CTA Tattler

Sure, the state of the CTA is a legitimate weakness, but in terms of importance the soaring crime wave is threatening to make it a distant second concern.

"Hometown favorite", huh? Not everyone around here drinks the Kool-Aid, you know...

Fixing the CTA is the only reason I would want the Olympics here.
But this proves that Daley & his stooges have no idea of what needs to be done.

So no Olympics & no fixed up CTA!

A transit system governed by a majority appointed by the mayor, and you blame the legislature. Sigh.

As to the first poster, I'd like to see the crime rate stay low, but when Rio is ahead of us, it's hard to see that that's a major consideration

If only the Bushmeister had invested infastructure money here in the United States
to rebuild the transit systems, roads, and
bridges instead of rebuilding the ones in
Iraq we would have first trains, buses, roads, etc. Locally, if the Chicago Mayor,
politicians, the governor, and those bozos
and yahoos in state government were not so
grafty and quid pro quo, and mea culpea
minded then the money would have been spent
for what it is collected from taxpayers for.
But I guess citizens do not have the right to
expect anything from the government(s) and if
they do toss them a bone, it's a privilege.
And yes, some of us do still dring Kool Aid,
but we add some white port to it for "body".

I lived in Atlanta when the games were there & they have a terrible public transport system to the point it's almost unusable for anything other than going to the airport. So I was astounded when it was stated that was a weakness. Atlanta's solution was for everyone to park way out in the burbs & then charter bus them in from there. Not an optimal situation, but no one seemed to really complain. (?)

I still don't understand what the plan is for getting people to Lincoln Park. That place isn't accessible by train. Is everybody just supposed to pack onto 151 buses?

And what about Soldier Field, McCormick Place, and Jackson Park? They aren't seriously going to rely on the Metra, are they? Can you imagine 1,000 people who speak iffy English packing a Metra train for a half dozen stops? Metra'd have to have a dozen conductors, at least, to handle that. Not to mention the baffling confusion of foreigners being presented with such a different and incompatible fee structure.

I guess they could do all of this with BRT, but that seems kinda bootleg for the Olympics. And, during peak hours, they'd need 100 of those things just for the Lake Shore Drive route.

I hope they pull this together. I really do. I'd love to see a permanent solution to getting to the south lakefront destinations like Soldier Field, McCormick Place, the MSI, and Hyde Park. I just don't know what they hell they have in mind for a solution.

CK...

Monorail!!! ;) It worked for

It could hook up to the El at Roosevelt.

"Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!"

CK...

Monorail!!! ;) It worked for Springfield.

It could hook up to the El at Roosevelt.

"Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!"

Madrid will get the Olympics.
http://www.midwesthsr.org/news.htm#

They are investing in transit over in Espana. Here in Chicago, the mayor has ignored transit for years and let it deteriorate. Our state legislators can't seem to do their jobs and find solutions for important issues like balancing budgets, funding schools and improving transit. But one thing that Illinois lawmakers can really come together on is shamelessly representing the financial interests of large beverage distributors.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0527winemay27,0,18541.story

Our city and state government is so shamelessly corrupt and our infrastructure is so decayed it's amazing we're in the running at all.

(whistles) Too bad, so sad...

Though I will admit it's a lousy reason to lose the Olympics. I'm more concerned about the costs & debt myself, and I can't see getting people to those sites on the roads & tracks we already have without overloading them. All comes down to money & infrastructure. And if the state can't pony up the amount it's expected to, we'll all really be in trouble is how I read it.

"Mono-d'oh!"

So what does transportation plans for the Olympics have to do with CTA operations? Does the CTA, for example, provide transportation services big conventions in town? No. That's all private carriers.

Transportation for the Olympics will require a unique transportation system that overlays what Chicago needs for it's day-to-day operations. I don't see anyone mentioning that there aren't better plans for the expressway system for the Olympics. Some how people understand that the Kennedy isn't going to be upgraded because of the Olympics. So why do so many people think that the CTA network should be focused on for the Olympics?

Unless you think they're going to build brand new El lines to the venues, or re-route regular bus routes for fans to use, why would anyone think that the CTA plays anything but a bit part in the plans?

The transportation system needed for the Olympics, for the most part, will not provide any direct benefit to regular Chicago transportation needs. It will be an ad-hoc system to get people from venues to venues, hotels to venues, training sites to venues, train stations to venues, and other needs of the Olympic participants and fans. Those needs have very little in common with what we need for day-to-day transportation needs.

The transportation plan for the Olympics needs to address the concerns of the Olympics, not the overall needs of the region. And there isn't very much overlap between the two.

I agree with the monorail idea. Just run it down the middle of LSD. Extend the Lake Street line east to meet up with it. It worked very well in my Sim City simulation of Chicago, so there is no reason that it couldn't work in real life.

I'm not being serious here, by the way.

Actually, I was joking at first about the monorail. But what if....

A free standing CTA line, independent from the el, so a modern, quiet technology can be used.

Deadends over Roosevelt road at Wabash, people can transfer from the Red, Green and Orange Lines.

Goes above Roosevelt into the museum campus, pulls up along the West side of the Field Museum.

Rides above the edge of LSD, Stops again at Soldier Field.

Keep going again and stops at Mccormick Place

Heads down by the truck lots / "Olympic Village" *(stops to be added for 2016?) south of Mccormick.

Makes a right turn and follows over 35th, stopping at the Green / IIT for transfers.

Ends / Turns around in the U.S. Cellular lots. Now the museums, solier field, and McCormick place would have access to the U.S. Cellular parking lots and Vice Versa.

Maybe 4-5 Miles total? If it's quiet / silent (i.e. rubber wheels) i wouldn't imagine too much neighborhood resistance for the stretches on rooselvelt and 35th. It couls also reinvigorate the retail life of 35th street.

An Idea.

A lakefront monorail would be soooo cooool. But only if it's really, really elevated. Like 100ft in the air. And solar powered.

Ideally, they'd hook up CTA turnstiles at the Metra Electric stations through Hyde Park, run special trains from downtown to 63rd and back, and just charge standard CTA fares for them. Then the Metra trains from Uni Park etc. could just express all the way to downtown and skip the city stops. There are four rails for exactly the purpose of letting some trains express to downtown.

The commuter trains would get downtown much faster. The city dwellers would get trains that are scheduled around their needs and would get the transfers that would make the train a viable alternative to CTA buses like the 6. And visitors would get a simple, single-zone, turnstyle-based ticketing system that runs on the same farecards that they use for the rest of their transit. And all of this would be just as useful post-Olympics as it would be during them.

But that would make too much sense. And it'd require too much RTA cooperation. There's no way Metra would just cede the city stops on the Electric line. It's a shame, because the station renovations would actually be pretty simple.

I think CK's last post makes an excellent point. Integrating the Metra Electric routes within the city into the El system would make for a significantly more extensive CTA rail network.

Someday, building a rail connection to the Roosevelt station and/or extending the service north along the lake would be more expensive but much needed improvements. Most of the city's density is along the lake; having such a sparse rail network does not make sense in the long run since it limits growth (you can only fit so many cars onto these roads).

"I hope they pull this together. I really do. I'd love to see a permanent solution to getting to the south lakefront destinations like Soldier Field, McCormick Place, the MSI, and Hyde Park. I just don't know what they hell they have in mind for a solution."

The solution is the Grey Line proposal: Convert the parts of Metra Electric within the city limits and the Blue Island branch to rapid transit, operated jointly by the CTA and Metra. This is a serious plan for which there is a considerable amount of support. See the following link:

http://community-2.webtv.net/GLRTS/GRAYLINECONVERSION/

I've never been sure exactly which alternate universe Rusty lives in, but we now know that it's apparently an alternate universe in which tens of thousands of Olympic athletes DRIVE THEMSELVES to the games every 2 or 4 years, thus making it reasonable to expect major highway upgrades in host cities.

Daley has a gazillion dollars stashed away, a result of his selling off the city's assets with such alacrity. Screw the 200 year-long federal matching grant process for capital construction; Chicago (and the state) ought to invest in expanding our rail system -- not because it will bring the Olympics here (although that's not a bad reason either) but because it is now blindingly obvious that as gas steadily marches towards $10/gallon over the next decade or two, people are going to be increasingly interested in living in the city and not in far-flung suburbs.

As things are now, if 500,000 people moved into Chicago, the city would basically grind to a halt. We ought to be building the infrastructure to allow Chicago to grow over the next decade or two; along the way, we will be improving transit for the millions of people who are already here and hopefully getting more of them out of their cars more often.

>>>
I've never been sure exactly which alternate universe Rusty lives in, but we now know that it's apparently an alternate universe in which tens of thousands of Olympic athletes DRIVE THEMSELVES to the games every 2 or 4 years, thus making it reasonable to expect major highway upgrades in host cities.
>>
As things are now, if 500,000 people moved into Chicago, the city would basically grind to a halt. We ought to be building the infrastructure to allow Chicago to grow over the next decade or two;
<<<

But filling those needs will do NOTHING for the needs of the Olympics.

It's not just a matter of how many people need to be moved. It's a matter of where they're coming from, and where they're going to. New people to the area won't be living in downtown hotels, and traveling to work at the sports venues. And the folks here for the Olympics won't be living in residential neighborhoods, and traveling to employment centers.

The needs of the Olympics are not in sync with the needs of Chicago, transportation-wise.

We need the Olympics. They will provide many jobs building the infrastructure, and then jobs running the games. Business who provide services to those workers, as well as directly to the participants and spectators will benefit, too. It's a worthy economic persuit for the city.

But the day after the games are over, what are you left with? A world-class transportation infrastructure geared to moving masses of people between places that masses of people no longer want to go? Yep.

So the idea is to maximize your capital investment into resources that can be redeployed someplace where they will do some good, and minimize your investment in expensive to maintain infrastructure that's functionally obsolete because they connect places that no longer need that level of connection.

Bottom line: The transportation needs of Chicago and the transportation needs of the Olympics are two different things. That's the universe that I live in. It's called reality.

Part of what I said disappeared.

Nowhere did I say that Olympic athletes DRIVE THEMSELVES to the games. That's silly, and illogical.

The transportation system needed by the Olympics resembles what major conventions do when they're in town.

The answer is a fleet of buses that can be redeployed after the games, and some investment in special access roads, and dedicated bus lanes for such a system.

Building a rail infrastructure that can not be moved, but needs to be maintained will be a constant drain on the post-Olympic transportation funding of the region.

$27B in the hands of Daley and Huberman? No thanks. First of all, that money isn't free, it's coming in the form of higher taxes. Secondly, about 20% of the funds would go to infrastructure and 80% to politicians pockets (e.g. Daley, Alderman, Rezko).

Then, who wants the publicity when one of Huberman's trains derails and injures athletes on the way to a venue.

The Olympics are a money loser for any city that hosts. No thanks.

To those who want a monorail or a connection to the Metra Electric, guess what?
That was the plan 40 years ago!
As soon as the Dan Ryan line was built, the Jackson Park/Englewood L was to be relocated to the IC Mainline, it's traditional name.
The IC Mainline was 10 tracks wide & the IC RR was cutting that back to 6 tracks & it's now 4.
Just as the Lake St. L's grade level section west of Laramie was relocated to the C&NW Galena Division tracks in the 60s, so was this to happen.
And you don't do it over Roosevelt Rd. you take over the St. Charles Airline [runs E&W near 16th St.] by eminent domain from the Canadian National RR which is planning to abandon it.

Am I the only person in Chicago that remembers this never carried, but most logical plan?

Rusty's comments are a reliable source of nonsequiturs, red herrings, and generally backwards-looking thinking.

1) Since the logic was perhaps too obscure: The odd observation that nobody is expecting the highways to be expanded is off the mark because one would only expect highway expansions in the first place if you were planning to transport Olympic attendees and participants by using a large number of passenger autos. Trains would not require highway expansion, and buses (which Rusty now suggests) would not require significant increases in highway capacity because lots of people fit on one bus. Hence, there is an expectation that improving mass transit would be part and parcel of hosting the Olympics, but improving roads generally would not. (Got it?)

2) Re buses: If Chicago's transportation plan is to put tens of thousands of Olympic participants on buses, we don't need to worry about any of this, because some other city with a more sophisticated transit system will be hosting the Olympics.

3) A great number of the Olympic venues are situated up and down the lake shore. Last I checked, a lot of people live up and down the lake shore. Olympics or no, we need more train lines anyway. It's not like we're talking about putting a bullet train in Idaho or something. The population density along the lake is as high as just about anywhere else in the U.S. and the city's population is going to go up (transit system permitting) with the cost of gas, not down.

Rusty is exactly right. It is completely ludicrous to believe that any transit projects built specifically for the olympics would be the ones that are most beneficial for the area in the long run. Brunhilda's post makes me sad. Advocating for any transit project and dollers that comes as if they are all equal will not get the Chicago area's transit system where it needs to be for the inevitable gas price based population boom that he mentions. Transit projects require extensive studies and analysis to see what makes sense and what doesn't. Yet we usually see those who advocate increased transit pushing for just any project. For example, transit advocacy groups such as Metropolis 2020 (and also a specific person who posts here and elsewhere regularly pushing for more transit money and projects) have supported the recently announced bus rapid transit, which will operate through what can only be called ridiculous areas if one is looking at logical places where transit expansion would be most beneficial. You also see the people who are vocal in supporting long distance rail raise a fit any time someone proposes gutting the taxpayer supported Amtrak train land cruises, used mostly by seniors on vacation, which take two days to go from here to California. Why is that there is always a tendancy for those that are vocal about a subject to always support everything that is ever proposed about it? Why don't these people use their clout to prioritize ideas that make the most sense and argue what makes the least? Undoubtadly, if there is uneeded transit projects that serve the purpose of helping people get around for the olympics it means there is less likelihood for more worthy projects. The federal government would be less likely to pay for things if we already got a massive amount of money for other things. And there is only so much energy that people have to focus on this stuff. And there is definetely going to be less money and interest for beneficial long distance rail transit if we still have these silly inefficiant trains that operate across the whole country.

Chicago will obviously benefit enormously from the olympics, mostly from the publicity the area receives in the most viewed event in the world. But it would be unfortunate if the desire to get the olympics misplaces long term capital priorities. It just occured to me that the bus rapid transit project might have something to do with this. That would be truly ridiculous.

"3) A great number of the Olympic venues are situated up and down the lake shore. Last I checked, a lot of people live up and down the lake shore. Olympics or no, we need more train lines anyway. It's not like we're talking about putting a bullet train in Idaho or something. The population density along the lake is as high as just about anywhere else in the U.S. and the city's population is going to go up (transit system permitting) with the cost of gas, not down."

Are you talking about south? There actually are already numerous rail lines in that area. There is the green line, the Metra electric line, and the Metra Lasalle street line. All of them are pretty near the lake. Unfortunetely, they have virtually no stations there. Quite obviously, the answer is to add stations rather than new lines. Come to think of it, I don't recall anybody ever mentioning the need to add stations on these already existing lines in this area. I can't for the life of me figure out why. It can't be a good feeling to live in one of the many condos on the south side lakeshore and hear all the green lines or Metra trains go by but realize you can't get on them unless you walk 10-20 blocks to Roosevelt. The north side, with very few exceptions, have rail lines (with stations) that are within an eight minute or less walking distance to the lake. I really don't think that the olympics care very much about spectators and others walking eight minutes. People regularly do that all the time in most countries.

"Unfortunetely, they have virtually no stations there."

The Metra Electric has stations at 18th Street, McCormic Place, 27th Street and, starting at 47th, in Hyde Park. If the Gray line conversion were adopted, addtional stations could be added between 27th and 47th. But under the current system this service is operated like a suburban commuter railroad system, not a rapid transit system, and, except during rush hours, operates infrequently. And one cannot transfer from it to the CTA. The Gray line conversion of these lines to rapid transit operated jointly by Metra and the CTA would eliminate these shortcomings.

Earlier there was an illogical conclusion made that thought I expected the Olympic participants to drive themselves to the venues. Of course that's insane.

But isn't it also insane to think that those participants will be riding elbow to elbow with us on some upgraded version of the CTA? Of course it is.

Participants need door-to-door service from their lodging to the venues. Whatever system is put into place for that purpose will be essentially obsolte the day the games are over. If it's not portable, like a fleet of buses, it will either sit largely unused, sucking maintenance funds, or it will be torn down. Either way, there is no direct benefit to the people who depend on CTA/RTA.

Spectators. They don't need door-to-door service, but they also need to get from lodging to venues, and also from venue to venue. They may be willing to share the ride with the rest of us, especially if they're coming from someplace other than a hotel cluster. (For example, if they're really us coming from our homes scattered around the region.) But those staying in the major hotel clusters will expect one-seat, direct service to the venues and between the venues. Upgrades to the Metra Electric line aren't going to cut it.

Again, what they need will be largely unneeded starting the day after the games end.

So the idea that the Olympics are going to bring in money that'll be used to upgrade our city's mass transit system are unrealistic pipe dreams. If anything, money that would have gone to something useful for the rest of us could be diverted to build infrastructure that many of us will never use! And then that infrastructure could drain operating funds from the parts of the system that we need, and will be a drain for years to come.

And the flipside of that is the failures of the CTA have no direct effect on the Olympics, either. The Olympics want, and need, their own seperate transportation system. And when the games are over, they will abandon it. Then the question will be will that system be of any use to the rest of us. And unless we plan to move into the dorms and hotels, and are employers plan to relocate to the venues, the answer is largely, no.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't build a transit system for the Olympics. It just means we shouldn't drain money away from the system we need that desperately needs money, too. And it also means we should be careful about the permanent infrastructure we invest in. Whether or not it can be re-deployed to help us after the games are over should be a big part of our decisions on what to build and what not to build.

And overall, that points towards buses, and special access roads and dedicated bus lanes for those buses. Sure, there's a few rail stations that could use some minor upgrading, but there is no reason to build a new rail line for an ad-hoc event when we can't even build one for our current and ongoing needs!

The bottom line is that we, the users of mass transit, need to protect our own interests, and not let some short-term event drain money away from a system that is already hugely underfunded.

I want to see both a healthy CTA, and the Olympics in Chicago. But if it comes down to one or the other, I'd rather have a healthy CTA.

Don't often agree with Rusty's posts but I have to say I agree completely with his (her?) assessment in his 11:32 post. Completely on-target about transit needs to an Olympics transportation system.

(OT - I find the invective in his, unindicted, CC writer and others' - and now Brunhilda's- posts pointless and dismissive of any other points of view. Lighten up, kids, you can't be right all of the time)

Q: What's the easiest way to get Chicago's transit to be worldclass?

A: Fire Huberman and his entire management team.

Wake up Chicago before it is too late.

Q: What's the easiest way to get Chicago's transit to be worldclass?

A: Fire Huberman and his entire management team.

Really? That's all it's going to take?

Monorails are fine for small applications but totally impractical for a large city system, as well as way too expensive. You folks obviously have no idea how complicated just switching monorail trains from one line to another would be!

No, modern rail, properly maintained, is still the safest, fastest and most economical for city rapid transit service.

'"Unfortunetely, they have virtually no stations there."

The Metra Electric has stations at 18th Street, McCormic Place, 27th Street and, starting at 47th, in Hyde Park. If the Gray line conversion were adopted, addtional stations could be added between 27th and 47th. But under the current system this service is operated like a suburban commuter railroad system, not a rapid transit system, and, except during rush hours, operates infrequently. And one cannot transfer from it to the CTA. The Gray line conversion of these lines to rapid transit operated jointly by Metra and the CTA would eliminate these shortcomings. '

Well, Duh, it *IS* a suburban rail service, all those stations at 39th etc were removed years ago. Hyde Park and South Shore are suburban in a lot of ways, and certainly the south suburbs the IC serves are suburbs. They even got RID of the turnstyles (every station used to have them) to make it more suburban rail style. I'm guessing this proposal is going nowehere fast with the cta's problems and mismanagement.

Ya, I spent this last year in Atlanta (host of 96/94? Olympic games) and I rode the MARTA(Metro Area Railroad Transportation of Atlanta) train everyday. my first time tho it took me 2 hours to learn how the trains worked...i went as far north as i could go before they made me get off and ride all the way south to the Reagan? International airport. after that I Knew EXACTLY how/where the public transit ran and used it everyday to get back and forth to school. my college roommate told me he lived in downtown, Atlanta (where we currently lived), when the games took place there and the government/committee for Olympics spent a considerable amount of money on one way greyhound bus tickets that they gave out to as many homeless crackheads and bums as possible