CTA Tattler

Argh...unlike you (and probably your readers), I'm really frustrated with yet another project that the CTA has decided to implement without (seemingly) consulting the RTA. How much did the CTA spend to get Google, while the RTA has been working on (what should be) a very comprehensive, REGIONAL, brand-new, high-tech trip planner for months--a planner which is due to be rolled out soon? I just don't understand the overlap. I have no problem with Google and I am fully aware of how lame the current RTA trip planner is, but why should the CTA spend money it doesn't have on a trip planner when one that has cost the RTA millions, and is designed for CTA, Metra and Pace, is coming within months? What a huge waste.

Rider: CTA didn't spend any money on this. Google provides the service at no cost. One of the main benefits of Google Transit is that it exposes the option to take CTA to those who may not immediately consider it. Now, every time you create driving directions on Google Maps there will be an option to take public transit instead. As good as RTA's new Trip Planner might be, it simply can't compete with Google in that regard. You could almost argue that it's the RTA who's wasting money, since they could have instead gotten Pace and Metra on Google Transit for free instead of developing their own solution.

Actually, from reading the RTA press releases it looks like their new trip planner will do the exact same thing, only better: it will compare driving routes to transit in terms of time, cost, and pollution, encouraging people to ditch their cars in favor of CTA/Metra/Pace. So even if it cost CTA nothing, it's still a doubling of resources working on the same type of project. That's taxpayer money going to the staff of two transit agencies managing the same solution.

Bottom line, rider, the CTA is spending no money on the Google project at all - except maybe for the one labor hour it took the CTA's web guy to add the Google Transit link and move the RTA Trip Planner. Offering people this great alternative tool is certainly worth that expense.

Not only is the CTA NOT spending money on this project, I heard on NBC5 last night they are getting $60,000 a year from Google for what amounts to advertising on the CTA site, since the Google logo is now there.

Like I said, I knew I'd be in the minority here; my point, really, is that I'm tired of the constant wasting of money I see from the transit agencies in the region. So whatever the cost to CTA (which I would still debate), we now have two, and soon to be three, online trip planners. Does that make any sense? If you were visiting Chicago and needed to plan a trip, wouldn't you be confused by the CTA website?

Another example: We've had "Next Train" countdown signs at a few El stations for years and now Huberman is talking about scrapping those for advertiser-paid LCD signs that display when the next train is coming. An improvement? Absolutely. But do we have to sit back and just suck up the cost of those first signs? Why not find a way to expand and improve that system rather than getting rid of it?

I'm just saying that the frequent overlap of these expensive projects makes one really cynical about funding transit in the region. Why can't there be better coordination between the agencies? Is it all about politics?

Rider, the RTA site comparing RTA options to driving only serves people who were interested in public transit to begin with.
Google providing such information presents the information to people _who hadn't necessarily been considering public transit_. Even if they did cost the same (which they don't) the money would be better spent on Google just for that visibility.

This will be a useful tool if the CTA is ever remotely reliable again.

I'm just happy that Daley was at the presser for this thing.
Of course that the little, fat fuck has never ridden the CTA sort of makes it a moot point!

I like how each itinerary shows how much CTA costs versus driving the same distance. Big surprise, public transportation is less expensive. It seems Google based their figure on the current IRS mileage reimbursement of 48.5 cents per mile. Maybe savings will entice the transit-uninitiated that CTA and Google hope to capture. Since I started taking CTA to and from work rather than driving, I'm saving over $50 per month (not including parking), which gets immediately reallocated to the entertainment and liquor budget. Party on!

The Google transit times seem very realistic, unlike the CTA's vaunted "22 minutes to the Loop" nonsense. Unfortunately, the Google drive-time estimates underestimate the transit time because they don't account for rush-hour traffic. My drive-time to work at 7:30 a.m. takes about 10 minutes longer than Google estimates. That could throw off the drive-versus-transit decision matrix.

Someone needs to tell Google the Brown Line isn't a subway.

I love the RTA advisor.

While it does frequently remind me that the most direct route may not be the fastest, it unfortunately also has quirks.

Most recent example:
Take PACE BUS # 250
Arrive at 09:47 AM: SKOKIE CTA BUS TERMINAL

Transfer

Take CTA YELLOW LINE TRAIN (YELLOW LINE)
Depart at 09:50 AM: SKOKIE CTA (YELLOW)
Arrive at 09:58 AM: HOWARD CTA

Transfer

Take CTA RED LINE TRAIN (RED LINE - SOUTHBOUND)
Depart at 10:00 AM: HOWARD CTA
Arrive at 10:25 AM: BELMONT CTA

Transfer

Take CTA RED LINE TRAIN (RED LINE - NORTHBOUND)
Depart at 10:26 AM: BELMONT CTA
Arrive at 10:29 AM: ADDISON CTA

There's more to it than simply getting something for free. The RTA wants to create a extensible platform that could be used catch-free anywhere. Doing something in-house has its benefits.

I'm a frequent visitor to Chicago, and I'm very familiar with the CTA and how it works. I was *super* excited to see google maps embrace this, but was surprised at the result I got when doing a query from O'Hare to the Chicago Essex Inn (a frequent haunt of mine). It had me take the blue line to Jackson, and then walk the rest of the way instead of doing a transfer over to the red line and riding it down to Harrison. I didn't see an option to enabled transfers or anything, so I hope it's just a 'beta' thing, but has anyone else seen a route that actually uses a transfer?

-- I

Ian: Longer trips do. According to Valleywag (http://valleywag.com/376203/google-hates-public-transportation-fatties), however, it seems that Google has an affinity for walking over transit.

Yes, Google does want to inspire a lot of walking. In testing it with my route to work (Bryn Mawr to the Thompson Center), it had me taking the 147 to Michigan Ave and Randolph and walking the four blocks, rather than take the 136 (my usual bus) to Lake and LaSalle and just crossing the street. Does it suggest the FASTEST bus route, rather than the closest stop?

Interesting... it would be nice to be able to enable these features, though. Some checkboxes or something:

- I want to walk a lot
- Transfers are ok
- Trains only
- Buses only

etc, etc, etc. Think google will read this like the CTA does? Ha ha

-- I

I was told by some involved parties that Google approached Pace and Metra but both declined the offer to participate. This Tribune article makes it sound like Google completely ignored the RTA.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northwest/chi-cta-googleapr09,0,7270317.story

I'm wondering if there are legal issues with CTA sharing the bus tracker data for "open source" development. It sounds like a cool idea, but since the system was generally designed/installed by a contractor, I wouldn't be surprised if there are significant limitations on how the data may be distributed.

Dude: It depends on the time of day.
The 136 only runs southbound in the morning rush & northbound in the afternoon rush.
The 147 runs all day.

Now Google needs to update their Windows Mobile Google Maps application to include transit routes! Along with bustracker, making transit info easily available on mobile phones/pdas would be a really great thing, especially for tourist-types. I would love a mobile routing/scheduling/arrival time feature visiting an unfamiliar city with only vague concepts of destinations in mind.

"This Tribune article makes it sound like Google completely ignored the RTA."

What would you expect from an article by Jon Hilkiovick? I think he is probably the worst reporter in the whole city. No matter what the scenerio was, you would certainly think that if he was going to make this allegation that he would include comments from Metra and Pace officials. But, of course, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Metra refused to participate. They still don't take credit cards and haven't even moved past the early twentiath century technology of paper tickets (which is increadibly inefficiant and requires an enormous amount of staff).

By the way, I just have to comment on this utterly stupid sentence in that Tribune article: "But in a bit of a paradox, the Google Transit Web site (http://maps.google.com/chicago) not only provides CTA travel information but also directions for driving, traditionally the biggest challenge to expanding mass transit." That shows just how completely unknowledgable Jon Hilkevitch is (or at least comes across) on transportation issues. I'm not even going to waste my time mentioning how absurd it is to describe it as a paradox when Google gives driving directions anyway. But I think it is utterly absurd to suggest that people driving is the "biggest challenge to expanding mass transit". Driving, as a matter of fact, is probably the number one factor that encourages policymakers to expand mass transit. When there are more cars on the road it creates higher congestion and higher parking rates which encourages people to use mass transit. All the cities that have built new train lines in recent decades (Atlanta, for example) did so as a result of increasing congestion. So no, driving is not a roadblock to expanding transit. An increase in driving is, in fact, usually neccessary for there to be a demand to do so. You would think after spending (I believe) more than a decade as a transportation reporter that Hilkevitch would know this. I have no idea why the Tribune keeps him around.

Ugh -- the Google map feature is not working for me. Does it not like CTA buses? I wanted to see what it would suggest if I started from 100 S. Wacker (Monroe & Wacker) towards 164 N. State. It told me to walk it, giving no bus options. Walking would be nice if my left ankle wasn't swollen.

Also, I don't suppose it would be worth showing which el stops on the google map are accessible for folks in wheelchairs or need to use elevators?

My gut is that Google will keep making their product better-n-better and within a year a two, this "we're going to be better than you" mentality from the RTA will look real childish--and who's wasting money now, RTA?

There's also hopstop.com and publicroutes.com out there, maybe one will get bought by Yahoo or something. Does the RTA really think it's going to do better than these guys in the long run?

"There's also hopstop.com and publicroutes.com out there, maybe one will get bought by Yahoo or something. Does the RTA really think it's going to do better than these guys in the long run?"

What makes you think those sites will even be in business in the long run? I have never heard of them until you mentioned it. I just took a brief look at them and publicroutes.com has a totally sophmoric and third-rate web design. At first, it looked to me like the site was one of those non-websites that posts links to advertising on a web address with common words. It took a little poking around for me to realize that it actually was an actual website that provides a real service (although I haven't bothered to see if it does a good job at it or not). Hopstop is a little better but, based on my observations, doesn't seem to be anything special. I have no desire to take the time to test either site (which raises the question as to why I am bothering to write this post, I think it's because I always have an obsessive desire to point out when people make flawed assumptions). What makes you so sure that the RTA cannot do a better job at providing directions than companies that have much less intimate knowledge of what it is trying to do? It seems to me that the best people to provide information about a product is usually the people that produce it. I tend to usually be in the private companies can do bettter than public agencies camp but this clearly would seem to be a major exception. I don't care how well-run a company supposidely is. If it is providing second-hand information there is always bound to be major problems. But you seem to be suggesting that the RTA should just stop investing in its bus-tracker and just let other people do that work even though there is nothing to indicate that they can do it well.

So far, I'm not a fan. I like the "I want to walk no more than x" options as well as "Fewest transfers" etc.

And the current date and time really needs to be the default. Or I would be game for bringing back the drop-down entry forms. Generally, when I want a route it's for today and half of the time I have no idea what date it is. Nor is the date important unless it's a weekend.

Also, for those addresses that Google Maps can't figure out, you are SOL. At least with the CTA system, I've learned how to enter them so the system would recognize them.

Basically, I'm not really seeing this as an improvement.

Why doesn't Google Maps connect the stations with lines? And why do you have to zoom in so far before the El stops show up?