[Abner]

I think people can be excused for not noticing how many cars are on a train. It makes zero difference how many cars are on your train, as long as you can get on.

[OhioGuy]

I don't know why people don't figure this out.......I never ever went to the middle of the brown line as it was. It was always full of lazy people who just stood right by the top of the stairs.

I've never understood that either. I always go to the front car or the back car when I ride the red or brown lines too. I want good forward seating so that I can just stare out the window while we roll along and typically it's difficult to get the "good" seats in the middle cars of those trains. As you said, too many people are lazy when it comes to moving up/down the platform once they get up the stairs.

[Nowhereman1280]

The front car is the best, there are fewer people, the bums are less likely to go up there due to the proximity to the operator, and its got the smoothest ride since its in the lead. Though if you can get in the back compartment seats on the last car you have a sweet-ass view out the back.

[VivaLFuego]

Though if you can get in the back compartment seats on the last car you have a sweet-ass view out the back.

Amen, brother. It's the closest you can come anymore the rail-fan seat that got taken out in the 90s when they got rid of conductors. Oh the childhood memories of riding out to line terminals so I could get the railfan seat for the trip back... :whatthefuck:

[Haworthia]

The front car is the best, there are fewer people, the bums are less likely to go up there due to the proximity to the operator, and its got the smoothest ride since its in the lead.

My wife saw a guy get his iPod swiped (literally ripped from his hands) while riding in the front car of a Harlem/Lake branch of the Green Line. That was on Monday evening (7pm). I ride in the front car if it's late and I'm by myself, but the operators don't really monitor what is going on. Myself, I've been hit up for money on the first car. Maybe this is just the Green line? But the front car definitely makes for the smoothest ride. Riding in the rear car gives me motion sickness.:yuck:

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I actually have yet to see a crime occur whilst in the City of Chicago and I spend a lot of time in somewhat seedy areas like Rogers park.

The first car is also really fun in tunnels because you can look through the front window and see the ups and downs and corners.

[Mr Downtown]

And the first car gets served their drinks first . . .

[Marcu]

^^^ I actually have yet to see a crime occur whilst in the City of Chicago and I spend a lot of time in somewhat seedy areas like Rogers park.

The first car is also really fun in tunnels because you can look through the front window and see the ups and downs and corners.

The cops have been cracking down in Rogers Park around Howard the last year or so. I haven't seen that many cops in any Chicago neighborhood ever before.

[Abner]

^^^ I actually have yet to see a crime occur whilst in the City of Chicago and I spend a lot of time in somewhat seedy areas like Rogers park.


Huge difference between Rogers Park and Austin. I don't think I know anyone who rides the Green Line regularly during off-peak hours who HASN'T witnessed a crime on it.

[Haworthia]

Huge difference between Rogers Park and Austin. I don't think I know anyone who rides the Green Line regularly during off-peak hours who HASN'T witnessed a crime on it.

Amen to that. I used to spend a lot of time in Rogers Park and up to recently, I attended church in Austin. Rogers Park is a much better neighborhood at the moment.

I really want the CTA to put cameras on all the Green line trains. All the trains in system, actually. I understand the new cars that the CTA is ordering will have them. This is long overdue. There have been a number crimes that have been happening in broad daylight on the Green Line. I know people who have witnessed purse snatching, pick-pocketing, and a straight-up mugging. All during the day, all within the last six months! :(

[Nowhereman1280]

The cops have been cracking down in Rogers Park around Howard the last year or so. I haven't seen that many cops in any Chicago neighborhood ever before.

How recently? Because there has been a massive surge in crimes against Loyola Students over the past 6 months particularly West North West of campus. Maybe that's why they are cracking down, Loyola carries a lot of weight with the city government. Example: Mundelein tower caught fire last year and 13 fire trucks, 10 cops, and 3 or 4 ambulances showed up and completely blocked off Sheridan Rd. This was a minor fire, worker threw a cig in a garbage can and started a room on fire. It was huge overreaction as well. When Loyola wants the city to do something, the city does it. I don't know why, it just happens that way.

Also, I know the Green Line Austin Area is much more dangerous the the Rogers Park area, I'm just saying that I'm surprised I haven't even seen a minor crime occur yet. I mean I saw 3 murder scenes while I going to school in Milwaukee and I move to Chicago and I haven't even seen a simple purse snatching.

[honte]

A good friend of mine (visiting) had a gold Thai chain literally ripped off of her neck on the Lake Street L. I felt so bad, because this is the only such incident I've ever witnessed here.

[Abner]

The Lake Street line is really out of control. There was a big wave of assaults on it a couple summers ago--not even robberies, some group of people just started randomly beating people. It doesn't seem like the police are attempting to do anything about it at all.

[Marcu]

How recently? Because there has been a massive surge in crimes against Loyola Students over the past 6 months particularly West North West of campus. Maybe that's why they are cracking down, Loyola carries a lot of weight with the city government. Example: Mundelein tower caught fire last year and 13 fire trucks, 10 cops, and 3 or 4 ambulances showed up and completely blocked off Sheridan Rd. This was a minor fire, worker threw a cig in a garbage can and started a room on fire. It was huge overreaction as well. When Loyola wants the city to do something, the city does it. I don't know why, it just happens that way.

Also, I know the Green Line Austin Area is much more dangerous the the Rogers Park area, I'm just saying that I'm surprised I haven't even seen a minor crime occur yet. I mean I saw 3 murder scenes while I going to school in Milwaukee and I move to Chicago and I haven't even seen a simple purse snatching.

That sounds troubling. Especially considering the gains that part of Rogers Park (along the Edgewater border) has made over the past several years. Let's hope it's not part of a bigger trend.

I was mostly referring to the part of the hood that's along the Evanston border off the Howard EL, which is quite a ways away from Loyola (I think 4 red line stops) and is for all practical purposes a different neighborhood. Not aware of any surge in crime there beyond the every day drug related activity that goes on. Think it may just be part of the CPD's new "flood a neighborhood and take it from the gangs one block at a time" program modeled after NY.

[Abner]

That sounds troubling. Especially considering the gains that part of Rogers Park (along the Edgewater border) has made over the past several years. Let's hope it's not part of a bigger trend.

Unfortunately, given the countercyclical nature of crime, it is pretty likely that there will indeed be an upward trend. But that would be a topic for another thread.

[Haworthia]

Unfortunately, given the countercyclical nature of crime, it is pretty likely that there will indeed be an upward trend. But that would be a topic for another thread.

As long as we focus on crime on the CTA or around the stations, we're on topic. This is a huge issue that damages transit ridership and urban living. People need to feel safe taking public transit. With the economy going south, I think we'll see crime going up in the near term.

[alexjon]

I've heard that when the economy turns south, people tend to become either visibly depressed (and therefore easier to surprise or take advantage of) or emboldened by desperation, and it feeds a cycle of abuse among people, especially in highly social situations like transit riding.

But only having visited Chicago a few times, I am not entirely certain of the mindset of the people there-- does that sound like the common theme in upticks in crime? When there are high-tension moments, like economic downturn or extreme weather, does crime jump there?

[Soaring_Higher]

I've heard that when the economy turns south, people tend to become either visibly depressed (and therefore easier to surprise or take advantage of) or emboldened by desperation, and it feeds a cycle of abuse among people, especially in highly social situations like transit riding.

But only having visited Chicago a few times, I am not entirely certain of the mindset of the people there-- does that sound like the common theme in upticks in crime? When there are high-tension moments, like economic downturn or extreme weather, does crime jump there?

yeah, when Bush won the election in '04 half the city went nuts. :yuck: I almost was thrown off a platform on the Brown line!

Also when the stock market was real down a few weeks ago a guy on the train said he was going to beat people up and steal their money simply because gas prices were so high, and his stock portfolio was getting hammered! It was crazy I tell you, crazy...

OK, on a more serious note... I am sure crime does go up when the economy is in the tanker, but I can't say I've ever personally noticed it in my short time on earth thus far.

Actually nicer weather creates more crime, because people are out more, and get themselves into trouble. From what I have heard, crime does go down the colder it becomes, but increases the hotter it gets. Now we are getting off topic!

[VivaLFuego]

^Street crime is much more of a problem in the summer months.

Security is a big issue for transit, and one of the biggest reasons that CTA ridership was decimated through the 80s and early 90s. Just as coverage over the past year has focused on how transit is slow/inefficient/incompetent, the nonstop barrage of media coverage in that era was about how crime-infested the system was. And all the actual crime happening on the Green Line, or the various gangfights on south side buses, sure doesn't help now either.

Having a copper (Huberman) running things is, intuitively, a good thing since he'll have experience and understanding of security issues. But like most things in transit, actual enforcement comes down to funding and priorities, which are much more political (Daley, City Council, Springfield) than technical (Huberman) in nature.

[Marcu]

^ It's very difficult to actually notice an uptick in crime since the likelyhood of becoming a victim or witnessing a criminal occurence is still very very unlikely. People tend to vastly overestimate very tiny risks (eg being killed in gang crossfire, terrorist attack) and underestimate great risks (heart disease, smoking). So even one news report of a violent crime occuring on the el can significantly lower ridership.

[Rail Claimore]

:previous: Another reason to quit watching TV.

[the urban politician]

Coming to the lineup: Metra stop at The Cell

April 7, 2008
BY GUY TRIDGELL Staff writer
White Sox fans clamoring for a Metra stop at The Cell, your wait is almost over.

Metra soon will begin seeking contractors to build a new station to serve U.S. Cellular Field and the Illinois Institute of Technology. Construction will start this summer. The station will open during the 2009 baseball season.
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/880933,0407metrasox.article[/

[jpIllInoIs]

http://www.nictd-wlc.com/

Northern Indiana Commuter Transit has updated it's website to include plans and maps of the Rail Expansion paln for Valpo and Lowell, IN.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Google, CTA teaming up to aid trip planning
Online site offers step-by-step travel instructions, plus photos

By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter
11:17 AM CDT, April 8, 2008

CTA customers can now use Google to plan their rides on trains and buses under an agreement announced Tuesday.

The new technology partnership between the transit authority and the Internet search-engine giant incorporates a trip-planning function with photographs of locations provided by Google's mapping service. The site is available at www.maps.google.com/chicago.

Riders can enter the start and end points of their trip, and the computer software will produce several itineraries to choose from. The agency hopes the service, which is being provided at no cost to the CTA will generate new ridership, President Ron Huberman said at a news conference Tuesday in the agency's headquarters at 567 W. Lake St.

"We hope people will see this as an alternative to find a faster way to work," Huberman said. The announcement was made in a CTA meeting room that was transformed into a sound stage, complete with loud, pulsating music, pyramids of large colored cubes in Google's color schemes, futuristic ergodynamic chairs and a large buffet table.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-cta-google-webapr09,0,3820867.story

[aaron38]

Riders can enter the start and end points of their trip, and the computer software will produce several itineraries to choose from.

I'll have to check that out. Half the reason I never take the bus in the city is that the routes are so cryptic and tangled, it's not a very easy system to jump into. It's easier to just walk a few more blocks to an El station.

I did notice though that on the higher zoom levels of the google maps, that they now show all the bus stops. Being able to map a trip with the transfers worked out is great.

[VivaLFuego]

http://www.nictd-wlc.com/

Northern Indiana Commuter Transit has updated it's website to include plans and maps of the Rail Expansion paln for Valpo and Lowell, IN.

This project is a textbook example of the silliness of having (state-created) agency-planning as opposed to regional planning, with Metra also working on a New Start for the "Southeast Service". Clearly, both SES and the Lowell NICTD branch aren't both justified; it's one or the other. But both studies are advancing in a vacuum assuming that the other doesn't exist.

Personally, I'd rather see the SES killed and both NICTD projects move forward, since the SES would cannibalize the grade-seperated electric treasure that is the ME.

[emathias]

I'll have to check that out. Half the reason I never take the bus in the city is that the routes are so cryptic and tangled, it's not a very easy system to jump into. It's easier to just walk a few more blocks to an El station.

I did notice though that on the higher zoom levels of the google maps, that they now show all the bus stops. Being able to map a trip with the transfers worked out is great.

I'm glad Google and the CTA are talking to each other, but "head-in-their-ass" Metra and PACE still aren't so regionally it's not as useful as it could be.

The RTA TripPlanner works pretty well, and has been around quite a while.

But, personally, I still prefer HopStop (http://www.hopstop.com/). If you put in the address for Wrigley Field and the address for Yankee Stadium, it tells you that in 16 hours and 9 minutes subways and Amtrak can carry you between the two - I don't know how useful that is, but it's damn cool anyway. :-)

[Mr Downtown]

Half the reason I never take the bus in the city is that the routes are so cryptic and tangled

I'm curious what you find hard to understand about Chicago buses. Setting aside the lakefront express buses, nearly all of them just run back and forth on the street for which they're named. Compared to most cities, with complex radial routes that wander through outlying neighborhoods, Chicago's bus network seems extremely easy to understand. In fact, it might be the simplest bus network (with more than five routes) in the world.

[jpIllInoIs]

This project is a textbook example of the silliness of having (state-created) agency-planning as opposed to regional planning, with Metra also working on a New Start for the "Southeast Service". Clearly, both SES and the Lowell NICTD branch aren't both justified; it's one or the other. But both studies are advancing in a vacuum assuming that the other doesn't exist.

Personally, I'd rather see the SES killed and both NICTD projects move forward, since the SES would cannibalize the grade-seperated electric treasure that is the ME.

I was thinking the same thing. The service areas are tight and definitely overlap.

I would rather see Metra put their resources to the Wadworth Line- which would paralell I-94 and have stops at Rondout, Western Waukegan, Gurnee, and Wadsworth. It would serve Abbott Labs, Baxter, Cardinal Health, Hospira, U-Line, Great Lakes Naval Base, Gurnee Mills, Great America, Key Lime Cove and the new Lakehurst devolpment which is to be TOD and retail. This would serve as an excellent reverse commute route to the Lake County Employment Corridor and would serve some huge tourist destinations. Gurnee Mills is the 2nd most popular tourist destination in the State and that was before this months opening of Key Lime Cove. :yes:

[VivaLFuego]

I'm curious what you find hard to understand about Chicago buses. Setting aside the lakefront express buses, nearly all of them just run back and forth on the street for which they're named. Compared to most cities, with complex radial routes that wander through outlying neighborhoods, Chicago's bus network seems extremely easy to understand. In fact, it might be the simplest bus network (with more than five routes) in the world.

Agreed, and it's simplicity (namely, you basically always know you can get from any point, to nearly any point in the city, with a total of 2 bus trips/1 transfer) is one of the reasons it's such a highly utilized system. It's not far behind Los Angeles for total bus ridership, though with Chicago's smaller population and much higher fares it means our utilization is significantly better. If only CTA got the same proportional operational subsidy as LACMTA (80% vs. 48%) ....

[VivaLFuego]

I would rather see Metra put their resources to the Wadworth Line- which would paralell I-94 and have stops at Rondout, Western Waukegan, Gurnee, and Wadsworth. It would serve Abbott Labs, Baxter, Cardinal Health, Hospira, U-Line, Great Lakes Naval Base, Gurnee Mills, Great America, Key Lime Cove and the new Lakehurst devolpment which is to be TOD and retail. This would serve as an excellent reverse commute route to the Lake County Employment Corridor and would serve some huge tourist destinations. Gurnee Mills is the 2nd most popular tourist destination in the State and that was before this months opening of Key Lime Cove. :yes:

This would be a great project, and I understand that some Lake County politicians are starting to promote it. Lake County has severe transportation capacity issues since the IL-53 expansion never got built, but the northern/western portions of the county continue to develop almost as though it had...here's hoping it starts getting put into the state/regional TIPs and enters the New Starts process, or maybe Metra could bond out its $100 million/year operating surplus to pay for a substantial portion of construction, along with a local temporary sales tax. Seeing as Amtrak already uses these tracks and operates on them at 90mph, I don't imagine this being a particularly expensive project...mostly station facilities, signalling, probably some sidings/special trackwork to help reduce freight conflicts, and some additional railcars. But in terms of ROW acquisition etc, this is almost a slam dunk, and as you allude to it would have to be one of the top riders-per-mile and rides-per-dollar commuter rail projects in the entire country.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ Yep, Amtrak does already run on these tracks. And if Amtrak added a stop at the Lakehurst/Waukegan or Gurnee station they would create an intermodal powerhouse. Intercity trains-Regional trains-Pace buses and dedicated shuttle busses. Milwaukee and Chicago Travellers would be able to reach all of the tourist destinations at Grand/I-94 as well as Great Lakes Naval Base. Commuters would have mass transit options to dozens of Corporate world HQ's. and for a very small investment compared to starting up a brand new line (SES)

[the urban politician]

This would be a great project, and I understand that some Lake County politicians are starting to promote it. Lake County has severe transportation capacity issues since the IL-53 expansion never got built, but the northern/western portions of the county continue to develop almost as though it had...here's hoping it starts getting put into the state/regional TIPs and enters the New Starts process, or maybe Metra could bond out its $100 million/year operating surplus to pay for a substantial portion of construction, along with a local temporary sales tax. Seeing as Amtrak already uses these tracks and operates on them at 90mph, I don't imagine this being a particularly expensive project...mostly station facilities, signalling, probably some sidings/special trackwork to help reduce freight conflicts, and some additional railcars. But in terms of ROW acquisition etc, this is almost a slam dunk, and as you allude to it would have to be one of the top riders-per-mile and rides-per-dollar commuter rail projects in the entire country.

^ Are these attractions/jobs at all near the railroad line? In other words, would one be able to walk to any of them if they got off at these stops?

[Taft]

^ Are these attractions/jobs at all near the railroad line? In other words, would one be able to walk to any of them if they got off at these stops?

Unless I'm missing something on this map, I don't think so:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.385303,-87.929335&spn=0.045075,0.079308&z=14

The various attractions along the line would probably have to run shuttles to and from the Metra.

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

^ Are these attractions/jobs at all near the railroad line? In other words, would one be able to walk to any of them if they got off at these stops?

Abbott Labs AND Baxter's McGaw Park campus both directly abut the railroad, so it would indeed serve reverse commuters well (these are major regional employers). The Lakehurt Mall redevelopment site is also very near the railroad, but I'm not familiar with the redevelopment plans (last I heard was "Walmart Supercenter").

Great America, Gurnee Mills, and the big Water Park are all about a mile west of the line, so a shuttle would be required to serve these; but it's well set up for a looping shuttle services.

Major trip generators all around, certainly moreso than say, the North Central Line or Southeast Line. After the STAR line (I-90 portion) and Blue Line extension to Oakbrook/Yorktown, it's the next best proposal being talked about in terms of serving transit-deficient employment areas. It also has the advantage of being relatively cheap.

[Abner]

After the STAR line (I-90 portion) and Blue Line extension to Oakbrook/Yorktown

Can you (or anyone else) say anything about the Blue Line extension idea? A lot of people in Oak Park are banking on that proposal to become reality to prevent a widening of the Eisenhower. As far as I'm concerned almost anything is preferable to interstate expansion, but I wonder how high ridership would be in that corridor and whether there would be issues with running a route that long.

[VivaLFuego]

Can you (or anyone else) say anything about the Blue Line extension idea? A lot of people in Oak Park are banking on that proposal to become reality to prevent a widening of the Eisenhower. As far as I'm concerned almost anything is preferable to interstate expansion, but I wonder how high ridership would be in that corridor and whether there would be issues with running a route that long.

It'll be an RTA project, and it's some ways away, but there seem to be alot of people pulling for it, particularly Oak Park, just about every planning agency, and a few DuPage groups.

That said, ALOT of people will be pulling for Ike-widening, including many DuPage interests, and some of those people, particularly in the construction/paving industry, have quite a bit of political clout. You better believe in these "tough economic times" there will be pressure for some major construction projects to "create jobs", and the standard way of doing that is roads and bridges, not rail lines. That, and many west suburbanites' constitutional right to unobstructed driving is being stamped on by the oppressive jackboot of the 6-lane Ike.

It will end up being an entirely political decision, like these things always are, and I suspect it will be pretty hard fought. It'll be intense because the condemnations would be happening in exactly the place (Oak Park) that seems to be solidly against such widening. So if the local reps are opposed, will the other interests still overide them? This is the type of thing where a strong and competent governor, with matching strong and competent house/senate leadership, would ensure a particular outcome. But given current Springfield politics, this might well be a major shitstorm.

Sometimes things break the right way (when the Crosstown money got spent on the O'hare extension and Orange Line, for example), and sometimes they don't (see I-10 in Houston, where they nixed a proposed commuter rail to add even more lanes in a widening project. 20 lanes wide: believe it.).

In terms of alignment and operations, I think it's a feasible project. Downtown to Oak Brook is about the same length as downtown to O'hare. The Congress Line is already very fast, making the trip to FP in about 25 minutes; now imagine the whole thing, all the way to Oak Brook, built to a 70mph standard, with half the trains terminating at Forest Park, half continuing to the terminal, and (key point) some sort of distance surcharge for trips that far west. This would be a two-way commute route, providing a fast reverse commute route for the unfortunate Chicagoans who have to survive the drive to Oak Brook every day, and there are a lot of them. It would also be additional parallel inbound-commute capacity to the jam-packed BNSF line and respectably-busy UP-W line; slightly longer travel time, given more stops, but also direct service into the heart of the Loop. It also would provide a laughably long direct connection between Oak Brook and O'hare Airport, but I wonder if many people would actually make that trip without a bathroom break. Obviously I haven't seen any ridership projections, but I think it could work quite well at least as far as Oak Brook (not sure about all the way out to Yorktown).

[Rail Claimore]

Oh the Ike will get widened to 4 lanes in the Avenues section. There's no way to do it otherwise when you consider the investment they made undoing the Hillside Strangler and pushing the jam further east. They had Ike-widening in mind when that project was planned.

That being said, if a blue line extension could be made a part of the deal (which I'm all for), both sides might get what they want, and everyone but Oak Park NIMBYs and BANANAs would be happy. But the only way to do both without taking in significant ROW would be to use the current blue-line ROW for expressway widening, then putting the blue-line in a subway or elevating it.

[VivaLFuego]

But the only way to do both without taking in significant ROW would be to use the current blue-line ROW for expressway widening, then putting the blue-line in a subway or elevating it.

Yeah. I wonder what the feasibility/cost of this would be. Would clearly be the desired outcome from Oak Park's standpoint, but I'm having trouble contemplating a staging sequence. Ideally (cost-wise) you could cut-and-cover the "subway" and build the roadway on top of it, but that would even further reduce capacity for several years during construction. The line won't be so highly utilized as to justify deep-boring tunnels. At-grade with crossings is out of the question. I suppose you would add an incline/portal to subway at Central, bore your way to Des Plaines avenue, and hope the pols come up with enough pork barrel money to pay for it. Then you can widen the expressway and rebuild all bridges and ramps after the old Blue Line is removed.

Around the avenues, I suspect the Ike could be widened just by eating up the grass embankment and adding retaining walls (rebuilding all the ramps too, of course).

But for some reason, I have a bad feeling the end result will just be a widened Ike with piddly transit improvements (e.g. some Pace quasi-BRT around Oak Brook).

[Rail Claimore]

Yeah. I wonder what the feasibility/cost of this would be. Would clearly be the desired outcome from Oak Park's standpoint, but I'm having trouble contemplating a staging sequence. Ideally (cost-wise) you could cut-and-cover the "subway" and build the roadway on top of it, but that would even further reduce capacity for several years during construction. The line won't be so highly utilized as to justify deep-boring tunnels. At-grade with crossings is out of the question. I suppose you would add an incline/portal to subway at Central, bore your way to Des Plaines avenue, and hope the pols come up with enough pork barrel money to pay for it. Then you can widen the expressway and rebuild all bridges and ramps after the old Blue Line is removed.

Around the avenues, I suspect the Ike could be widened just by eating up the grass embankment and adding retaining walls (rebuilding all the ramps too, of course).

But for some reason, I have a bad feeling the end result will just be a widened Ike with piddly transit improvements (e.g. some Pace quasi-BRT around Oak Brook).

From Austin to Forest Park isn't the tightest squeeze for that section anyway, but it's the section that voices the most opposition. From what I could see, the rail ROW there is still 4-tracks wide, so you could probably add an additional lane in that section with just some good engineering work. West of First-Avenue is the bigger problem. Even with 3-lanes each direction, the left shoulders are far from adequate. There would most likely be a rail or BRT extension involved with any type of capacity increase project on that section, simply because you'd have to take large parcels of land anyway. One row of houses on one side of the expressway would be enough for the additional lanes and tracks, so there'd be little reason not to extend transit services beyond Forest Park.

The question is one of balance. Widening to 4 lanes each way through Oak Park would reduce a good bit of the congestion associated with merging, meaning reduced emissions from vehicles for residents in the area. I don't see much induced demand in the equation considering it already goes through and connects areas that have long been developed.

I'd personally love to see the ramps for either Austin or Harlem Avenues removed completely, but residents probably want their access. Those interchanges handle an insane amount of traffic given their capacity. The part through Oak Park could also be capped pretty easily given the embankments. I suspect we'll see that thrown in to sweeten the deal for Oak Park and to silence the nimbys, meaning this is going to be an incredibly costly project.

[VivaLFuego]

The question is one of balance. Widening to 4 lanes each way through Oak Park would reduce a good bit of the congestion associated with merging, meaning reduced emissions from vehicles for residents in the area. I don't see much induced demand in the equation considering it already goes through and connects areas that have long been developed.

It's a good point, and ultimately would be deferred to CMAP (ne CATS) and the consultants who study the corridor. There may not be induced trip demand, but a potential 'concern' would be induced auto demand (e.g. shift away from transit) resulting from the reduced travel time of auto improving it's competitiveness with transit. i.e. it might induce a mode shift away from transit, and end up with the same socially-acceptable level of congestion, just with fewer transit riders. There would probably be all sorts of effects going, leading to some very interesting cost-benefit questions, e.g. quantifying the value of travel time, accessibility, air quality, etc., that will ultimately to our horror be completely meaningless in the context of it being a completely political decision anyway :)

The part through Oak Park could also be capped pretty easily given the embankments. I suspect we'll see that thrown in to sweeten the deal for Oak Park and to silence the nimbys, meaning this is going to be an incredibly costly project.

I wouldn't mind this entire corridor being our region's next mega-project, getting underway as the O'hare Expansion is wrapping up, but I do wish the Central Area would get some attention in re: the Circle Interchange bottleneck and improving access to/from the commuter rail stations. That whole vital issue hasn't seemed to be on anyone's radar lately, perhaps because it's such an enormous and terrifying gorilla (like the Howard/North Main/Red Line viaducts and stations) that people just like to pretend the need doesn't exist.

[schwerve]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28967

New CTA signs to monitor train arrivals

CTA President Ron Huberman says more than 1,300 extra-large digital screens are going up in rail stations and at subway entrances to give riders real-time information about how many minutes away the next train is.
...
Huberman says the first screens should be up in about four months.

[Abner]

Viva, thanks for that assessment.


That being said, if a blue line extension could be made a part of the deal (which I'm all for), both sides might get what they want, and everyone but Oak Park NIMBYs and BANANAs would be happy.

How does opposing interstate widening through a very densely developed section of one's town qualify one as a BANANA? The letters and editorials I've read in the Oak Park newspaper mostly oppose Ike widening because it will likely result in lots of demolition of good housing stock and because in the long run it will just induce demand until the expressway reaches its old level of congestion, except 33% wider. (I don't buy that this won't induce demand just because this section runs through already developed areas--for one, because people are mobile.)

On a related note, I would argue that Oak Park is not even remotely as NIMBY-controlled as most other suburbs (or even many Chicago neighborhoods). The local paper--which owns Chicago Journal, among others--is remarkably pro-development, and I think most people there would be happy to see more development if it reduces the fiscal burden residents have been facing the last few years.

[ardecila]

Regarding all the hand-wringing about ROW widths and takings - I still don't understand why nobody is considering a re-use of the CA&E right of way through Maywood, Bellwood, and Hillside for the Blue Line extension.

Following the I-88/Eisenhower corridor is not necessary between Forest Park and Oakbrook, since there aren't any office parks there. Basically, build the Blue Line westward along the CA&E until the Tri-State, where it turns south and runs down to I-88. That leaves plenty of room for highway widening without takings.

Between Harlem and Des Plaines might be a challenge, though.

[nomarandlee]

Seeing as Amtrak already uses these tracks and operates on them at 90mph, I don't imagine this being a particularly expensive project...mostly station facilities, signalling, probably some sidings/special trackwork to help reduce freight conflicts, and some additional railcars. But in terms of ROW acquisition etc, this is almost a slam dunk, and as you allude to it would have to be one of the top riders-per-mile and rides-per-dollar commuter rail projects in the entire country.

That would add frequancy (and congestion) to the rest of the MD-NL going south starting in Lake Forest right? You think there would be any complications either logistically or politically (NIMBY's waiting at rail road gates) with adding more Metra trains along the current line?

I like the idea of the extension as it would also mean increased frequancy I think for the southern portion of the MD-NL. I just fear that I think most of the Lake country towns still have some room for subdivisions that they will push to build as opposed to making TOD's out of new stops. It would be nice if the RTA had the power and clout to require TOD"s for new service.

[Nowhereman1280]

I think they should tear out 2 lanes on all the freeways to build a complete El system around the area, its faster than rush hour traffic now anyhow...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28967

Good news! I've been looking forward to seeing these kind of basic, noticeable improvements on the El for a long time!

[jamesinclair]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28967

Thank God that one city in the US is doing this.

In Boston, the head said the technology was available, and could be displayed on the screens already in stations, but that the riders didnt need the information.

WTF

[Mr Downtown]

Here's how it looks.

CTA Bus Tracker State/Roosevelt 62 NB (http://www.ctabustracker.com/bustime/eta/eta.jsp?route=62&direction=North%20Bound&stop=STATE%20%26%20ROOSEVELT&id=2353)

[VivaLFuego]

^ The BusTracker map is quite groovy.

There are still apparently some kinks to work out. I had occasion to use bus tracker on Western Ave... the software tracked the bus perfectly in terms of predicting arrival time, but when it showed up, it was a different bus number and was a route X49 rather than a 49 as displayed on my phone.

Still, progress...

[pottebaum]

Can it be accessed from non-smart phones?

[honte]

Bus Tracker is the bomb. That single feature might quadruple my use of the bus... I am perpetually arriving at the stop when the bus is pulling off, leaving me with a possible 30 minute wait. Good move!

[ardecila]

Can it be accessed from non-smart phones?

There are degrees of "smart". My Razr could access it, but I would have to pay my provider for internet access (which I don't do). However, the Nokia I had before probably could not access it.

[emathias]

I think they should tear out 2 lanes on all the freeways to build a complete El system around the area, its faster than rush hour traffic now anyhow...


Why would you tear out traffic lanes? What possible correlation would that have with a complete "L" system anyway?

I'm all for expanding the "L" system in a way that actually promotes a car-free lifestyle, instead of doing what planners seem enamored of now, which is expanding the "L" as a commuter system.

If the city were serious about having an international-level rail transit system, it would do six things:

1) Map out what they want the system to look like at full build-out.
2) Preserve all the necessary right-of-ways.
3) Rezone areas near existing and future rail lines to support the density necessary to support the full-built-out.
4) Prioritize the build-out by need/usage (in small chunks, if necessary)
5) Apply for/find the money.
6) Build it as they get the money.

They should NOT be changing it every 10 years. They can't plan everything, but the fact that they couldn't get the Clinton-Monroe-Streeterville subways done in the 1970s doesn't mean it should have dropped off the plan. If they had an overarching plan, they could just build what they can get the money for at a given time. In generous times, they get the money for expensive lines, in stingy times they build the cheaper lines.

They really have to identify what a full build-out will look like, though, because otherwise they'll constantly waste time and money doing alternatives studies and they won't reserve appropriate right-of-ways.

If they reserve the right-of-ways and zone to support transit, as they get money to build, they can create a great system that people use because it's convenient. Yeah, the financials for Paris or Madrid are different, but they have build-out plans that they can work toward. We don't - we let politics change ours every 10 years, which is absurd.

Perhaps for the centennial of the Plan of Chicago, the region can get serious about these things and create a plan for full build-out, including supportive zoning and ROW preservation, and then start working toward that instead of this hodge-podge of unrelated, only semi-urban projects that get approved not because they actually make sense, but because their total cost is cheaper. How could anyone actually say that extending the Yellow Line to Old Orchard is more important that a rail (or even BRT) link between the West Loop and Streeterville? More people would use the WL-Streeterville link in one rush hour than would use the Yellow Line extension in a week, but for some f-ed up reason the Yellow Line is being studied and the WL-Streetville solutions are barely talked about.

What a damn waste of time and money.

[VivaLFuego]

^ You're making the mistake of viewing the problem as a Transportation/Land Use Planning problem, and prescribing a Transportation/Lane Use solution.

It's all political.

Each disjoint planning board?
Appointed by different politicians from different levels of different governments.

Zoning decisions?
Decentralized to tyrannical Alderscum.

Funding?
Federal, State, Local....each with their own interests and guidelines.

Etc.

We need a flatter organizational structure, integrated transportation/land use planning, and elimination of our Aldermanic system... the latter with extreme prejudice and untamed retribution.

[Abner]

Viva, unfortunately Chicago seems like the last place in America that would institute any kind of smart government reform. (Okay, maybe Louisiana.) Portland we are not.

Bus Tracker is the bomb. That single feature might quadruple my use of the bus... I am perpetually arriving at the stop when the bus is pulling off, leaving me with a possible 30 minute wait. Good move!

Yeah this thing is amazing. It might actually induce me to get a new cell phone and contract so I can take advantage of it.

[ardecila]

Okay, maybe Louisiana.

The same state that is so backwards that they elected an Indian-American governor? (sure, he's a neocon, but at least he's not white)

[Rail Claimore]

The same state that is so backwards that they elected an Indian-American governor? (sure, he's a neocon, but at least he's not white)

His foreign policy and views on social issues aside, he's probably the best thing to hit Louisiana in a LONG time.

[Abner]

The same state that is so backwards that they elected an Indian-American governor? (sure, he's a neocon, but at least he's not white)

I wasn't accusing Louisiana of being backward, I was just noting that it is one of relatively few places in this country that might have more intragovernmental strife and corruption than Chicago, which suffers at the ward, city, county, and state levels. I don't want to drag this off the topic of transportation; mainly I was agreeing with VivaLFuego's point that the kind of long-range planning emathias outlined is not possible given our political system. I would also note that some other American cities are in a similar (but I would argue less severe) predicament.

[Marcu]

The same state that is so backwards that they elected an Indian-American governor? (sure, he's a neocon, but at least he's not white)

How does having a non-white governor make a political system not backwards. In fact, how is that relevant to anything? Frankly, the statement is kind of offensive.

Oh yeah and virtually every governmental body around here has people that are "not white" and believe me it's plenty backwards.

[Taft]

How does having a non-white governor make a political system not backwards. In fact, how is that relevant to anything? Frankly, the statement is kind of offensive.

Oh yeah and virtually every governmental body around here has people that are "not white" and believe me it's plenty backwards.

He was being sarcastic, basically trying to say that the state isn't backwards.

Everybody take a deep breath and try not to get so offended, as it seems like no-one here meant any offense...

Taft

[Dr. Taco]

He was being sarcastic, basically trying to say that the state isn't backwards.

Everybody take a deep breath and try not to get so offended, as it seems like no-one here meant any offense...

Taft

ah yes, saracasm...the least offensive of all forms of humor :rolleyes:

one things for sure, it doesnt have anything to do with the thread, so....

[Taft]

ah yes, saracasm...the least offensive of all forms of humor :rolleyes:

one things for sure, it doesnt have anything to do with the thread, so....

Was that sarcasm? I'm offended.

OK, OK...moving on...

Taft

[Dr. Taco]

^ haha, nice :cool:

[ardecila]

How does having a non-white governor make a political system not backwards. In fact, how is that relevant to anything? Frankly, the statement is kind of offensive.

Oh yeah and virtually every governmental body around here has people that are "not white" and believe me it's plenty backwards.

The fact that Louisiana, as a state with a large component of racism and white supremacy in its history, has elected an Indian-American governor tells me that they are being more progressive and are actively rejecting bigoted attitudes. "Progressive" of course is relative; I've honestly heard some people refer to Illinois as progressive.

Of course, if he was the only option against a "bleeding-heart liberal" (whatever that means) then his color might not matter.

(disclaimer: the above statement is not meant to be disparaging to Louisianans, Indian-Americans, or bleeding-heart liberals);)

[intrepidDesign]

Off topic, but has anyone seen any plans or rendering of the new transit station going under Block 37?

[the urban politician]

I'm all for expanding the "L" system in a way that actually promotes a car-free lifestyle, instead of doing what planners seem enamored of now, which is expanding the "L" as a commuter system.

^ As much as I'm a huge advocate of creating a car-free Chicago, I'll have to be of a devil's advocate on this one by making a small observation:

Cities respond to their needs. How high of a priority is it for Chicago to really have such an extensive transit system that even people out in the neighborhoods can easily get from place to place without a car? (of course, they can do that now by bus, but lets face it--a lot of people aren't fond of bus transit, me included)

Chicago's top priority has long been to keep its downtown the core of everything; and by doing so it has established its downtown as one of the world's leading centers of commerce; a very enviable position.

Now, as long as people continue to live further and further from the core, in the setting of limited transit funds, the city perhaps has 2 options:

1) Extend downtown's "tentacles" (commuter transit lines) further and further out to tap an affluent suburban population that is growing ever more distant

2) Make life better in Chicago's neighborhoods by creating more L lines and better connections between them.

So at this point, what is Chicago's bigger priority? People in the neighborhoods are still managing to get from place to place, often by car if not by cab, bus or bicycle. But if you cut the hand (commuter rail) that feeds your most vital asset (downtown), you're probably making a critical mistake.

That must be how the city's leaders have viewed this issue for a long time. Chicago is a very downtown-centric city in that way, more so than even New York, if you think about it.

[Marcu]

^ Good point. And the focus on maintaining a vibrant downtown business district has significantly contributed to Chicago's success. Especially compared to cities like Detroit that for the most part decentralized.

Chicago relies heavily on those far out exurban metra stations to keep its downtown vital. After all, the execs that actually make the decision to keep operations in the Loop are more likely to commute from Barrington/Lake Forest/St. Charles than from the Gold Coast. If Chicago shifts focus to a more internalized system that doesn't focus on bringing in the big shot business people that seem to keep moving farther and farther out to the loop, the businesses may leave. Outside of a few niche industries (eg futures), I just don't see Chicago having the kind of bargaining power at this time to alter residential settlement patterns. So should the RTA focus on improving the el system within city limits? Absolutely. But its in Chicago's best interest to also focus on the metra commuter aspects.

[k1052]

In a "transit development" I'm watching out my office window there are innumnerable EMS/Police/Fire/CTA personell helping people out of the Blue Line subway at Fulton and Clinton.

Reports are that a loop bound train broke down near Clark/Lake and several trains are trapped behind it.

[brian_b]

In a "transit development" I'm watching out my office window there are innumnerable EMS/Police/Fire/CTA personell helping people out of the Blue Line subway at Fulton and Clinton.

Reports are that a loop bound train broke down near Clark/Lake and several trains are trapped behind it.

Not again!

[emathias]

...
Cities respond to their needs. How high of a priority is it for Chicago to really have such an extensive transit system that even people out in the neighborhoods can easily get from place to place without a car? (of course, they can do that now by bus, but lets face it--a lot of people aren't fond of bus transit, me included)


Cities don't always respond to needs. Plenty of examples of negative-growth cities that focused on the wrong things.

Chicago's top priority has long been to keep its downtown the core of everything; and by doing so it has established its downtown as one of the world's leading centers of commerce; a very enviable position.


First, let me say I'm not approaching this from a city v. suburbs issues. I'm not talking about municipal Chicago, but about Chicagoland. By not educating people on the true costs of giving rail to places where it doesn't make any sense, everyone gets hurt through waste and inefficient transportation.


...
1) Extend downtown's "tentacles" (commuter transit lines) further and further out to tap an affluent suburban population that is growing ever more distant


This makes no sense because it's completely untenable in the long term. The ends of most of the metra lines are already at least 90 minutes from downtown, some are over 2 hours. People simply aren't going to commute any farther than that and, moreover, it's bad public policy to encourage them to commute farther than that.


2) Make life better in Chicago's neighborhoods by creating more L lines and better connections between them.


Yes. That's exactly what I'm advocating. Most of the things that caused the implosion of cities have stabilized, and now that we know what happens if we lose a grip on things like safety and whatnot, I don't see rapid depopulating really happening again in my lifetime (unless, perhaps, an economical flying car is invented).

Chicago is at a point where, in addition to being attractive for companies to locate in our downtown, and to people who want a nice surburban lifestyle (we have some of the best suburbs in the country) we need to continue to be attractive for people who want an urban lifestyle. Plenty of people who've been in the city for a while or who have no alternative are willing to take buses. But to really become the sort of urban city that can compete with the urban lifestyle of cities we like to compare ourselves to, we have to work on creating some sort of rail solution. Subways or "L" lines seem the best, although not the most economical, but smart planning with at-grade lightrail can add a lot of value a lot more economically. Chicago Avenue is a prime example of an east-west street that could handle a streetcar line, and that could make execellent use of it. With a little zoning help, Roosevelt could, too, as could Division and most of the Boulevard system.


So at this point, what is Chicago's bigger priority? People in the neighborhoods are still managing to get from place to place, often by car if not by cab, bus or bicycle. But if you cut the hand (commuter rail) that feeds your most vital asset (downtown), you're probably making a critical mistake.
...

I'm not saying CUT commuter rail, I'm saying stop EXPANDING it. People who commute into downtown from far-out stations mostly drive to those stations. Building the West Loop Transit Center includes adding a couple through-routed segments for Metra Lines, which would ensure existing Metra lines would have schedule capacity to increase at rate far in excess of their current growth for many years without adding new track miles.

As long as downtown Chicago remains the one part of the region that the most people can get to in a reasonable amount of time. Executives prone to pull their offices out to the suburbs will choose to do that no matter how far out commute rails extend, so now that things are relatively stable, the focus should be on attracting businesses AND attracting people to live in the city. The more people you have, the less they'll like living here if they have to rely on congested streets and slow buses.

The focus should be on increasing density around existing Metra stations, and adding rail capacity and increasing density in the core area (particularly the area described in the Central Area Plan). They go hand in hand, and while laisse-faire planning has some advantages, it doesn't do a great job of planning for the accomodation of transportation when you're trying to maintain a specific type of experience for your residents.

[VivaLFuego]

we need to continue to be attractive for people who want an urban lifestyle

Good luck with our current crop of alderman, they seem intent on making this a vertical Naperville. The only alderman that seems open to seizing development opportunity for densification is Burnett of the 27th Ward (see what he's doing with the North/Clybourn area and the bits of West Loop under his purview), but with Cabrini-Green gradually being removed, so is his power base and he'll too soon be replaced by a NIMBY slimeball in the guise of Fioretti or Reilly.


I'm not saying CUT commuter rail, I'm saying stop EXPANDING it.

Generally agreed in terms of extensions from the current termini, but what about new services like the Milwaukee Road North service to Wadsworth, the I-90 portion of STAR line service, the NICTD southward branches, etc? All serving fast-growing residential areas, the first two with significant employment as well, and it would provide direct accessibility to downtown Chicago to funnel workers in. I definitely buy into the argument that you want to maximize downtown Chicago's accessibility with radial rail lines; something on the order of 100,000-120,000 people commute to downtown Chicago each day by commuter rail, the downtown is dependent on it and better for that accessibility.

There are very few parts of the city that have the trip density to support rapid transit L lines that don't already have service. About the only example is the north lakeshore, and a lakefront subway isn't even on the long range plans anymore. That leaves some sort of downtown distribution system, and...anything else other than incremental improvements like the Red/Orange/Yellow extensions? I believe in terms of inter-neighborhood connectivity, Chicago would be much better served (almost infinitely more cost-effectively) by a significant BRT network; the grid system is perfect for it. BRT in Chicago would consist of signalling priority, next bus LED screens at each shelter, infrequent stops (at most ever 1/4 mile, preferably 1/2 mile where possible), wide-door and/or 3-door vehicles, and bus only lanes. High volume stops and transfer locations would have pre-paid boarding. On the wide streets such as Ashland/Western/North(west of Western)/etc, BRT could have dedicated center lanes with raised island platforms a la the streetcar days.

[Abner]

There are very few parts of the city that have the trip density to support rapid transit L lines that don't already have service. About the only example is the north lakeshore, and a lakefront subway isn't even on the long range plans anymore.

What about routes that would expand the usefulness of the current system, like the Mid-City Transitway? That particular idea also has the benefit of having an existing rail embankment to work with, though I'm sure it would still be outrageously expensive. It is probably true, though, that the future of rail rapid transit in the city looks more like the Orange Line and less like the Brown Line.

[VivaLFuego]

What about routes that would expand the usefulness of the current system, like the Mid-City Transitway? That particular idea also has the benefit of having an existing rail embankment to work with, though I'm sure it would still be outrageously expensive. It is probably true, though, that the future of rail rapid transit in the city looks more like the Orange Line and less like the Brown Line.

Tough to say; there would probably be decent ridership potential, as there are many cross-town trips made, but we're not talking anything like Red Line trip density, and many would still choose a more direct bus option like the X49 bus. The Cost-Benefit decision would probably come down to how much the line could be value-engineered to maximum cheapness, meaning no underground segments, spartan stations/intermodel facilities, etc. There are alot of factors in the cost-benefit analysis, e.g. 1) if you're actually inducing new transit trips or reallocating them 2) if any reallocation in part #1 is benefitical by easing peak crowding, 3) reducing auto-vehicle-miles travelled and ergo congestion and pollution, etc.

Of course, all kinds of L system expansion would definitely be worth doing if there were accompanying land use changes to increase density along the proposed routes. (Think major high-density nodes along Cicero on the west side, for example, at the intersection of the Mid-City, Green, and Congress lines, not to mention Jefferson Park). But back in reality, unfortunately that seems unlikely; wish I could be more optimistic.

Given current land use, I feel the only justified rail rapid transit expansions would be: the R/O/Y extensions to improve park 'n ride access for suburban commuters*** and improve accessibility to major employment centers already near L termini, and a downtown distribution system for the commuter rail stations, McCormick Place, and Streeterville. The only part of the city with significant enough non-downtown-oriented trip density for rail rapid transit is the north side, already served by Red and Brown Lines; all others, while utilization may be decent, could still be served capacity-wise by a quality BRT system.

***I've alluded to it a few times, but I don't think there should necessarily be hostility to park n ride facilities at or near terminal stations of the line. For starters, an auto trip intercepted and shifted to rail significantly reduces vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT): perhaps 20-30 miles auto miles are eliminated from their trip, helping congestion and air quality and downtown parking requirements. Additionally, a large enough parking facility can include some convenience retail such as dry cleaning, sundries or *gasp* daycare, which reduces the need for trip chaining and further reduces (VMT). Lastly, these far out locations by nature are generally not optimal as primary employment/mixed use districts, because of their overall inaccessibility relative to the rest of the transit system (Cumberland/Rosemont are exceptions because of their proximity to O'hare, I-90/Schaumburg and I-294/Northbrook). Park n Ride in some cases can improve overall system utilization while acheiving other important goals.

The Dan Ryan branch is sorely missing a major park n ride facility; apparently there were some mega-plans from the 70s to actually build a huge parking garage directly over the expressway at 87th or 79th, connecting directly to the transit station and potentially even with its own entrance/exit ramps. Never gonna happen now, and CTA couldn't even manage to get the planned PNR facility at 79th done for the Dan Ryan reconstruction. The prospect of adding a facility to the south side is to me one of the strongest justifications for the Red Line extension (in addition of course to serving an underserved dense area of town around 111th/Michigan).

[ardecila]

The CTA's April Construction Update mentions that the Polk Street entrance to the Harrison station will be re-opened as part of the Escalator Renovation project, and indicated that the work would be done this year.

The budget for this project is not on par with other complete station renovations, so I assume the re-opening will be bare-bones: probably just a good cleaning and maybe a fresh coat of paint. Obviously, the stairs to the street will need to be chiseled out again and railings/signage installed. The mezzanine level there is really only a hallway, so there's no room to install fare collection equipment. Thus, the exit will be exit-only.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-ia-railroadstudy,1,334942.story

Study says riders ready for rail service to Chicago
By NAFEESA SYEED | Associated Press Writer
3:49 PM CDT, April 18, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa - Proposed railroad service between Iowa City and Chicago would draw 187,000 passengers a year but would require about $55 million in set-up costs, according an Amtrak study released Friday.

Iowa and Illinois also would have to pay annual operating costs of about $6 million, the study said.

Amtrak conducted the study at the request of transportation officials from the two states.

The proposed route would go through the Quad Cities, then to Iowa City along tracks that run south of Interstate 80. The study's estimates assumed there would be two daily round trips.........................

[Abner]

Tough to say; there would probably be decent ridership potential, as there are many cross-town trips made, but we're not talking anything like Red Line trip density, and many would still choose a more direct bus option like the X49 bus. The Cost-Benefit decision would probably come down to how much the line could be value-engineered to maximum cheapness, meaning no underground segments, spartan stations/intermodel facilities, etc. There are alot of factors in the cost-benefit analysis, e.g. 1) if you're actually inducing new transit trips or reallocating them 2) if any reallocation in part #1 is benefitical by easing peak crowding, 3) reducing auto-vehicle-miles travelled and ergo congestion and pollution, etc.

Viva, there is some blog entry here (http://razetheladder.blogspot.com/2007/02/paving-over-mid-city-transitway.html) that claims that a city-commissioned 2005 study found that the Mid-City Transitway might attract about 90,000 riders a day. I haven't seen that report, do you know if there is any truth to it? Chicago-l.org also remarks (http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/2020plan.html) that the line has a "high" projected ridership. If it were true, that would be a pretty high number, although of course it would also be a very long (22-mile) line so I don't know about trip density.

I agree with you about park and ride lots and BRT. Whenever I am on Western I just imagine what it would be like to have some kind of serious transit line along it.

[VivaLFuego]

Viva, there is some blog entry here (http://razetheladder.blogspot.com/2007/02/paving-over-mid-city-transitway.html) that claims that a city-commissioned 2005 study found that the Mid-City Transitway might attract about 90,000 riders a day. I haven't seen that report, do you know if there is any truth to it? Chicago-l.org also remarks (http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/2020plan.html) that the line has a "high" projected ridership. If it were true, that would be a pretty high number, although of course it would also be a very long (22-mile) line so I don't know about trip density.

I agree with you about park and ride lots and BRT. Whenever I am on Western I just imagine what it would be like to have some kind of serious transit line along it.

Let's just say that even I have seen a report on it, I probably wouldn't be able to divulge actual ridership projections :)

...but intuitively 90K seems a bit high unless there were also some sympathetic land use changes. Also, there's the question of what counts as the "Mid-City Transitway": only the Cicero corridor up to Jeff Park? Including 75th between Dan Ryan and Midway? North from Jeff Park to Skokie?

I think it's a cool project, but as you allude to, some serious cross-town BRT on Western and Cicero could do a whole lot of good for a fraction of the cost.

[DaleAvella]

^
Now, as long as people continue to live further and further from the core, in the setting of limited transit funds, the city perhaps has 2 options:

1) Extend downtown's "tentacles" (commuter transit lines) further and further out to tap an affluent suburban population that is growing ever more distant

2) Make life better in Chicago's neighborhoods by creating more L lines and better connections between them.

So at this point, what is Chicago's bigger priority? People in the neighborhoods are still managing to get from place to place, often by car if not by cab, bus or bicycle. But if you cut the hand (commuter rail) that feeds your most vital asset (downtown), you're probably making a critical mistake.

That must be how the city's leaders have viewed this issue for a long time. Chicago is a very downtown-centric city in that way, more so than even New York, if you think about it.

Of course the so-called Circle Line would also nourish the downtown, more so I think that making the L lines longer, by creating density.

Do you think it is more common for a New Yorker to go from Brooklyn to Queens or the Bronx than for a Chicagoan to go from the north side to the west side or south side?

[jjk1103]

The CTA's April Construction Update mentions that the Polk Street entrance to the Harrison station will be re-opened as part of the Escalator Renovation project, and indicated that the work would be done this year.

The budget for this project is not on par with other complete station renovations, so I assume the re-opening will be bare-bones: probably just a good cleaning and maybe a fresh coat of paint. Obviously, the stairs to the street will need to be chiseled out again and railings/signage installed. The mezzanine level there is really only a hallway, so there's no room to install fare collection equipment. Thus, the exit will be exit-only.

...is there a link to the CTA monthly construction update ?

[jjk1103]

Let's just say that even I have seen a report on it, I probably wouldn't be able to divulge actual ridership projections :)

...but intuitively 90K seems a bit high unless there were also some sympathetic land use changes. Also, there's the question of what counts as the "Mid-City Transitway": only the Cicero corridor up to Jeff Park? Including 75th between Dan Ryan and Midway? North from Jeff Park to Skokie?

I think it's a cool project, but as you allude to, some serious cross-town BRT on Western and Cicero could do a whole lot of good for a fraction of the cost.

..you keep mentioning "BRT" ...I assume "RT" is rapid transit ...what is the "B" ??? :shrug:

[ardecila]

...is there a link to the CTA monthly construction update ?

http://www.transitchicago.com/news/motion/board/0804constructionreport.pdf

[VivaLFuego]

..you keep mentioning "BRT" ...I assume "RT" is rapid transit ...what is the "B" ??? :shrug:

Bus Rapid Transit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

In Chicago, such an implementation would generally consist of signal priority/pre-emption, more bus-only lanes (at least during rush hour), possibly some pre-paid boarding facilities, less frequent stops (generally every 1/2 mile, in some cases at most every 1/4 mile) possibly some raised island platforms on the wider streets like Western.

[harryc]

April 15 - one worker told me they were "replacing the station"
http://lh6.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvXumdgRZI/AAAAAAAAiuw/g954OaJtoNc/P1300399.JPG?imgmax=720

Caisson work
http://lh6.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvXwmdgRaI/AAAAAAAAiu8/7B8IwSYQAEc/P1300401.JPG?imgmax=720

http://lh5.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvXzWdgRbI/AAAAAAAAivI/gPP2foujafE/P1300402.JPG?imgmax=800

http://lh4.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvX2GdgRcI/AAAAAAAAivU/Y8iKlgkPaF8/P1300406.JPG?imgmax=640

Roomy workshop.
http://lh3.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvX32dgRdI/AAAAAAAAivg/jDxuiEcgE9g/P1300411.JPG?imgmax=720

embed beam - studs help concrete hold on.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvX8GdgReI/AAAAAAAAivs/gB7M202jcKc/P1300412.JPG?imgmax=640

http://lh3.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvX92dgRfI/AAAAAAAAiv4/uRK_P6yvki0/P1300414.JPG?imgmax=800

http://lh4.ggpht.com/harry.r.carmichael/SAvX_GdgRgI/AAAAAAAAiwE/abn-xr-RmSA/P1300415.JPG?imgmax=800

[OhioGuy]

Bus Rapid Transit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

In Chicago, such an implementation would generally consist of signal priority/pre-emption, more bus-only lanes (at least during rush hour), possibly some pre-paid boarding facilities, less frequent stops (generally every 1/2 mile, in some cases at most every 1/4 mile) possibly some raised island platforms on the wider streets like Western.

I'm still not a fan of BRT unless it's done like they did with LA's "Orange Line" with ticket machines on platforms and wide doors that slide open instead of the one small door entry at the front of a typical bus. When you have a large group of people needing to get on the bus and only one can get on at a time, it really slows things down. I hopped on the Chicago Ave bus to go from Michigan Ave to the brown line stop yesterday afternoon and I swear I could have walked there quicker than the bus got me there. It just took too long to get everyone on the bus at each of the stops along the way. I saw lights go from green to red to green to red to green before everyone was on the bus and it could proceed onward. But maybe I'm just too anti-bus. I can't stand the stops every 2 blocks, the slow boarding, the constant stoping because of traffic lights, the slowness that results from backed up traffic, etc....

Here's a pic that's posted on Wikipedia of LA's Orange line. It has three entries... you can see people getting on the bus at the back. Instead of slowing everyone down by forcing them to pay as they get on the bus in one entry point, this type of system really speeds things up. Plus of course the Orange Line has its own dedicated right-of-way that makes it great.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e7/LA_metro_liner_with_bicycle_rack.jpg/800px-LA_metro_liner_with_bicycle_rack.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Here's a pic that's posted on Wikipedia of LA's Orange line. It has three entries... you can see people getting on the bus at the back. Instead of slowing everyone down by forcing them to pay as they get on the bus in one entry point, this type of system really speeds things up.

That sounds familiar, oh wait that's right, we had that 70 years ago!

http://davesrailpix.com/cta/jpg/cta0212.jpg
davesrailpix.com

http://davesrailpix.com/cta/jpg/cta0364.jpg
davesrailpix.com

[VivaLFuego]

I'm still not a fan of BRT unless it's done like they did with LA's "Orange Line" with ticket machines on platforms and wide doors that slide open instead of the one small door entry at the front of a typical bus. When you have a large group of people needing to get on the bus and only one can get on at a time, it really slows things down. I hopped on the Chicago Ave bus to go from Michigan Ave to the brown line stop yesterday afternoon and I swear I could have walked there quicker than the bus got me there. It just took too long to get everyone on the bus at each of the stops along the way. I saw lights go from green to red to green to red to green before everyone was on the bus and it could proceed onward. But maybe I'm just too anti-bus. I can't stand the stops every 2 blocks, the slow boarding, the constant stoping because of traffic lights, the slowness that results from backed up traffic, etc....

Like I said:
- Pre-paid boarding in some locations
- Signal Priority
- Bus-only lanes


Here's a pic that's posted on Wikipedia of LA's Orange line. It has three entries... you can see people getting on the bus at the back. Instead of slowing everyone down by forcing them to pay as they get on the bus in one entry point, this type of system really speeds things up. Plus of course the Orange Line has its own dedicated right-of-way that makes it great.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e7/LA_metro_liner_with_bicycle_rack.jpg/800px-LA_metro_liner_with_bicycle_rack.jpg
[/qoute]
This is not applicable to the Chicago case, and by and large is a poor example of a BRT implementation. Why? It cost nearly a billion dollars. If one is gonna spend that much money on Right-of-way acquisition and station facilities, one might as well build rail. My general point is that substantial improvements to speed/reliability/etc can be made using Chicago's existing grid bus network with reasonable capital cost.

[Abner]

Viva, would you be able to give a more concrete vision of how you think BRT could be implemented on an existing street? Say, Western. Would you remove a lane of traffic in each direction and have BRT lanes in the median? Would the lanes have a curb or other barrier to prevent cars from using them? I would love to see BRT on major arterials but am curious about how you think it could be done safely in the space we have without drivers messing things up by being uncooperative. Obviously removing lanes would make some people go completely ballistic and treat BRT buses with even more disregard than they currently treat regular buses.

[VivaLFuego]

Would you remove a lane of traffic in each direction and have BRT lanes in the median? Would the lanes have a curb or other barrier to prevent cars from using them?

(1) Generally-speaking, no traffic lanes removed
(1a) Left-turns disallowed except at signalized intersections, employing a similar signalling technology as is used for street-running light rail.
(1b) Boarding islands would usually be on the far-side of the intersection, so as not to conflict with left-turn movements.
(1c) Where necessary, one side of street parking would be removed from the arterial. On the side where parking is removed, the sidewalk could be widened by a few feet to make the pedestrian experience next to high-speed autos less unpleasant. Many of the lost parking spots could be replaced by paving over the parkway for the first ~50 feet or so of side streets and providing diagonal metered parking.

(2) curb/solid barrier not necessary; reboundable lane dividers would suffice to segregate the center bus lanes.
http://www.ingalcivil.com.au/files/product_image/63.jpg
(randomly found via google images).
For something more permanent (and ready to totally ruin the suspension of an a-hole who disobeys), you could place the subtle and attractive little round concrete humps. Houston light rail:
http://images.nycsubway.org/logo/title-houston.jpg

The car-addicted would surely whine about the tragedy of slightly more difficult left turns, but a strong enough mayor could steamroll the transportation improvements through since most of these are ultimately his call; on most transportation issues, deference shown to Alderscum is out of courtesy and politically-suave ego-stroking. On certain streets, the state (IDOT) could potentially raise a stink, but that's why their concerns (generally focused on maximizing vehicle speed and thoroughput) will be accomodated with shared left-turn lanes, advanced signalizing, and no reduction in through traffic lanes.

[emathias]

(1) Generally-speaking, no traffic lanes removed
(1a) Left-turns disallowed except at signalized intersections, employing a similar signalling technology as is used for street-running light rail.
(1b) Boarding islands would usually be on the far-side of the intersection, so as not to conflict with left-turn movements.
(1c) Where necessary, one side of street parking would be removed from the arterial. On the side where parking is removed, the sidewalk could be widened by a few feet to make the pedestrian experience next to high-speed autos less unpleasant. Many of the lost parking spots could be replaced by paving over the parkway for the first ~50 feet or so of side streets and providing diagonal metered parking.

(2) curb/solid barrier not necessary; reboundable lane dividers would suffice to segregate the center bus lanes.

At what point do at-grade lightrail solutions come into consideration compared to BRT solutions? There is some overlap, but as you get more advanced and more efficent with BRT, doesn't the price differential approach equality at some point? Either one are usually less than half that of grade-seperated rail solutions even at their finest implementation.

[ardecila]

BRT is a bit more flexible than light-rail, which is the chief advantage of the technology. For example, a bus could use a BRT lane on King Drive to go quickly though the mid-South Side and reach Hyde Park/Kenwood, where it could leave the BRT lane and do a circulation.

Rail does not provide this flexibility, because every route change requires more rail to be laid.

[Nowhereman1280]

For something more permanent (and ready to totally ruin the suspension of an a-hole who disobeys), you could place the subtle and attractive little round concrete humps. Houston light rail:
http://images.nycsubway.org/logo/title-houston.jpg



Not in cold climates you can't. The reason they don't put those bumps on the road in the north is because you can't use snowplows if you have bumps. The bumps would all be scraped off after the first snow and you'd have to replace all the plow blades.

[VivaLFuego]

BRT is a bit more flexible than light-rail, which is the chief advantage of the technology. For example, a bus could use a BRT lane on King Drive to go quickly though the mid-South Side and reach Hyde Park/Kenwood, where it could leave the BRT lane and do a circulation.

Rail does not provide this flexibility, because every route change requires more rail to be laid.

Right. It also doesn't involve much ROW or other real estate acquisition like rail would, and has much lower infrastructure costs (power distribution).

^Nowhereman,
Good point on the bumps. I reckon if temporary lane dividers aren't enough, at that point it would probably just be a continuous concrete curb.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Or just giving the popo license to kill on anyone who drives in the bus lanes...

[emathias]

BRT is a bit more flexible than light-rail, which is the chief advantage of the technology. For example, a bus could use a BRT lane on King Drive to go quickly though the mid-South Side and reach Hyde Park/Kenwood, where it could leave the BRT lane and do a circulation.

Rail does not provide this flexibility, because every route change requires more rail to be laid.

This avoids my question.

Rail has a higher capacity than bus. Yes, bus can enter circulation, but don't more people convert from car to rail than car to bus?

Highly efficient design of primary routes can't be significantly different for bus vs. rail. Lightrail, especially trams, don't require much foundation, so adding the rails isn't a huge additional investment compared to only streetscaping to allow pre-boarding payment and other high-effiency solutions to make BRT better than normal buses.

So, again, where is the break-point between BRT and surface rail systems?

[harryc]

^^^ Or just giving the popo license to kill on anyone who drives in the bus lanes...

Big Brother & $$ --- in London their are traffic cameras monitoring the bus lanes. 2 different cabbies assured us that if you enter that lane you WILL have a ticket in your mailbox by evening, and it would double in 24hrs. The bus lanes had only buses in them.

[VivaLFuego]

So, again, where is the break-point between BRT and surface rail systems?
It is a very important question for any transit investment, but I think it's really location-specific; there's no universal answer. LA provides a decent example of a BRT implementation that might as well have spent a little bit more for LRT.

Another major cost factor to remember for LRT, in addition to power infrastructure and road foundations, is the vehicle requirement. Not only are LRT vehicles more than BRT buses, but they also require substantial real estate acquisition for a yard/maintenance facility.

I'm generally not a fan of LRT except in those few situations where both the capacity requirements and ROW constraints necessitate it. The capacity is only slightly higher than BRT (no reason you can't run a BRT line on, say, a 60-90 second headway), much less than heavy rail, with costs that are generally closer to heavy rail.

[Mr Downtown]

To add on to Viva's comments, LRT guideways have become unbelievably expensive. Though you might theoretically think the foundation requirements little different from BRT, any city that has built LRT has spent many millions on utility relocation and foundation work. Then there's the actual trackwork, overhead, and substations.

Besides being astronomically more to build, LRT costs more to operate, even on a place-mile or passenger-mile basis. The vehicles are hugely expensive and require more specialized maintenance. Maintenance of way costs fall on the transit agency rather than another unit of government.

When discussing LA, we should distinguish among the three types of BRT they operate. The 30-year-old El Monte line is a traditional busway, in which ordinary buses circulate for distribution at either end, but have a dedicated freeway lane for the line-haul part of the trip. The Orange Line is a pseudo light-rail line run with special buses on an old railroad ROW, but due to dangerous angled grade crossings the end-to-end speed is poor. Finally, the situation most applicable to Chicago is the network of RapidBus lines along Wilshire, Ventura, and East 6th. With limited stops and signal preemption, those achieve excellent schedule speeds and have been very successful. If I remember correctly, critics noted that RapidBus from Warner Center to Universal City would actually have had faster schedule speed than the Orange Line has.

[VivaLFuego]

When discussing LA, we should distinguish among the three types of BRT they operate. The 30-year-old El Monte line is a traditional busway, in which ordinary buses circulate for distribution at either end, but have a dedicated freeway lane for the line-haul part of the trip. The Orange Line is a pseudo light-rail line run with special buses on an old railroad ROW, but due to dangerous angled grade crossings the end-to-end speed is poor. Finally, the situation most applicable to Chicago is the network of RapidBus lines along Wilshire, Ventura, and East 6th. With limited stops and signal preemption, those achieve excellent schedule speeds and have been very successful. If I remember correctly, critics noted that RapidBus from Warner Center to Universal City would actually have had faster schedule speed than the Orange Line has.

Good point. When I used LA as a bad example, I was referring to the Orange Line. The "MetroRapid" grid network is actually almost exactly what I'm saying Chicago should implement in lieu of more heavy rail (with the latter only built if there are accompanying land use changes).

[emathias]

To add on to Viva's comments, LRT guideways have become unbelievably expensive. Though you might theoretically think the foundation requirements little different from BRT, any city that has built LRT has spent many millions on utility relocation and foundation work. Then there's the actual trackwork, overhead, and substations. ...

I think maybe I mean streetcars or trams, like the Portland Streetcars (http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/ ), more than I mean the kind of "lightrail" that, for example, Portland's MAX (http://trimet.org/max/index.htm ) is or that runs along the river in New Jersey, which really have more in common with something like Chicago's "L" than they do with streetcar trolleys.

Portland's streetcars are light enough that they don't usually require utility relocation according to their website - the track/bed is only 12 inches deep. Their original 2001 system cost a bit over $12 million/mile including including the purchase of the streetcars themselves and construction of island stations. Since then extensions to the system have cost everywhere from about $15 million /mile including additional cars, to $38 million/mile for a big expansion (doubling, basically), but that includes part of the route going over a large bridge. Each of the Czech cars they use can hold 140 passengers combined seated, standing, they're also narrow, which is good for tight streets.

The costs were low enough that the original build-out was funded by the city itself, with less than 10% of the source funds coming from the Federal government. With prices like that, I would think that the City of Chicago could find a way to put run a trolley from Humbolt Park along Division to the Gold Coast, and maybe one along Chicago Ave, too.

[Mr Downtown]

But how would a streetcar get around stalled traffic on Division? There's a reason streetcars in mixed street running survived nowhere except Toronto in North America. The experience is miserable for the streetcar riders creeping across town and for the drivers who get madder and madder because they can't get around the streetcar.

As for the Portland Streetcar, bear in mind that for a tenth of the capital cost, Portland could have bought a fleet of twice as many distinctive new buses and painted a big green stripe on the street so the line would have the same "visibility." And the operating costs for the buses would have been about half, meaning they could run twice as frequently. Let's hope the Portlanders waiting in the rain for the streetcar to arrive realize how lucky they will be to be eventually get to ride in a streetcar instead of a bus.