working on an active transit system, in a union environment, with designs required to meet ADA approval, with all kinds of restrictions on impacting trains especially during rush periods is expensive, period.

You mentioned contractors sitting in their trucks - a couple things - as VLF said contractors are signed to lump sum contracts - their employees sitting around doing nothing is simply bleeding their bottom line, not the CTAs. That being said contractors are only allowed to work on CTA tracks with flaggers during weekdays between 9AM and 3PM, so as not to impact morning rush hour. Losing nearly 25% of an average work day most definitely impacts costs, and odds are pretty good this is not factored into an engineers estimate.

In the end, contractors will bid based on two things - what the job costs, and what the market will bear - based on how hungry they are for work and how hungry their competitors are for work. Contractors are in the business of making money, and making a profit on a job is not collusion but good business on the contractors end.

Marcu

Dec 1, 2007, 1:42 AM

^ First, I never said anything about contractors sitting on their asses. I think that was someone else. Second, the bids coming in for projects like Grand reconstruction warrant an investigation. The bids alone are sufficient evidience to dig a bit deeper. To press charges? No. Hence the investigation. CDOT has not given a sufficient reason for why the bids were 2 or 3 times higher than what was estimated.

I've worked in antitrust litigation. For most municipal projects, the bids coming in tell 90% of the story. You'd be surprised, however, how often municipalities put up road blocks to outside investigations or discovery requests for no clear reason or incentive. I won't speculate about the possible reasons.

jjk1103

Dec 1, 2007, 10:02 PM

OhioGuy

Dec 1, 2007, 10:15 PM

....I don't submit much in this thread because I don't know much about transit, but I think that maybe there should be two threads....one for true transit issues, and one to allow people to ventilate about the financing mess in Springfield....it seems that I have to go thru 20-30 posts to find one that has something to do with construction, etc....:D

Well hopefully the all of the f*ckups down in Springfield will finally get their acts together and pass a funding bill in the next month & a half so that this thread can go back to being more about construction & growth.

VivaLFuego

Dec 2, 2007, 2:03 AM

the bids coming in for projects like Grand reconstruction warrant an investigation. The bids alone are sufficient evidience to dig a bit deeper. To press charges? No. Hence the investigation. CDOT has not given a sufficient reason for why the bids were 2 or 3 times higher than what was estimated.

I'm not in construction, so I can't speak to any exact percentage impact on the construction cost, but the reasons given for the overbids were:

1. The estimate was based on the Chicago Ave. reconstruction, which wasn't an apt comparison because Grand is a much more constrained site with almost zero area for construction staging (a similar staff/consultant screwup as the original Brown Line estimations which were derived from the Blue/Pink station reconstruction costs).

2. An estimate that was several years old in a market where inflation in construction costs have been 5-10% year.

The estimate was something like $32 million. Project staging I could see easily adding 25% to the project cost, for the same reason as the Brown Line; you're limited in 1) how many workers can be out there at once and 2) the length of uninterupted time they have to work. Add a few years of inflation at 5% annually, and add a premium because of the shortage of construction crews in the city, and the $65 million low bid begins to at least seem in the realm of comprehension, if still a bit high.

Jaroslaw

Dec 3, 2007, 2:59 AM

An interesting point from MikeToronto about decentralized transit on another thread, encapsulates my own skepticism about the Star Line:

We already have that, and transit use to second-tier downtowns is not very high at all. The only one that achieves higher % of transit use is North York Centre. And even that one is only in the 20-25% range of people using transit to get to work.
De centralized mini downtowns in the suburbs, just do not attract ridership, because they are not central to the entire area. Vancouver has shown this, as they have promoted decentralization and town centres, and their transit ridership is the lowest of all the big Canadian cities.

Downtown Toronto has lots of room for more jobs. Last time I checked, downtown Toronto only had 400,000 jobs. Well below the level of downtown jobs in other big cities like Chicago(750,000), Paris(1 million), London(1 million), and ontop of that promoting job growth in the suburbs just increases sprawl. No matter what, commute times increase as jobs move further out, because jobs are not central to the entire region anymore.

The best thing to do is focus more on downtown Toronto, and on select subdistricts in Toronto like North York Centre, etc, which are still central.
That is the only way Toronto and other cities will see increased transit use.

I worked for the regional transit system here, and I alwys got customers who had to commute from one suburb to another, and often they would say the same thing "why can't this job just be in downtown Toronto". Many of these people live in the outter suburbs, and even they can tell that a job downtown is easier to get to, then a job in another suburb halfway across the region. Public transit can get you downtown within an hour or less from most points of the Greater Toronto Area. That is faster then you can get across the region in any sort of express transit.
We gotta move back to the centre to boost transit use.

Jaroslaw

Dec 3, 2007, 3:01 AM

<< The bids come in so high on transit work because all the contractors know that the city is not serious about keeping costs down. And bidders know just as well as the city does that construction costs will not affect the big issues that will sink the CTA; paratransit and the the legal framework of operations, union labor requirements, and an unmotivated work force will.

aaron38

Dec 3, 2007, 6:14 PM

VivaLFuego

Dec 3, 2007, 6:49 PM

A friend of mine was one of the first victims of the new winter parking ban, getting his car towed early Sunday morning from what he thought was a safe spot. It's going to be impossible to find overnight parking now, and I told him he's going to have to start taking the El if he wants to party in Lincoln Park, and he very reluctantly agreed.

Some people just refuse to give up their cars until the possibility of finding a parking spot reaches zero, or they get towed.

...or they could just pay for a spot in a lot/garage, i.e. paying the cost the driving/parking imposes on the system. Of course, if he's going somewhere to party, there may be legal issues with following that up with the operation of a motor vehicle (one of the reasons Chicago is a great party town: in addition to 24-hour transit, 24-hour plentiful cabs, the highest per capita in the US).

the urban politician

Dec 4, 2007, 2:27 AM

^ Yup. Cabs = great partying.

I know first hand ;)

emathias

Dec 9, 2007, 7:49 AM

the urban politician

Dec 11, 2007, 3:07 AM

zzzzzzzzzzz........

Eh?

Whatever..

zzzzzzzzzzz........

Dec. 10, 2007
Madigan proposes major gambling expansion
(AP) — House Speaker Michael Madigan showed his hand in gambling negotiations Monday, proposing a major expansion that would raise $1 billion a year through three additional casinos and thousands of slot machines at riverboats and horse tracks.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2007-12-10&id=27394

:sleep:

VivaLFuego

Dec 11, 2007, 4:05 AM

^ the 'insider' word on the Madigan proposal is that he put it out there knowing it would fail, just to say he tried. His plan is 1) too ambitious in seeking to reorganize gaming oversight for more accountability....why would legislators want that??? and 2) doesn't punish Chicago enough relative to the rest of the state. He proposes a significantly reduced license fee of only $200 million for the Chicago casino (which is actually necessary to make the thing financially viable in the first place), whereas the state was hoping they could connive Chicago into gifting them $800 million to conveniently plug a budget a gap (thereby also destroying Chicago's ability to successfully operate a casino, given Illinois' nations-highest 50% gambling tax rate on gross receipts). His bill also mandates a certain percentage of casino revenue set aside for school construction, particularly in "needy" areas with a firm 20% earmarked for Chicago Public Schools.

There is so much animosity going on Springfield. Chicago's only hope is to convince the rest of those assholes that they need us waaaaay more than we need them. Until they come groveling to Madigan and Daley for a deal, nothing good will happen. Madigan seems to get this, inasmuch as he was only really serious about trying to get the sales tax plan passed to fund transit operations (since thats what Chicago needs). Chicago doesn't need a statewide capital plan....the rest of the state, particularly the booming exurbs, need one like all hell: new schools and road widening. No rush for Chicago to bail them out by overpaying for a poorly-thought out casino. They know that's the only leverage they've got on us. But all Madigan has to do is make until January 1st, when a simple majority can pass a bill...and then dare Jones and Blago to let it die.

Alliance

Dec 11, 2007, 4:11 AM

Secede!

the urban politician

Dec 11, 2007, 4:26 AM

But all Madigan has to do is make until January 1st, when a simple majority can pass a bill...and then dare Jones and Blago to let it die.

^ That's a great point. It is becoming abundantly clear that nothing will happen until this 2/3 majority requirement comes to pass. Downstate has Chicago by the balls as long as their votes are needed to pass a bill.

My only question is, if a bill is passed in early January and Blago still vetoes it, what will happen?

VivaLFuego

Dec 11, 2007, 5:58 AM

^ That's a great point. It is becoming abundantly clear that nothing will happen until this 2/3 majority requirement comes to pass. Downstate has Chicago by the balls as long as their votes are needed to pass a bill.

My only question is, if a bill is passed in early January and Blago still vetoes it, what will happen?

The bigger question to me is, what will happen with the union, whose contract offer (with higher employee benefits contributions) expires Dec 31? "Job action"?

Madigan would be fine with Blago vetoing the bill; after all, Mike is thinking "Lisa 2010" for governor, so anything that gets Blago covered in sh!t is worth doing as far as Madigan is concerned.

Nowhereman1280

Dec 11, 2007, 6:05 AM

A. HELL YEAH, lets secede from those shitty downstaters...

B. What is that about Jan 1st and only needing a simple majority? Why is 2/3 required right now and what is it required for?

Marcu

Dec 11, 2007, 6:19 AM

the urban politician

Dec 11, 2007, 2:48 PM

B. What is that about Jan 1st and only needing a simple majority? Why is 2/3 required right now and what is it required for?

^ I believe that as 2/3 majority vote is needed to pass a bill while the State Legislature is not officially in session. I'm not clear on the reasoning, but my guess is that this protects us from abuse of power by preventing one Party from quickly meeting and passing a bill while the other Party is left out in the cold.

Madigan would be fine with Blago vetoing the bill; after all, Mike is thinking "Lisa 2010" for governor, so anything that gets Blago covered in sh!t is worth doing as far as Madigan is concerned.

^ At this point, I would take Lisa 2010 (if I had a vote), for the simple fact that I'll take consensus over the deadlock we've got going on in Springfield at this moment. If it takes a father-daughter relationship to get something done, then so be it..

VivaLFuego

Dec 11, 2007, 4:19 PM

^ Seems to me that all the animosity is between Chicagoans: Madigan (who's lining up his daughter for gov), Blago, and Emil. The downstaters and GOP suburbanites are waiting for the Chicago reps to implode to retake the governor's seat next election.

Downstaters really dislike Chicago, which is why they are willing to try to tank any transit funding measures (which they only refer to as a "bailout"). Meaning they won't even vote to support a regional sales tax that won't affect their taxes.

Chicago3rd

Dec 11, 2007, 9:45 PM

VivaLFuego

Dec 11, 2007, 10:52 PM

I am trying to figure out about the downstaters...

They are saying they want a bailout from Chicago because they cannot fund their roads? Isn't that a little hypocritical of them?

We need a Constitutional Amendment making it against the law for Chicago to bail the rest of the state out.

They need for Chicago to pay a huge license fee to have a municipally-owned casino. The fee, plus the tax revenue from that (as well as incremental tax revenue from expansion of existing riverboat casinos and installation of slot machines at racetracks), would pay for capital construction throughout the state. Or so the theory goes. So yeah, they need us, and need us bad, for that license fee and tax revenue. Let them come crawling and groveling. It's about time they stop getting away with portraying Chicago as the leech to their constituents.

Attrill

Dec 12, 2007, 1:57 AM

They need for Chicago to pay a huge license fee to have a municipally-owned casino. The fee, plus the tax revenue from that (as well as incremental tax revenue from expansion of existing riverboat casinos and installation of slot machines at racetracks), would pay for capital construction throughout the state. Or so the theory goes. So yeah, they need us, and need us bad, for that license fee and tax revenue. Let them come crawling and groveling. It's about time they stop getting away with portraying Chicago as the leech to their constituents.

I'm not a big fan of the casino proposal to bail out the CTA/RTA. Here's a good article (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26835) spelling out how the money brought in from a $1 billion casino in Chicago would likely be distributed. "Huge license fee" is right - $500 million huge! Maybe some would come back to the city, but not likely. Chicago is estimated to get $150 million, most of it going to the CTA.

ardecila

Dec 12, 2007, 4:34 AM

VivaLFuego

Dec 12, 2007, 5:05 AM

Has the CTA planned for a Blue Line overhaul like the Dan Ryan Branch got recently? Obviously, the ties are being replaced to remove slow zones, but station repainting and maintenance would go a long way also. Every time I drive past Cumberland or Jefferson Park on the Kennedy, I shudder at their sorry states of rust and peeling paint. The Red Line stations, with identical designs, now look gorgeous (which I never thought possible).

I don't know if the signalling or electrical supply systems need the rebuild that the Red Line facilities got - hopefully not, since it means less costs for the CTA.

The CTA describes a State of Good Repair as costing something like $6 billion. How can this cost be so high when the Green, Pink, and Orange lines were overhauled/built recently and the Brown Line is about to enter that category? I can't imagine the Yellow Line has huge capital needs with only two recently-rebuilt stations.

That leaves only the Forest Park-O'Hare Blue Line and the North Side Main Line with major capital needs. Of course, these are also the two busiest lines and the only lines with no downtime, but it shouldn't cost more than $2-3 billion total.

CTA has been repainting the Kennedy stations piecemeal. Some is being done in-house (Harlem was done recently, I think). Others, like Cumberland, are being bid out. I assume Rosemont will be too (really just a question of scale and scope).

It's amusing that no one ever talks about it anymore, but Aldridge is in the middle of a $180 million contract to replace the entire signal system on the Blue Line from Forest Park to Jefferson Park, as these were the last part of the system that had the simple block signaling as opposed to automatic train control (ATC)***. This contract started around early 2006 and is running until 2009, and has meant a ton of single-track operation late nights. I think some maintenance/upgrades to the power system are also part of the contract. The portion from Jeff Park to O'hare is, I guess, still in decent shape being under 25 years old.

The "state of good repair" estimate also includes the bus system, which is pretty substantial. CTA has 8 bus garages, about 4 of which are majorly inadequate for a modern transit operation (e.g. North Park and Forest Glen are a primarily outdoor "garages", Archer still has streetcar tracks running around, etc.). Obviously these facility costs are very large. "state of good repair" also assumes that every bus in the fleet is 12 years old or less.

But in terms of rail facilities projects that are NOT currently on the table in the planning or execution state (Subway ties, Loop signals), let's see:

North Main (red) - needs new viaducts and station renovations
Evanston (purple) - needs new viaducts, track components, and station renovations
Brown - Needs new track components (ties/rail/etc). Little publicized fact that the current Brown Line project isn't exactly a rehab: it's a federal New Start for new transit service (thank Kruesi for this, ditto the 54/Cermak branch which was even more of a stretch as a New Start). The project is to build new stations to increase capacity, i.e. provide new service. CTA was able to include structural work around the stations as part of the project, as well as "modifications" to the power and signaling systems to accommodate the "new service", but there wasn't a way to include track renewal. So yeah, the track needs to be replaced; particularly the ties, and I think in some locations it might still have the original running rail from 1907. There are already slow zones popping up on Brown that don't have anything to do with the station construction.
Loop - Needs new track components
Forest Park - Station renovations
Southside Green Line - Will need some track and structural work. Alot of this wasn't actually fully replaced in the 92-94 rehab and is beginning to show its age again.
Yards/Maintenance - Most of the facilities themselves are in decent shape, but most could use equipment modernization. For example I know there is a push to get more steel wheel truing/balancing machines, which majorly help in 1) providing a smooth ride and 2) less wear and tear on both tracks and railcar suspension components). Also, some yards need new/improved carwashes for railcar exterior washes. I'm sure there are others, but I'm not too familiar with the shop operations.

This is all assuming that renovating the downtown loop and subway stations will be the city/CDOT's responsibility.

Also, the rail fleet is very old by FTA standards, and even moreso considering how much time the cars spend outside in the cold and exposed to the expressway salt mist. The 406 Bombardier cars on order will replace the 2200s and 2400s by 2013. That still leaves 600 2600-series cars that were delivered in the early 80s, meaning 600 cars going on 30 years of age and in need of replacement for "state of good repair". That many railcars alone would be pushing $1bil.

Attrill

Dec 12, 2007, 7:12 AM

Also, the rail fleet is very old by FTA standards, and even moreso considering how much time the cars spend outside in the cold and exposed to the expressway salt mist. The 406 Bombardier cars on order will replace the 2200s and 2400s by 2013. That still leaves 600 2600-series cars that were delivered in the early 80s, meaning 600 cars going on 30 years of age and in need of replacement for "state of good repair". That many railcars alone would be pushing $1bil.

Have you seen anything about delivery dates for the first Bombadier cars? I remember hearing something a year or two ago about the Blue getting them in a few years, but nothing else for awhile. An d can they run with other cars? I thought they were going to be AC instead of DC.

VivaLFuego

Dec 12, 2007, 3:11 PM

Have you seen anything about delivery dates for the first Bombadier cars? I remember hearing something a year or two ago about the Blue getting them in a few years, but nothing else for awhile. An d can they run with other cars? I thought they were going to be AC instead of DC.

I think the prototype trainset will be delivered late '08 or early '09, and undergo testing throughout the system for 9-12 months, at which point full delivery starts (so, by late '09'). The first order would be complete by around the end of 2012 or early 2013, I think, but I'm not 100% sure.

The new cars have AC propulsion and on-board inverters to convert the DC power from the 3rd rail to AC power for the motors. Thus the new cars cannot be coupled with any of the old cars, but can run on the same power infrastructure (there will likely be some hiccups with the power and signal system that need to be determined and fixed during the prototype testing...the AC magnetic field may interfere with the signals in some locations, and it may be necessary to adjust the voltage on the 3rd rail).

aaron38

Dec 12, 2007, 4:38 PM

The new cars have AC propulsion and on-board inverters to convert the DC power from the 3rd rail to AC power for the motors. Thus the new cars cannot be coupled with any of the old cars, but can run on the same power infrastructure (there will likely be some hiccups with the power and signal system that need to be determined and fixed during the prototype testing...the AC magnetic field may interfere with the signals in some locations, and it may be necessary to adjust the voltage on the 3rd rail).

I'm an electrical engineer and this all seems very strange. From a black box perspective the cars should be externally identical, or at least thats how the requirements should have been written. Do the cars share power? Power converters should be able to handle that as well, and they should operate over a wide enough voltage range that the 3rd rail shouldn't need adjusting.
And I also can't imagine that the AC drives would have more EMI than the DC brush motors. AC drives are pretty quiet by comparison. It's surprising that signal equipment that works fine as a train goes by arcing on the 3rd rail would have interference from the AC motor or inverter.

I searched a bit for more information but didn't find anything usefull. Is there more info available, I'd love to read up on it.

Via Chicago

Dec 12, 2007, 4:39 PM

Transit Gridlock May Put Federal Funding At Risk
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-transpo_12dec12,1,1653420.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Metra Projects Could Lose Up To $1.5 billion
The legislative deadlock over state funding for mass transit may jeopardize federal dollars for major commuter rail improvements in the Chicago region, two Illinois congressmen and the head of Metra warned Tuesday.

Illinois could lose up to $1.5 billion for the proposed expansion of Metra service, including the suburb-to-suburb STAR line; SouthEast Service to South Cook and Will Counties; and expansion of the Union Pacific Northwest and West lines into McHenry and DuPage Counties, U.S. Reps. Mark Kirk and Melissa Bean said...

DHamp

Dec 12, 2007, 5:49 PM

j korzeniowski

Dec 12, 2007, 6:40 PM

^Is it wrong for me to secretly hope Metra loses that cash for the STAR line? It's not that STAR is a completely stupid idea. I could see it coming in handy. But I really think 1.5 bil could be better spent in Chicago for new CTA lines that would get much more use. Of course, if Metra were to lose that federal cash, it doesn't by any stretch mean CTA would get it: it would just be lost. But it's a nice thing to ponder.

well, i believe viva' said earlier that once metra got dragged into all of this (and it already has), that might wake up suburban lawmakers. so, let's hope something gets done.

the ineptness of this state's legislature is mind-boggling.

VivaLFuego

Dec 12, 2007, 6:41 PM

I'm an electrical engineer and this all seems very strange. From a black box perspective the cars should be externally identical, or at least thats how the requirements should have been written. Do the cars share power? Power converters should be able to handle that as well, and they should operate over a wide enough voltage range that the 3rd rail shouldn't need adjusting.
And I also can't imagine that the AC drives would have more EMI than the DC brush motors. AC drives are pretty quiet by comparison. It's surprising that signal equipment that works fine as a train goes by arcing on the 3rd rail would have interference from the AC motor or inverter.

I searched a bit for more information but didn't find anything usefull. Is there more info available, I'd love to read up on it.
Well, I'm not an electrical engineer. But,

not being able to be married to pairs of older cars I would assume is due to:

1) different control systems
2) different accel/decel characteristics. The DC motors basically just operate with different transformers to convert the power for different accelleration (hence the jerkiness: there's only 4 forward settings to control speed)

I don't think its the motors themselves that cause EMI issues, but rather the transistors/thyristers (not sure which the new cars use) that transmit power to the wheels. Additionally there might be some issues in the regenerative braking, which essentially converts the motors to generators (flipping the magnetic field) whenever the train is slowing down. None of this "advanced" (since the 1960s) technology has been operated on the CTA system to this point, in fact at one point there was a trial in retrofitting some of the older DC cars with choppers (to smooth out accell and decel) and regenerative braking, and there were all kinds of interference issues. Again, don't know the specifics of what was causing what, though...

aaron38

Dec 12, 2007, 6:52 PM

^^At this point I really don't care if Metra doesn't get Star Line funding. I don't think anyone's going to ride it. Nobody out in the exurbs is going to take a train from suburb to suburb. Hell, I'm probably in the top 1% of suburbanites supporting mass transit, and even I don't take Metra from Palatine to Arlington Heights or Park Ridge.
If I could take a train from downtown Palatine to downtown Naperville I MIGHT do that twice a year. But the star line doesn't go through downtown Naperville, or Glen Ellyn, or any other of the walkable communities.

90% of Star Line ridership is going to be suburbanites going to and from O'Hare, and for that there's a better solution.
Forget Metra, extend the Blue line out I-90 to Schaumburg/Barrington. That way there's still a western link to O'Hare, but the line doesn't end at O'Hare.

There are so many times I would have killed to be able to take the El from Schaumburg to Bucktown. I drive to Cumberland, and it sucks.
Right now, extending the Blue Line is the only thing that makes any sense.

OhioGuy

Dec 13, 2007, 2:44 AM

Brown - Needs new track components (ties/rail/etc). Little publicized fact that the current Brown Line project isn't exactly a rehab: it's a federal New Start for new transit service (thank Kruesi for this, ditto the 54/Cermak branch which was even more of a stretch as a New Start). The project is to build new stations to increase capacity, i.e. provide new service. CTA was able to include structural work around the stations as part of the project, as well as "modifications" to the power and signaling systems to accommodate the "new service", but there wasn't a way to include track renewal. So yeah, the track needs to be replaced; particularly the ties, and I think in some locations it might still have the original running rail from 1907. There are already slow zones popping up on Brown that don't have anything to do with the station construction.

I wondered about this. Since moving to Chicago last winter, I'd been frustrated with how slowly trains were moving along the tracks near the Addison station. I was assuming everything would speed up once that station opened from reconstruction last week. But unfortunately loop bound trains are still slowing down several blocks in advance of the station. I guess the quality of that portion of track is too poor to maintain a good speed. :(

ArteVandelay

Dec 13, 2007, 2:46 AM

I think some maintenance/upgrades to the power system are also part of the contract.

This project also includes a new traction power cables and breakers in the entire Dearborn and State St Subway. No substation work or contact rail replacement though. Many of the old knife switches were original to the subways construction - very scary to throw.

ardecila

Dec 13, 2007, 2:53 AM

^^At this point I really don't care if Metra doesn't get Star Line funding. I don't think anyone's going to ride it. Nobody out in the exurbs is going to take a train from suburb to suburb.

You're focusing far too much on the STAR Line (which is doubtful even if Metra DOES have the money because of CN's freight plans for the EJ&E). I'm far more worried about the SouthEast Service and UP-West/UP-Northwest expansion. These projects have the capacity to bring large ridership gains for Metra, and to improve trips for many current riders and secure their ridership.

Plus, SouthEast Service means a more vibrant and busy South Loop, since LaSalle Street will have two lines running into it instead of just one.

VivaLFuego

Dec 13, 2007, 5:36 AM

I wondered about this. Since moving to Chicago last winter, I'd been frustrated with how slowly trains were moving along the tracks near the Addison station. I was assuming everything would speed up once that station opened from reconstruction last week. But unfortunately loop bound trains are still slowing down several blocks in advance of the station. I guess the quality of that portion of track is too poor to maintain a good speed. :(

They do have some slow zones in place due to construction, because they managed to bundle foundation, bent, and flange angle repairs in with the station reconstruction, but to be sure there are also track slow zones, and they will only grow with time. I'm not sure how imminent a disaster on the order of the blue line is, but I hope the brass have something in mind so they dont cut the ribbon on the Brown Line project and have all the 8-car trains crawling at 15mph between gorgeous stations.

DHamp

Dec 13, 2007, 7:27 AM

well, i believe viva' said earlier that once metra got dragged into all of this (and it already has), that might wake up suburban lawmakers. so, let's hope something gets done.

I've been saying the same thing to anyone who would listen to me (usually that means just my wife). ;)

This is too often spoken of as a CTA problem -- "bailing out" the CTA. It's really a RTA problem. Reading complaints in local papers, I've noticed that even a lot of Chicagoans think that the City itself is supposed to fund CTA and that Daley and Huberman are pointing fingers downstate to distract from their own short falls. A lot of people are completely uneducated about the matter and that doesn't help the situation one bit.

I kinda wish the RTA employees would stage a one day walk-out on a weekday (not Friday), so that everyone can see that without transit, the economy of this entire state really comes to a complete halt.

headcase

Dec 14, 2007, 1:58 PM

Oh Boy ....

From CTA Tattler (http://www.ctatattler.com/)

December 14, 2007
There are no winners in a job action

Frankly, I'm speechless. (Or is it wordless on the Internet?)

I got a tip earlier this week that the unions would do their "job action" on Monday. But I didn't post it because I didn't believe it. At least, I didn't WANT to believe it.

I certainly understand the frustration felt by the unions. We feel it too.

"We want to make sure the public is aware of our job action ahead of time. We don't want to hurt the public," said Rick Harris, president of the union local that represents train operators.

OK Rick, we appreciate the notice. But really, do you think this will hurt the state Legislature? Force them to come up with a transit funding solution a week before Christmas?

I don't think so. All this job action will do is piss off riders and cause businesses to lose lots of money.

Nothing good can come out of either outcome.

the urban politician

Dec 14, 2007, 2:51 PM

My problem with the job action is that it will simply lead to more finger pointing, as opposed to accountability.

I can see Madigan or Blago, the day after the walk off, saying to eachother "see? That's what will happen if you don't support my funding plan".

What really needs to happen is for voters to rip these guys apart in the next election. And I'm still interested in the idea of recalling the Governor. His inability to build consensus makes him so dreadfully incompetent that he simply has to go.

aaron38

Dec 14, 2007, 3:36 PM

^^I'd vote for recall, and I'd be very surprised if the Boy Wonder runs for re-election. The walk-off is also a really bad idea because everyone has to get to work. If everyone who takes the train drives on Monday, they just might decide to drive on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday as well. They're going to lose riders.

Oh and Ardecila, thanks for the heads-up on the UP-NW expansion plans. Yes, that is a much better use of Metra funds.

OhioGuy

Dec 14, 2007, 6:06 PM

I actually was sort of hoping the job action would go through on Monday. I know it would cause a lot of *one day* pain for people, but maybe that's what's needed to get through to the stupid f&cking politicians in this state.

OhioGuy

Dec 16, 2007, 10:49 PM

Not sure what happened on the brown line today, but I was heading northbound and the train came to a stop for what seemed to be about 10 minutes just east of the Southport station. The conductor announced that we were being delayed due to an emergency ahead of us. Then we had to switch to the other tracks and make stops at the southbound platforms at both Paulina & Addison before switching back to the normal northbound tracks just south of Iriving Park. I did notice that no work was being done today to clear the snow away from any of the El stations, yet for some reason 6 or 7 CTA workers were clearing all of the snow off the Paulina northbound platform. I wonder if someone slipped in all of the snow & hurt themselves? I'm not sure why the CTA just allowed for the snow to sit on the station platforms all day long. If someone did slip & hurt themselves, I won't feel too bad if the CTA gets sued. They've allowed the stations to remain dangerously slippery all day long. Hell even I had some troubles getting down the stairs at Wellington earlier this afternoon because of all of the snow. I can't imagine how well a little old lady would handle it.

10023

Dec 18, 2007, 3:28 AM

VivaLFuego

Dec 18, 2007, 5:00 AM

I know it's off topic in this thread but can I just say how much I hate subway lines down the middle of expressways? You lose most of the benefit of mass transit in terms of creating a viable, high density urban neighborhood around the stations. I guess you do what you have to do to get from point A to point B when it's something like a line from downtown to the airport, but it would be great if there was another way.

Seemed like a good idea at the time, but after they built the first one in the mid-1950s (Congress Superhighway), decimating the ridership of the line it replaced in the process through a combination of bulldozing the neighborhood it served and making unpleasantly inaccessible stations, they should have gotten the clue rather than build two more. They also could have improved the next 40 years of existence a little bit by making the concrete retaining wall along the transit right of way on the Dan Ryan branch about 2 feet taller to eliminate the direct path from car/truck engine to the ear of the transit customer, but lets not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, we've got a highway to rebuild while blowing the budget by double....

the urban politician

Dec 18, 2007, 3:09 PM

^ Possibly THREE more, if the Red Line extension continues to run in the median of an expressway...

Mr Downtown

Dec 18, 2007, 5:27 PM

At the time, though, it was really the only practical way to extend the CTA system. New L's would have required very expensive ROW acquisition and would have earned the opposition of bungalow neighborhoods. And there was no way to pay for new subways.

k1052

Dec 18, 2007, 8:22 PM

^ Possibly THREE more, if the Red Line extension continues to run in the median of an expressway...

I think taking the extension down the Bishop Ford or Dan Ryan has been ruled out by the CTA.

DHamp

Dec 18, 2007, 10:07 PM

Dr. Taco

Dec 18, 2007, 10:19 PM

^ I've never seen the gray line proposal before. It looks great IF they include a free transfer to any other el line

ardecila

Dec 18, 2007, 10:33 PM

^It has according to the latest report. I think they narrowed it down to Halsted, Michigan ave., and along the UP railroad. Of those, I think Halsted is the best. However, running it directly above the street would probably anger residents, running it above one of the alleys on either side would require a lot of ROW acquisition/demolition and I don't know how residents would feel about that either, and subway would likely be prohibitively expensive.

The gray line (http://www.grayline.20m.com/), would be a better way to provide service to the far south, near south suburbs, as well as the south lakefront, in my opinion. We can only hope against hope (and it's not looking good).

Why not both? I guarantee that the UP alignment will be selected, if only to minimize costs and provide a park and ride facility next to the Bishop Ford. That UP alignment crosses the Metra/CN tracks (which would become the Grey Line) in Pullman. I'd love to see a large TOD district in Pullman that would spearhead the revival of the Far South Side (hopefully with a large affordable housing component).

I've mentioned this before, but I'd also love the East 63rd Branch of the Green Line to be extended to and take over the Metra South Chicago Branch. This would give the residents of the South Works an L line.

DHamp

Dec 18, 2007, 11:33 PM

I think UP is the most likely alignment as well. I just think of Halsted as being the best corridor if money were no object. Of course, money is a huge object, and given the factors, UP is probably the best option all things considered. I should have mentioned that before but I was typing in a rush.

Michigan Ave., on the other hand, seems to be a terrible corridor to me, I don't know how it made the short list.

I'd love to see both the Grey Line and Red Line extension, and I think both are absolutely necessary.

And to speak more generally, I think Chicago can have a world class transit system fairly cheaply by utilizing space next to or on existing freight and commuter rail ROWs. Chicago is built around these rails and public transit should take advantage. I'd love to see NO further expressway median L expansion.

Mr Downtown

Dec 19, 2007, 1:14 AM

pip

Dec 19, 2007, 1:34 AM

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

The State may buy Wrigley Field, how much a billion(?) and in addition spend hundreds of millions on a renovation of the stadium. They have already come up with a source on how to fund this in a few short days.

Hmmmm..........Wrigley Field or the CTA? Which is more important?

VivaLFuego

Dec 19, 2007, 2:01 AM

The UP ROW would serve the 115th/Michigan business district pretty well. The main goals of any extension should be to provide a park n ride facility and serve the only main employment and activity center in an otherwise sleepy part of town. UP ROW is probably the best of both and the cheapest, that is if they don't just upgrade to a serious BRT line along Michigan from 95th down to Altgeld.

Abner

Dec 19, 2007, 5:51 PM

Freight rail ROWs often have the same problem as expressway median ROWs: no one lives within walking distance. Follow along the Orange Line on an aerial photo. It's virtually all nonresidential uses for a quarter mile on both sides of the line.

It's funny how we feel the need to create engineering solutions to political problems. So we'll talk seriously about some expensive connection between the Green Line and one of the Metra Electric Lines, instead of just running the Metra Electric Line on short headways with regional fare integration.

But the Orange Line has the special case of largely running alongside an expressway, an industrial district, AND the river, putting it in an incredibly inhospitable environment for transit--and it is still wildly successful. There are a lot of freight corridors that are much more integrated with their surroundings, such as the tracks along 16th St., the Bloomingdale tracks, and the line along Kenton where the Crosstown Expressway/Mid-City Transitway were proposed. Some of those tracks could make great transit lines.

Running the Metra Electric with CTA-style headways makes so much sense it will never happen.

DHamp

Dec 19, 2007, 6:28 PM

VivaLFuego

Dec 19, 2007, 6:30 PM

But the Orange Line has the special case of largely running alongside an expressway, an industrial district, AND the river, putting it in an incredibly inhospitable environment for transit--and it is still wildly successful.

Yes and no. It is important to remember how much of the ridership on the line is generated at just a few stations, and that each park n ride facility is usually full by about 7 or 730am at the latest. Usually, the second to last stop (Pulaski) is where a standing load is reached; the end 2 stations on the line are responsible for over 50% of ridership (Midway station alone is 1/3). The Orange Line definitely has a strong market to support transit, but it's very far from ideal, since it has such a small walk-in market.

Clearly, to some extent there will be a cost/benefit analysis that measures the trade-off in costs vs. ridership potential for each alignment....construction and real estate costs being what they are, these freight alignments are probably what we have to look forward to for most future transit corridors.

Abner

Dec 19, 2007, 8:46 PM

Yes and no. It is important to remember how much of the ridership on the line is generated at just a few stations, and that each park n ride facility is usually full by about 7 or 730am at the latest. Usually, the second to last stop (Pulaski) is where a standing load is reached; the end 2 stations on the line are responsible for over 50% of ridership (Midway station alone is 1/3). The Orange Line definitely has a strong market to support transit, but it's very far from ideal, since it has such a small walk-in market.

Clearly, to some extent there will be a cost/benefit analysis that measures the trade-off in costs vs. ridership potential for each alignment....construction and real estate costs being what they are, these freight alignments are probably what we have to look forward to for most future transit corridors.

That's interesting. I often use the Halsted stop, which is busy most of the day; I'd guess that it's the busiest after Midway and Pulaski (and maybe Roosevelt). The park and ride stations may be full by 7:30, but in my experience the trains are still full well past 9:00. It's obviously not a neighborhood line, but it clearly takes a lot of people off the road over a pretty long distance.

Do you have any guesses as to what freight alignments may possibly be considered for transit at some point besides the Red Line expansion? I'm guessing that mayoral caprice will largely determine whether the city pushes for the Mid-City Transitway or the Crosstown Expressway. The Bloomingdale tracks are likely to become a park. Are there others that might enter consideration over the next decade or two?

VivaLFuego

Dec 19, 2007, 9:58 PM

That's interesting. I often use the Halsted stop, which is busy most of the day; I'd guess that it's the busiest after Midway and Pulaski (and maybe Roosevelt). The park and ride stations may be full by 7:30, but in my experience the trains are still full well past 9:00. It's obviously not a neighborhood line, but it clearly takes a lot of people off the road over a pretty long distance.

Do you have any guesses as to what freight alignments may possibly be considered for transit at some point besides the Red Line expansion? I'm guessing that mayoral caprice will largely determine whether the city pushes for the Mid-City Transitway or the Crosstown Expressway. The Bloomingdale tracks are likely to become a park. Are there others that might enter consideration over the next decade or two?

As percentages (these fluctuate throughout the year, so consider them approximations):
Midway - 33%
Pulaski - 19%
Western - 12%
Kedzie - 11%
35/Archer - 10%
Halsted - 10%
Ashland - 5%

Thus it's pretty clear that it really functions as a connecting feeder service to downtown for trips originating at least several miles from the loop.
Of course that still makes it worthwhile, though it would have been nice if it could have stayed along Archer between Western and Pulaski rather than veering off into never-never land to follow freight ROW.

In terms of future Chicago transit projects along existing railroad ROW, you basically know them already: Carroll Ave. transitway downtown, Mid-City Line, and the Red/Orange/Yellow extensions. I made the comment more in regards to transit projects in this country in general; the majority of new lines that don't seem to be following a frieght ROW are either street-running light rail, very short subways, and in NYC's unique case the Second Avenue Subway, the latter whose ridership projections are off the charts.

VivaLFuego

Dec 19, 2007, 10:06 PM

^In the case of the South Chicago Metra Electric Branch, I wouldn't want to see surface trains running down the middle of 71st street or Exchange Ave. every 5-10 minutes. That would stall road traffic during peak times on major thoroughfares like Stony Island and Jeffrey and create even more dangerous situations at all of the crossings. It'd be best to build a cut-and-cover subway line for CTA that runs the same route but underground. Population density is higher in South Shore than many areas that are serviced by 'L' with CTA-style headways so it's really a shame that residents there have to wait for one train per hour during off-peak times (and I speak from experience).

Of course, South Shore residents do have the #6, #26(peak only), #X28, and #14, the latter of which runs at peak hour headways of 2-3 minutes and gets downtown in about the same amount of time as a local all-stop Metra Electric train.

I agree with you about the concern of high frequency street running service along 71st and Exchange, but only in their current state which means grade crossings every 1-2 blocks and no fencing. Put up some serious fencing along the right-of-way, and remove grade crossings to half-mile only, and your safety situation in terms of train/auto/pedestrian conflict wouldn't differ all that much from peak hour on the BNSF line.

This is an issue that requires a strong RTA with some teeth to make happen. Part of the problem with the Metra Electric service is that Metra doesn't receive any of the transit sales tax which is collected in Chicago, all of which goes to CTA, and yet a large chunk of the ME (including the entire South Chicago branch) is within city limits. Metra operates it basically as a legacy service, surviving from when they acquired the ICRR's assets. The current situation is inefficient with duplication of service, but it doesn't make sense to remove the rail, not least of which since almost all the stations have been recently renovated or are in progress. The RTA should dedicate some of its discretionary operating funds to support higher-frequency service on the branch at the expense of parallel CTA service (since such a diversion would undoubtedly mean a reduction in the discretionary allocation to CTA). I think people tend to underestimate the cost of this, but its not insurmountable. The higher passenger loads would require conductors on every car, and of course more frequent trains means more operating engineers. The labor cost increases significantly, as does the capital cost in terms of the mileage being put on the railcars. Higher ridership also means higher maintenance costs at the facilities, potentially culminating in security/customer assistant staffing at most stations.

The flipside, from the regional standpoint, is the reduction in CTA's peak bus requirement (fleet size) and labor requirement for drivers and maintenance (with bus being less capital efficient in the long run than rail, assuming the rail is getting solid ridership).

This would absolutely have to be accompanied by some effort at serious fare integration, which again requires a strong RTA.

DHamp

Dec 20, 2007, 12:32 AM

^It seems to me that reducing crossings and putting up fences for the sake of increasing train frequency would severely cut down on the walkability of the neighborhood (a bad idea given that 71st Street and Exchange Ave. are also the main commercial routes) unless the city also builds pedestrian bridges every 1/8 mile -- which I don't see as feasible due to the height Metra's minimum airspace versus the relative narrowness of the streets.

Agreed. RTA needs to take a more direct role in managing it's individual agencies, rather than serving as more of an advisory board. CTA, Pace, and Metra should not be competing agencies. I would like to see fare integration with Metra, but I have a hard time figuiring out how it would work with CTA/Pace flat rates versus Metra's trip based fares. What I am sure about is that the south side neighborhoods near the Metra Electric and it's branches would be better served by CTA; not only for the more frequent trains but for the integration with the rest of the system. I tend to view rapid service as better for urbanized areas (be them in the city or not) and commuter rail for true suburban areas (like places with no sidewalks). These designations change over time and RTA's function should be to recognize and respond to that.

This is where RTA can step in. They can look at the situation with the ME ROW and decide it'd be better for the entire system to sacrifice a couple of tracks that now belong to Metra Electric for the CTA. Metra will no longer need to even post the horribly underused inner-city stops on their schedule -- only needing to make a few transfer stops between the Loop and the Burbs -- like McCormick Place, 55th-57th street and 115th. That would make Metra service faster and more targeted and provide 'L' service to places that really need it.

For all I know, this conversation may have already occurred and the problem is capital, as it always is.

Jaroslaw

Dec 20, 2007, 12:23 PM

This conversation has recurred a depressing number of times. The key objections to a gray line, aside from the techno-twaddle, are:

1. The Metra tracks N of 63rd are inconvenient to where the people live, aside from the existing HP stations. Between 47th and Michael Reese there really isn't any point in new stations, and Michael Reese itself loses the competition with the MLK buses.

2. Many people would be opposed to putting any of the well-run Metra infrastructure under the thumb of the, shall we say, less inspired management of the CTA.

VivaLFuego

Dec 20, 2007, 3:06 PM

2. Many people would be opposed to putting any of the well-run Metra infrastructure under the thumb of the, shall we say, less inspired management of the CTA.

They've got the cause/effect backwards. Operate Metra's assets as CTA-style service, and they'd turn to shit.

DHamp

Dec 20, 2007, 3:14 PM

^I have to disagree with you on the first point. There a plenty of residents to be service outside of HP along that route. The problem is the lack of fare integration between HP and CTA. If such existed, we could have buses treat that line similarly to the Red -- targeting the train stops and dumping most of its passengers, making for shorter trips for those who now ride the bus for miles to get to the red line and ride for many more miles. Also, I disagree that there is no point in new stations between 47th and Michael Reese. There are a lot of new homes and redevelopment happening in that area. I looked at a few homes in Bronzeville near the lakefront but opted against the idea partly due to no Metra Stops between 47 and 27th. I like trains and generally refuse to take buses unless it's a short connecting trip to a train. I prefer my transit to have it's own ROW.

On the second point, I agree. But I think CTA can change it's image if it is funded properly under it's new management. If so, I think people who live near those tracks would welcome the ability to ride without consulting a schedule.

Loopy

Dec 20, 2007, 5:20 PM

Some CREATE-related news:

CN chief pushes benefits of US$300M acquisition of Chicago-area railway
CHICAGO - The boss of Canadian National Railway Co. (TSX:CNR) is confronting opposition in suburban Chicago to the company's planned US$300-million acquisition of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., urging a focus on "broad rail transportation efficiency and environmental benefits."

CN chief executive officer Hunter Harrison said Thursday that the Montreal-headquartered railway is mindful of community concerns but believes debate has been too centred on potential adverse impacts on some communities rather than on public-interest benefits for the greater Chicago region.

Northwestern suburbanites fear noise, traffic jams at rail crossings and the possibility of train accidents under CN's plan to purchase EJ&E's lightly used rail line and ramp up traffic to relieve freight congestion inside Chicago.
More at: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7kKypv4_yBPT4SMldK_8vgn9sFA

Quit wailing, start seeing rail partnerships
The underused Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. has a suitor, flush with cash and willing to help fix the freight gridlock afflicting Chicago and the Midwest.

So what do Illinoisans do when they hear the Canadian National Railway wants to buy the EJ&E? They complain.
More at:http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=98020&src=

Jaroslaw

Dec 21, 2007, 10:17 AM

They've got the cause/effect backwards. Operate Metra's assets as CTA-style service, and they'd turn to shit.

I do think we agree. Management trumps assets.

DHamp, my sense of the location of the Metra stops is based on several walks from Hyde Park all the way to downtown. Add the fact that the south side arould the MLK is less dense and less congested than the north side, and that Metra terminates at Randolph instead of servicing the job-rich loop area with multiple stops, and the idea of commuting downtown from say 35th via a silver line stops making sense.

DHamp

Dec 21, 2007, 4:45 PM

DHamp, my sense of the location of the Metra stops is based on several walks from Hyde Park all the way to downtown. Add the fact that the south side arould the MLK is less dense and less congested than the north side, and that Metra terminates at Randolph instead of servicing the job-rich loop area with multiple stops, and the idea of commuting downtown from say 35th via a silver line stops making sense.

First: The Grey Line is an idea to run Metra Electric trains on Metra tracks but with CTA style headways and fares. The Silver Line is my feeble attempt at a proposal that runs CTA trains alongside ME tracks until it reaches the south loop where it flies over on the SCAL and connects with either the elevated loop or the State St. Subway. I'm not sure if you're using the names interchangeably. But if were are talking about the Grey Line: are you saying that the Van Buren and Randolph stations don't service the Loop? Tell that to the tens of thousands of daily Metra Electric commuters.

Second: Let's not continue to tacitly support the marginalization of Chicago's South Side. North Siders have the Purple, Red, Yellow, Brown, and Blue lines. South siders have the Red and Green (which run less than a half mile apart for much of the run) and the Orange line which (barely) services westernmost parts of the south side. The Silver/Grey line is simply a way to start to fix what's wrong with the city's rapid transit service. Put the transit with the faster headways nearest the densest populations (the lakefront).

I guess the conversation is: should transit be proactive or reactive? South Side lakefront communities are gradually turning around and growing in density and prosperity.

#1 Should mass transit be reactive and wait until the areas are filled out? Pro: Your rider base is already there and transit makes projected revenues from fares almost instantly. Con: Acquiring ROWs and construction can be much more expensive and disruptive.

#2 Or should mass transit be proactive and search for ways to anticipate the future needs of areas? Pro: Planning and building are cheaper/less disruptive plus transit presence combined with good planning can bring around and area faster than otherwise. Con: There is greater risk that ridership will not meet goals for a while.

I support option #2. What do you support?

EDIT:
Steely: If we're getting off topic, please don't delete these posts but rather split them off. This can be a topic called "The future of Chicago mass transit" or something.

VivaLFuego

Dec 21, 2007, 5:47 PM

Second: Let's not continue to tacitly support the marginalization of Chicago's South Side. North Siders have the Purple, Red, Yellow, Brown, and Blue lines. South siders have the Red and Green (which run less than a half mile apart for much of the run) and the Orange line which (barely) services westernmost parts of the south side. The Silver/Grey line is simply a way to start to fix what's wrong with the city's rapid transit service. Put the transit with the faster headways nearest the densest populations (the lakefront).

I guess the conversation is: should transit be proactive or reactive? South Side lakefront communities are gradually turning around and growing in density and prosperity.

#1 Should mass transit be reactive and wait until the areas are filled out? Pro: Your rider base is already there and transit makes projected revenues from fares almost instantly. Con: Acquiring ROWs and construction can be much more expensive and disruptive.

#2 Or should mass transit be proactive and search for ways to anticipate the future needs of areas? Pro: Planning and building are cheaper/less disruptive plus transit presence combined with good planning can bring around and area faster than otherwise. Con: There is greater risk that ridership will not meet goals for a while.

I support option #2. What do you support?

The south lakeshore from about 35th to 47th really lacks density to justify rail rapid transit***, and from 35th on north, the built areas are too far away from the rail ROW to gain significant market share (people would still just take the 3/X3/4/X4 instead). Upgrading the ME to higher-frequency service is most justifiable if it's being used to alleviate the inefficiency of running the south lake shore express buses (paricularly the #6 and #26, and to a lesser extent 2, 14 and 28) in addition to commuter rail. North of about 35th, rail in that location won't be able to compete with quality bus service along King Drive.

Either way, given scarce funding, it's hard to justify major expenses to change the status quo considering that transit demand is being met by current service capacity. I disagree that the south side is marginalized in regards to transit. Routes from the northside already operate at capacity in the AM peak, on a whole order of magnitude above the south side routes (with possible exception of the 14 running standing loads at 2-3 minute headways). The 22, 156, 134-136, 145-147 are all crushed during the peak despite tight headways of 4 minutes or less, with rampant bunching and buses leaving passengers waiting at stops (156 is a joke...they start short trips southbound at North Avenue because buses from Belmont are already full by then, and the thing is crushed with 80+ passengers by Division. They added 'supplemental' service to the 22 when 3-track started, but even though the effects of 3track have subsided they still need the extra runs for the 22 and the thing is still jammed by North avenue, with people letting 2-4 buses by before getting to board). The Brown line and Blue line from the north are almost unmentionably packed (load factor of around 2x capacity) by their peak load points a couple stops out from the Loop; the Red is jammed, but at least I usually only have to let one train go by when boarding at Clark/Division. The UP-N line is standing room only (I think maybe one or 2 inbound ME trains consistently reach that point, though the South Shore is packed too). From the southside, the Red Line has at most a standing load (not crushed), the green line is often a seated load. The only routes that see consistent passenger loads comparable to any of the northside are the 3 and 14, though at least several have consistent standing loads (6, 26, 4, 2).

In terms of priorities, the Grey/Silver Line concepts can't be very high on the list relative to the Brown Line capacity expansion, procuring more articulated buses, etc.

Regarding your 2 transit strategies, #2 is ideal for top-quality TOD but the reality in this country (in this era) is that transit capital projects always operate closer to #1. In olde tymes, private rail companies would team up with private developers to essentially create new TOD, with the rail line leading development (Brown Line to Ravenswood and Albany Park being excellent examples of this), but it also often didn't work out (such as with the original failed rapid transit services to Westchester and Skokie, which had 3rd rail transit running through corn fields basically). #2 may some day be possible if the country/state/region ever became serious about integrating land use and transportation planning, which until now have been remarkably seperate. The recent creation of a unified CMAP regional planning agency hopefully means that a decade or 2 down the road there will be better integration in this regard.

***note: as an anecdote, if you take 3600 N vs 4300S (equivalent distance from the Loop), the population in a one-mile radius is 3 times higher on the northside.

DHamp

Dec 21, 2007, 6:48 PM

The south lakeshore from about 35th to 47th really lacks density to justify rail rapid transit***, and from 35th on north, the built areas are too far away from the rail ROW to gain significant market share (people would still just take the 3/X3/4/X4 instead). Upgrading the ME to higher-frequency service is most justifiable if it's being used to alleviate the inefficiency of running the south lake shore express buses (paricularly the #6 and #26, and to a lesser extent 2, 14 and 28) in addition to commuter rail. North of about 35th, rail in that location won't be able to compete with quality bus service along King Drive.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Operating inner city ME stops as CTA with better headways can make both CTA and Metra more efficient. Metra Electric will basically run all trains express from the south suburbs and every Grey/Silver station becomes a transfer point for east-west buses. You adjust the whole system accordingly. If the X3/X4 will get you where you're going faster, you obviously take that.

In terms of priorities, the Grey/Silver Line concepts can't be very high on the list relative to the Brown Line capacity expansion, procuring more articulated buses, etc.
Absolutely. I'm not saying Grey/Silver should be the next thing on the docket. Improvement of what he have comes first. Then Red Line extension south to 130th. But it doesn't hurt to have a plan for meeting future needs.

***note: as an anecdote, if you take 3600 N vs 4300S (equivalent distance from the Loop), the population in a one-mile radius is 3 times higher on the northside.
Of course. The South half of that equation is largely transitional (former industrial use, former housing projects) and the North is long established.

ardecila

Dec 21, 2007, 11:04 PM

In olde tymes, private rail companies would team up with private developers to essentially create new TOD, with the rail line leading development (Brown Line to Ravenswood and Albany Park being excellent examples of this), but it also often didn't work out (such as with the original failed rapid transit services to Westchester and Skokie, which had 3rd rail transit running through corn fields basically).

The Skokie Valley and Westchester lines failed to direct TOD not because of their own fault, but because of the Great Depression and World War II, which really put a damper on the city's explosive growth during the 1910s and 1920s.

By the time those areas were developed, the 50s were well underway and they were filled with suburban-style houses. at a density level that could not support the kind of transit model which existed in the city. The Skokie line was re-imagined in the 60s into a park-n-ride operation, which proved to be a successful model for serving suburban-density communities.

Jaroslaw

Dec 22, 2007, 8:36 PM

The South half of that equation is largely transitional (former industrial use, former housing projects) and the North is long established.

Regarding the S side from HP to McCormick between MLK and the Metra tracks, there was hardly any industrial use there, and the only "housing project" there is a very recent mixed income community.

As I said, I've walked through there a number of times, and if there is one area in Chicago that doesn't need more transit in the foreseeable future, it's that area. Sell the land between the Metra tracks and LSD south of MacCormack to a Hong Kong developer with unlimited zoning (my quiet little dream), and I'll change my mind.

lalucedm

Dec 23, 2007, 3:16 AM

From the southside, the Red Line has at most a standing load (not crushed), the green line is often a seated load. The only routes that see consistent passenger loads comparable to any of the northside are the 3 and 14, though at least several have consistent standing loads (6, 26, 4, 2).

Sorry, had to weigh in on this. I realize people tend to exaggerate their own plight, but really...

I ride the Red Line north from the southside to Harrison everyday. It is most usually as crush-loaded as the brown line in from the north. In theory, its headways make it only a standing load, but in reality, those headways are rarely realized.

The green line in from the southside is actually pretty much a seated load, agreed. It's a very pleasant riding experience, if not the best use of CTA money to operate.

I might also note that the busiest bus route in the system, by a margin of 1.5:1 over the next highest, is the 79th Street bus on the southside.

DHamp

Dec 23, 2007, 5:02 AM

Regarding the S side from HP to McCormick between MLK and the Metra tracks, there was hardly any industrial use there, and the only "housing project" there is a very recent mixed income community.

As I said, I've walked through there a number of times, and if there is one area in Chicago that doesn't need more transit in the foreseeable future, it's that area. Sell the land between the Metra tracks and LSD south of MacCormack to a Hong Kong developer with unlimited zoning (my quiet little dream), and I'll change my mind.

Viva said "note: as an anecdote, if you take 3600 N vs 4300S (equivalent distance from the Loop), the population in a one-mile radius is 3 times higher on the northside." He didn't specify a western boundary. So let's just say the south branch of the river is the western boundary. There is plenty of former CHA and industrial land within those boundaries.

And I agree, the area between McCormick and HP doesn't need more transit (except for a stop at either 35th or 39th), but nearly everything HP and southward along that ROW does need more rapid transit. In order to get the more trains to Hyde Park, they have to pass through the McCormick area first. Get it?

Jaroslaw

Dec 23, 2007, 5:50 AM

HP may need more transit; the CTA could start by allocating bus capacity in line with customer use rather than ward politics. South of 59th density and economic activity drop off again quite a bit.

You're changing the terms of your argument. I get that. And I have a sense that you have some kind of ideological commitment to more transit in da' South Side, which makes it difficult to argue with you, so I'll stop here.

VivaLFuego

Dec 23, 2007, 8:13 AM

Sorry, had to weigh in on this. I realize people tend to exaggerate their own plight, but really...

I ride the Red Line north from the southside to Harrison everyday. It is most usually as crush-loaded as the brown line in from the north. In theory, its headways make it only a standing load, but in reality, those headways are rarely realized.

The green line in from the southside is actually pretty much a seated load, agreed. It's a very pleasant riding experience, if not the best use of CTA money to operate.

I might also note that the busiest bus route in the system, by a margin of 1.5:1 over the next highest, is the 79th Street bus on the southside.

Having lived on the southside and commuted to downtown for several years, then moving to the northside.....southsiders really don't appreciate what a "crush load" is on an L car. The way people cram on the Blue, Brown, and occasionally Red in the AM peak is ungodly and worthy of other continents.

#79 is of course the highest ridership route, but the 1.5:1 ratio is misleading if you bundle the 49+X49 and 9+X9 routes serving the same streets; doing so makes Western and Ashland both comparable to 79th, though 79th is probably tops in terms of passengers-per-route-mile. That said, ridership doesn't necessarily correlate to the average load on each bus. Many of the high-ridership but local routes, such as the 79 , have very short average trip lengths, so the load factors aren't particularly absurd, unlike the lake shore express routes. In contrast the #49 has high ridership and high trip lengths. Obviously, each of these services aren't quite directly comparable. If you look at the CTA ridership reports (http://www.transitchicago.com/downloads/ridershipreports/132346200710bus.pdf) the "Passengers per platform hour" gives a decent sense of how packed the buses would be as averaged across the whole day, but it doesn't really encapsulate the peaking effect of many routes (or routes with unusually high K and D factors, to use transportation engineering lingo).

Viva said "note: as an anecdote, if you take 3600 N vs 4300S (equivalent distance from the Loop), the population in a one-mile radius is 3 times higher on the northside." He didn't specify a western boundary. So let's just say the south branch of the river is the western boundary. There is plenty of former CHA and industrial land within those boundaries.
Give or take, this was calculated using a 1 mile buffer around:
3600N - 800W
and
4300S - 400E
The numbers came out to approximately 120,000 vs. 45,000, but I don't remember precisely, I don't have the calculations on this computer.

DHamp

Dec 23, 2007, 8:51 AM

You're changing the terms of your argument. I get that. And I have a sense that you have some kind of ideological commitment to more transit in da' South Side, which makes it difficult to argue with you, so I'll stop here.

You're right. And I wasn't changing the terms of my argument there, just responding to Viva's anecdote that didn't really correspond exactly to the issue at hand. I've lived in Douglas, Park Manor, and now South Shore. I am a proud south sider. When I was younger I used to take the #4 bus downtown and it would take FOREVER. I thought that's just how it was. Then when I got to high school I would visit northside friends and who lived blocks from the relatively speedy Brown Line. I hate that there is such a black and white difference between transit on the north and south sides. I started to look at transit maps and see that the CTA even left city limits to the north while the Red Line stops 5 miles short of the south boundary of the city. And I know there are population differences, I never said there weren't. But you can't tell me that socio-political influences haven't been involved because you can look back on the history of this city and race and class politics are all over where money gets invested in this city.

But I'm about moving forward, not looking back. And I think in the ideal situation, transit is out in front, anticipating demand and improving places by providing transit. I know it's not necessarily practical given the fact that we can barely get our stupid state politicians to send minimal funding to the RTA. But I think about it anyway.

Jaroslaw

Dec 23, 2007, 9:34 AM

-If there is a difference between north and south side transit, it is that the trains and maybe even the buses between the north side and downtown break even, and the trains and buses on the south side are losing money. Not everyone on the N side lives a block away from the brown line, for a fair comparison you should contrast the riding conditions on the brown line and the green line on the s. side. I'll stop here before it becomes too political.

Transit in Chicago (and even in a lot of NE Asia) is terrible at keeping abreast of existing demand, so to speak of "going in front of demand" is hopelessly and I'd say harmfully removed from the circumstances on the ground.

I'm as much in favor of more development on the south side as anyone, but upgrading transit is not the best way to do it. The recent murder of a U of C grad student a block away from campus is the kind of occurence that would negate even a maglev commuter line's influence on neighborhood development.

DHamp

Dec 23, 2007, 5:07 PM

I agree with just about all of that, but I'm going to have to make this real simple because you are content on completely missing my point.

1. Yes, south side 'L' reaps nowhere near the fares per ride as north side 'L'. It's due mostly to the fact that there is less density south in general AND south side trains go through a lot of industrial land (orange) or through low density areas (red and green). Also less percentage of people on the South have jobs that take them downtown every day. That's another issue so I'll leave it at that. I know all that, so it's no point in throwing that back at me in every post.

2. I know that not everyone on the North side lives a block from the Brown line. That was just an example. The Brown and Green are comparable in that they weave through neighborhoods. However, the green runs through a lot of bombed out neighborhoods with more empty lots than houses. Is that the CTA's fault? Not unless you're one of those people who blames the 'L' running over 63rd street for the high crime under it. I don't. I refuse to blame transit for the ignorance and violence of those who live near it.

3. Like the north side, the densest populations on the south side are near the lake. On the north, there are the red and purple lines. One the south the closest rail line is the ME. I have a belief that a 'L' line along ME's tracks would make better profits than any of the other south side 'L' lines because it would come to where more people are, generally speaking.

4. I know that transit in America in general does a terrible job of keeping abreast of demand; I just said it in my previous post. I'm speaking in terms of "if", and for some reason you refuse to acknowledge that. The real life CTA can't even keep it's existing infrastructure in good working order. I'm simply stating that IF CTA magically had the proper money to keep it's existing system in good repair, AND it had enough capital money to spend building new lines, the first things they should do are first red line extension, then MAYBE the circle line, then the grey/silver along the ME ROW. You can disagree with my list if you like. But if you don't want to indulge me in speaking on these terms there's no point in arguing with my ideas.

Tell me where you think the next new tracks should be if the rest of the system was in good order and there was extra money to spend. It's a hypothetical situation, yes, but that's what I'm talking about. If you don't think CTA should ever build new or extend existing lines ever again, say so. If you do think there may be a time and a place for new 'L', say that.

VivaLFuego

Dec 23, 2007, 9:39 PM

You're right. And I wasn't changing the terms of my argument there, just responding to Viva's anecdote that didn't really correspond exactly to the issue at hand. I've lived in Douglas, Park Manor, and now South Shore. I am a proud south sider. When I was younger I used to take the #4 bus downtown and it would take FOREVER. I thought that's just how it was. Then when I got to high school I would visit northside friends and who lived blocks from the relatively speedy Brown Line. I hate that there is such a black and white difference between transit on the north and south sides. I started to look at transit maps and see that the CTA even left city limits to the north while the Red Line stops 5 miles short of the south boundary of the city. And I know there are population differences, I never said there weren't. But you can't tell me that socio-political influences haven't been involved because you can look back on the history of this city and race and class politics are all over where money gets invested in this city.

But I'm about moving forward, not looking back. And I think in the ideal situation, transit is out in front, anticipating demand and improving places by providing transit. I know it's not necessarily practical given the fact that we can barely get our stupid state politicians to send minimal funding to the RTA. But I think about it anyway.
For what it's worth, I lived over 20 years on the south side and variously used the Metra Electric, #6, #2, #1, Green Line, and Red Line to commute. I don't think the south side is underserved by transit per se, but rather that the service that is there is not optimally located. The current geographic transit layout, throughout the entire metropolitan region, is routed as was appropriate circa 100 years ago (note how many obvious locations like the I-90 and I-88 corridors aren't really directly served, nor is the north lake shore). But the south side situation is very pronounced, with the two rapid transit lines less than a mile apart, and an oddly-functioning electric commuter rail line running at grade-level. To the extent that this imbalance is the result of 'socio-political influences', I think it has to do with the general lack of capital investment in south side real estate development for the past 40 years (South Shore last saw significant development around the 1960s, but other than Hyde Park there has been very little since then). This real estate stagnation, beyond simply not providing a critical mass of ridership to support a major re-work of transit service, also means that the existing services are perpetually underutilized with a few exceptions; the south side continues to depopulate, and hopefully the 2010 census will show the first leveling-off of this trend..

FWIW, the original plan for the Dan Ryan branch was to branch at 95th, running in the medians of I-57 and I-94 to 127th and 130th respectively, but there simply wasn't enough money to complete these at the time. There were alot of grand aspects to the project (for example: think massive multi-story park n ride facilities suspended across the Dan Ryan expressway) that didn't come to be because of the lack of funds. During the freeway building era, there were always ample federal funds available for road construction, but transit was trickier; in fact, Daley was adamant about the construction of the Dan Ryan rapid transit, making a personal call to Lyndon Johnson to make sure it got built before the Kennedy rapid transit line.

Had the original plan been built out, it would have meant even more expressway median rapid transit, which has since shown to be a very poor right of way to support transit, with low passengers-per-route-mile (to wit: The CTA maintained overall solvency, requiring no subsidy, until the opening of the Dan Ryan and Kennedy transit lines, which massively increased the car-miles on rail cars without a commensurate ridership increase to support the additional maintenance). So in the end, it may have been best to have waited all these years to get a Red Line extension that actually serves communities, rather than expressways.