CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

The online CTA map has also been updated to reflect the new Oakton yellow line station, as well as the new Morgan green/pink line station opening soon.

After seeing the new map and envisioning the next round of infill stations to be added [Cermak, Madison, Asbury, Division] my biggest question is; when should we expect a redesign of the L system map? The 'at scale' geographical map seems to be nearing its useful limits imo.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

when should we expect a redesign of the L system map? The 'at scale' geographical map seems to be nearing its useful limits imo.

hopefully never. i love the "at scale" geographic map of the el system and it seems nowhere near its limits to me.

[Mr Downtown]

Unfortunately, different departments at CTA have different map designs. In 1996, I designed the diagrammatic map, which has no real trouble with additional stations for now. Here's a version I use for other clients that has downtown integrated rather than as a separate inset:



However, others in CTA feel it's important for riders to know more exactly where the lines and stations are, so they use the one with the arterial street grid, which shows every jog and curve in the lines. Then there are the folks who make the signs for above the doors in the trains, who have their own ideas about how things should look.

Chicago is so relentlessly orthogonal that it's very hard to make a London-style diagrammatic map with distorted distances. We have an extreme number of downtown stations, and also expect all the Westerns and Ciceros to sort of line up.

[clark wellington]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Division on the Brown.

I'd like some additional infill stations on the Near South Side (besides Cermak Green) as it continues to grow over the next few decades. I'd love to see an Orange Line stop that's actually walkable, and it seems like Chinatown (Princeton?) or the South Loop (18th and Clark) could benefit from more rail transit access. A 26th Street stop on the Green Line might make sense too as that area gentrifies/densifies.

As an aside, I really think the South Side Green Line is one of the most underutilized assets Chicago has. Goes right through the neighborhoods with lots of close, walkable stops. Could be a major catalyst to development.

[ardecila]

Thanks, Mr. D! I've wanted to see a map without the annoying inset for years, and this is very well done. The way the Purple Line is truncated with an arrow is pretty clever. Plus, you resisted the temptation to put "Harold Washington Library - State/Van Buren".

There are a few instances of map bloat, unfortunately, but they're probably not your fault. Is it necessary to indicate accessible stations with a wheelchair icon that impairs legibility of the text, or is there a more efficient way to do it (I could see using a different station icon, for example). Park and ride icons are a similar issue, although they tend to be in outlying areas of the map where there is less congestion, so they could simply be set apart from the text.

Also, is it necessary to include branch names, especially for lines that terminate at the Loop? It makes sense for the Blue Line, which has two Westerns and two Harlems, and maybe the Green Line with its two Ashlands, but no other line has redundant stations.

[clark wellington]

Also, you haven't purged the Washington Red Line stop. Or is that on purpose to indicate that you still can cross transfer underground (but outside the turnstiles) via Block 37?

[emathias]

I don't recall seeing post-opening pics of the Oakton station yet, so here are a few I took tonight - sorry just camera phone pics (all photos by me).

If any of you venture out there, I can recommend Libertad for food, a nice "Latin fusion" (their description, not mine) place about a 10 minute walk west of the station. Nicer than I expected with great service.

Looking south to the exit from the platform


Downtown Skokie, about a 7-8 minute walk from the station


Almost gothic from certain angles


While I enjoyed my trip more than I expected I would, the siting is still not quite ideal in my book

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Also, is it necessary to include branch names?

That's a holdover from the transition to the color names. None of us thought "Ravenswood" would disappear from popular usage as quickly as it did.

CTA certainly doesn't make it easy on the mapmaker when it yields to nonsense like "Harold Washington Library Center/State & Van Buren." Or insists on calling Oakton "Oakton-Skokie."

The Washington transfer is my mistake. I no longer have the CTA map contract, so I only update and double-check the unitary map when I need it for a hotel or similar client. I added the new Skokie and Morgan stations but forgot to check the others.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Unrelated point, but there's one additional change to the CTA el map that's imminent, though not rail related:
That sexy giant new marina at 35th Street can be added to the coastline. It'll be a new point of pride for the city and a major physical feature in greater downtown's geography.

And Mr Downtown, your map's shoreline is boring.
It does fade elegantly into the background, but can't something more contextual be done? Hat tip to Navy Pier?

[Vlajos]

CTA ridership keeps growing at a nice pace.

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...rts/2012-3.pdf

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

CTA ridership keeps growing at a nice pace.

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...rts/2012-3.pdf

Systemwide Average Daily Weekday Ridership for the 'L' (station boardings)
These numbers are all station boardings - people coming through the turnstiles. The past few years, CTA press releases include cross-platform transfers, but earlier numbers are only turnstile counts. The current CTA reports include both, so the number below are just turnstile numbers. That results in a slightly less dramatic uptick, but a more accurate measure of improvement.

Annual 2000: 465,136
Annual 2001: 455,635 <-- Douglas Branch work starts
Annual 2002: 459,494
Annual 2003: 446,700
Annual 2004: 428,850 <-- Douglas Branch work compled
Annual 2005: 470,968
Annual 2006: 478,414 <-- Pink Line inaugurated and Brown Line work starts
Annual 2007: 456,087
Annual 2008: 478,429 <-- First round of slow zone work completed
Annual 2009: 480,188 <-- Brown Line work completed
Annual 2010: 553,964 <-- Second round of slow zone work completed
Annual 2011: 579,921
March 2011: 571,897
March 2012: 599,601

[rgolch]

A little on BRT:

http://gridchicago.com/2012/brt-to-a...=Google+Reader

[10023]

Well if this isn't a shining example of everything that's wrong with the rules about minority-owned firm contract awards, I don't know what is:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-a-train-wreck


Bobby Rush is such a bloody joke.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

Systemwide Average Daily Weekday Ridership for the 'L' (station boardings)
These numbers are all station boardings - people coming through the turnstiles. The past few years, CTA press releases include cross-platform transfers, but earlier numbers are only turnstile counts. The current CTA reports include both, so the number below are just turnstile numbers. That results in a slightly less dramatic uptick, but a more accurate measure of improvement.

Annual 2000: 465,136
Annual 2001: 455,635 <-- Douglas Branch work starts
Annual 2002: 459,494
Annual 2003: 446,700
Annual 2004: 428,850 <-- Douglas Branch work compled
Annual 2005: 470,968
Annual 2006: 478,414 <-- Pink Line inaugurated and Brown Line work starts
Annual 2007: 456,087
Annual 2008: 478,429 <-- First round of slow zone work completed
Annual 2009: 480,188 <-- Brown Line work completed
Annual 2010: 553,964 <-- Second round of slow zone work completed
Annual 2011: 579,921
March 2011: 571,897
March 2012: 599,601

If you strip out the transfers the growth rates are basically the same.

[Mr Downtown]

Three options for buses traversing the Loop were discussed at last night's Central BRT presentation. Option 2 is probably the most likely at this point in the study.



The bike lane on Madison would disappear in favor of a couplet on Randolph WB and Washington EB.

The layover/boarding facility at Union Station probably can't be used by Megabus, Coach USA Van Galder, or the private office building shuttles, since it would be built with FTA money. The wishful thinking is that if CTA cross-Loop service is better, many of those private shuttles would go away, but I think that misunderstands their very nature. They're not in place because CTA service is poor or missing, they're put in place to make a particular office building more attractive than the competition. So I fear they're only going to grow in number as a way to attract suburban train riders to office space east of Clark or north of the river.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by rgolch

A little on BRT:

http://gridchicago.com/2012/brt-to-a...=Google+Reader

Love it. Even as mostly a non-driver, I almost prefer the balanced option. Partly because I think it improves things for transit riders without causing a lot of delay to drivers.

On the other hand, in a lot of ways the third one seems like the best idea because it has a nice balance to it, plus if the plan is a roaring success it would certainly lend itself to consolidating on an actual rail plan better.

[the urban politician]

Englewood Flyover May Wind Up a Trainwreck

[ardecila]

And we all wonder why people continue to leave the South Side in droves.

[Standpoor]

Originally Posted by 10023

Well if this isn't a shining example of everything that's wrong with the rules about minority-owned firm contract awards, I don't know what is:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-a-train-wreck


Bobby Rush is such a bloody joke.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Englewood Flyover May Wind Up a Trainwreck

Why is this everything that is wrong with minority-owned contract awards? Seems like everything worked exactly how it was supposed to. Everything that is wrong with a few blowhard politicians making a scene, yeah that is true but the winner met federal guidelines. This seems like three guys who want to cause a scene ahead of November more than anything else.

This is making a mountain out of a mole hill, right. What can three congressmen do if Metra awards the contract at their June meeting. Plus, any federal extension will come from the DOT and not Congress, so its not like they can mess with that or am I missing something.

[the urban politician]

^ I can rant on and on about this one, but whatever.

I'm sure they will break some deal behind a smoke-filled room, as is often the case in Chicago. Either way, this project is crucial.