CTA Tattler

No, Chicago is wasting its money on the idiotic Circle line which is just more money spent downtown.
A true Circle line would start at Howard, run west to just east of Cicero/ Skokie Blvd, turn south & use the Valley Line/ Belt Ry right of way south to Midway & Ford City & then go east to the Ryan down the existing rail at 75th St..
That way people could get around the city by rail & not have to go through the Loop. It would also allow for express trains between Midway & O'Hare.

And the IOC isn't going to like that there isn't rail direct to the gates of the proposed Olympic stadium. That don't want people to have to walk a half-mile to the existing stations. They will want a temporary track directly to the stadium.
And they won't like the time it takes for trains to travel from Roosevelt & Wabash to Adams & Wabash.

We spend $7-10 billion a month in Iraq.

I don't believe the Circle Line runs through the Loop or downtown. Also, there hasn't been any money spent on it, except for the feasibility study. You should get your facts straight.

Check the picture for the proposed circle line route:

http://www.transitchicago.com/news/newspostdescs/120700.gif

I agree that the Circle Line should be way down on the list of priorities (and the airport express should be killed off permanently). Here are the transit improvements I think we should pursue, in order.

1) Convert the Metra Electric to a new El line, the Gray Line. (But see the increasingly vitriolic argument we’re having, incongruously, in that Radiohead thread. I’d be interested in what others think.)
http://www.ctatattler.com/2008/08/radiohead-repre.html#comments

2) Quickly expand bus rapid transit if the trial routes are a success.

3) Extend the Red Line to Roseland.

4) Build a new El line on the Mid-City Transitway route.
http://razetheladder.blogspot.com/2007/02/paving-over-mid-city-transitway.html

5) Extend the Ashland Green Line to Midway.

6) Extend the Yellow and Orange Lines.

7) Only after all this other stuff is done, build the Circle Line.

8) Finally, build a Western Ave subway.

That should keep us occupied for the next hundred years or so, but the worse global warming gets and the scarcer oil becomes, the more motivation we’ll have to expand the system.

It's a shame the discussion of the entirely hypothetical Circle Line is diverting attention from the stupidity of the thought of hosting the Olympics here.

Great (and relevant) animation on the Trib today:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/olympics/chi-fournier-htmlstory,0,6662255.htmlstory

Money spent to build a mass transit system that takes people to sports venues that will spend most of their time (except for those two weeks during the Olympics) empty is money that won't be spent on infrastructure that people who live and work in the Chicago area would actually make use of.

Worse yet, that single-use infrastructure will then suck operating funds away from the rest of the system for years and years after the Olympics are done.

I can assure you that the people of Beijing didn't fund their Olympic infrastructure alone. The money came from the Chinesse government, with the cost beind shared by the whole country.

While it's certainly possible for Chicago to host the Olympics, and make economic gains in doing so, that's not going to happen if a rail infrastructure to benefit hotel to venues, and venues to venues is built -- especially if it's built using a capital fund that sucks from the rest of the CTA system, and is then turned over to the CTA to operate after the games are over.

Bottom line: The CTA should not be involved in the Olympics. All their involvement will do is suck money away from the rest of the system: The parts we, the people who'll be here longer than two weeks, need and use.

There is a good point in that since even Daley admits most of Chicago's venues would be temporary. Rail infrastructure is expensive and permanent and should be avoided.

I'm thinking that BRT would probably be the way to go since you can reassign the fleet after the games are over and move the signal priority equipment to create new BRT corridors in the city where desirable.

Rusty, the only investment we would need to make for the Olympics would be in converting the Metra Electric to the Gray Line and increasing non-rush hour service. This is something we should do anyway to serve the densest neighborhoods in Chicago that don't have CTA rail service, so it wouldn't be a wasted investment after the Olympics are over.

Chris, the Circle Line *would* run thru the Loop (take another look at that map you linked to), but I think Unindicted Co-conspirator was speaking more generally about the "Outer Loop" that has been massively gentrified in the last decade and is the focus of many of Daley's investment efforts. Daley and his developer pals have built a wonderland for the rich so they can live, shop, and party close to where they work with many transit options. These neighborhoods are already well-served by transit, and the focus should instead be on improving transit in the South Side (Gray Line conversion and Red Line extension) and adding north-south options west of the Red Line (the Mid-City Transitway and a bus rapid transit corridor on Western are both good options).

well, it doesn't run very far west of downtown; in fact it looks as though it would share the Paulina tracks with the Pink line for a while. A better Circle Line might be further west, maybe where the old Crosstown Expressway might have been (Cicero)? But that means building more brand new structures (and tearing down older ones) rather than taking partial advantage of already existing ones. I freely admit I'm not a city planner or engineer, so perhaps it's not workable. Sounds better, though.
Basically, the city lacks a quick N/S route for its more western neighborhoods, whether car or public transit. Cicero & Harlem are jokes, esp Harlem.

Does anyone know, are there any news reports, pictures or video of Daley riding a CTA train?

Ever?

Thanks!

Dee, using the Crosstown Expressway route for a new transit line has been under consideration for a number of years - it's called the Mid-City Transitway (check out the link I put above). Preliminary estimates put the cost of a new rail line at a price similar to building the Circle Line, only we'd get five times more new track and expand the system far more, to neighborhoods that actually need it.

Unfortunately Daley is pushing for the Circle Line, and now the MCT is in danger of being made as a bus line instead of a new El line.
http://razetheladder.blogspot.com/2008/03/expanding-to-west.html
This is an important issue for Chicago, and so far it's gotten far too little debate.

Sorry, you're right, it would run through the Loop, but based on that map it would hardly be used just for people who work in the loop. It is a good interconnector. Unindicted was saying that it would not serve anyone else. His claim that you'd still have to go dowtown to get to an airport is false.

God, he loves the bells and whistles. Backlit screens, solar power doors, electronic retractible seating, whatever, won't get anyone to work any fact. How about waiting until AFTER train service has been steady for a regular basis, say two years, before putting in all the geegaws.

He's like a chimpanzee amazed by a shiny object.

A lot to learn?

Here, I'll summarize it for you:

$7.7 Billion spent over 6 years can build a very nice transit system.

Having to go all the way to North & Clybourn to transfer to a train to avoid going through the Loop is insane. What I described is the Mid City Line circling the entire city & giving fast rail transit to neighborhoods that either have no rail or rail that only goes to the Loop. To be able to take a train from Howard, transfer to a train to O'Hare near Montrose & Cicero & then to O'Hare would be a dream. Trains could even run direct from Howard to O'Hare. Or to have people take the train from O'Hare to Midway & change planes, it would cut the delays at O'Hare.

And don't forget that Schaumburg wants the Blue Line extended all the way out there, thus cutting out money for transit in the city.

And since I've ridden LA's Orange line, which is a dedicated busway, it is fast, uses those streamlined articulated buses, but the San Fernando Valley doesn't have the traffic mess we have here. All main streets in The Valley have four traffic lanes & there are no stops signs on any main streets there. That's because idiot aldermen, like the worst of them, Berny Stone, don't have the ability to illegally put up stop signs anywhere they demand. All traffic lights are controlled by buried loop sensors, unlike most in Chicago.

"And don't forget that Schaumburg wants the Blue Line extended all the way out there, thus cutting out money for transit in the city."

Umm, does it occur to you that extending the blue line to Schaumberg actually is increasing transit in the city? You do know that there are many, many people who live in the city who would use that, right? It doesn't matter if the new service would all be physically outside of the city. It still makes things unbelievably more convenient for city residents. It makes the city a more attractive place to live for the huge amount of people who work in the Schaumberg area. They would now be able to get to work in a much more convenient manner. It would also allow people who live in Schaumberg and the surrounding areas to get to the city easier. So it would benefit both employment centers, downtown Chicago and the Schaumberg area (and also North Side neighborhoods as well). Employers will be far more likely to locate in these places and so would residents. The economic benefits of this would be huge. This should be at the absolute top of the priority list. And it is not that much of a distance from where the blue line ends now. It wouldn't cost all that much. Yet, Jake doesn't even menion it in his list of priorities. Unbelievably, he actually thinks his grey line idea is a better project. And then he continues to mention things that simply make transit more convenient for those who already have convenient transit, such as BRTs. That might be fine if it wouldn't have an enoroumous negative effect on the economy (after all, it doesn't cost all that much). But it will. We just heard this week how much the economy suffers as a result of congestion. Bus Rapid Transit will make it very difficult for cars to get anywhere in an efficiant manner. They will all be squeezed into one tiny lane. I was just on Chicago Avenue during the afternoon rush hour the other day. It already is extreamly congested the way it is now. I cannot imagine what it will be like when they make it impossible for cars to drive forward more than around seven or eight miles an hour the whole time. And the fewer cars that are on the road will mean fewer people visiting the many businesses on that street, most of them unique and independent businesses. The lack of parking will also contribute to destroying the neighborhood. Yet, Jake thinks this is a good idea. And then he suggests extending the green line to Midway. This would mean that a small portion of those who go to Midway might save about ten minutes in their commute. How on earth does that justify millions of dollars being spent? It doesn't make it any more convenient for anyone downtown or on the north side to get to that airport. It is just some small portions of the south side, where I would assume people can already easilly take a bus to the orange line to get to the airport. Or, I believe, there are several buses that go to Midway directly. It takes slightly longer. So what? And they can also easilly take a cab or drive. The traffic isn't very bad on the south side.

Jake has made quite a few posts here and elsewhere about the importance of improving transit. But I don't understand why he is so focused on spending resources in already transit rich environments wehre a huge proportion of people already use it. It seems to me that he should be arguing for more transit in places that are densely populated and have transit potentionial but where the current lack of service makes it much less convenient than driving. Schaumberg is the absolute perfect example of that. So how about if you revise your list and put the blue line extention at the top?

MK, I'm not opposed in principle to extending the Blue Line to Schaumberg. I think all the Cook DuPage study's proposed transit improvements are good ideas, except widening the highway and I would prefer to see an El line on the Mid-City Transitway route rather than BRT.

The reason I think the Gray Line, Mid-City Transitway El, and an Ashland Green Line extension to O'Hare should precede a Blue Line extension is that far more people live along the first three routes, and the people living along those routes are generally less able to afford commuting by car. I like the Green Line extension not primarily to get people to Midway, altho that is a nice side benefit, but because the area north of Marquette Park is one of the most densely populated parts of the city. But it hasn't been studied at all, so if after research it looked like a bad investment then obviously we would want spending to go elsewhere.

Now some of these same people would also benefit from the Blue Line extension, and I'm open to changing my mind. If the ridership on the Blue Line extension showed more potential than that on the other three routes, I'd have to rethink my priorities. But I've seen no numbers on the Blue Line extension one way or the other, so it's hard to tell at this point.

I'm a little confused as to why you think people living along the first three routes should make do with existing bus service, but you want the Blue Line extension even tho bus service exists there as well.

I can withstand the offensive smells, peddlers, crowded platforms, discarded coffee cups, twitchy operators, noisy cars, uncomfortable seats, the general eyesore of the elevated tracks, and a host of other mild inconveniences that permeate the CTA rail system. And I'll continue to withstand it, and perhaps embrace it, so long as the CTA significantly enhances their route network and connectivity. Be it the Circle Line, a rail traversing the west side, and/or one that runs roughly parallel to the lake/LSD, I want a viable option for ditching my car. I wanna be able to get from Lakeview to Wicker Park or O'Hare without a pit stop in the Loop.

More importantly, traffic congestion is no longer a rush hour phenomenon, and it's getting incrementally worse. And since buses run on the same expensive fuel and utilize the same gridlocked roads as other vehicles, a so-called "bus rapid transit" solution is tenuous and not sustainable at best. Reduced reliance on buses is a good thing, both for commuters and the CTA. Ideally, buses would be used simply to shuttle riders back and forth from one line to another, and to and from the downtown light rail stations.

Raise the fare another quarter or so if need be - it's still a good value even with today's antiquated and inefficient system, and could be a tremendous value if the route network expands considerably.

I think the Olympics are a woeful idea, for a variety of reasons, mostly because the city has too many pressing issues that need to be addressed quickly, is bleeding cash, and mostly because I just don't trust Daley, the rubber-stamp city council, and our other so-called governmental leaders with my taxpayer dollars. However, I'm willing to change my tune, within reason, if the Olympics are the catalyst that spurs a new and improved CTA (not to mention Metra and Pace).

It's well and fine to build transit where people live. But let's stop and think about something: People ride transit to get somewhere. They don't just ride it because there's a stop or station outside their home. They ride it because they're going somewhere. Somewhere they don't live.

Mostly that place they're going is work. And while Schaumburg and the area between Schaumburg and O'Hare aren't exactly densely populated residential areas, there are a lot of jobs out that way.

Frankly, I think a Blue Line extension to Schaumburg makes more sense than something connecting Howard to the Jeff Park area.

A Red Line extention from 95th to 130th would also make sense, and ought to be high on the list.

Money should be spent on _underserved_ areas. Sometimes that's an area with little or no transit. Sometimes it's an area with lots of transit, but over-crowded transit.

It would be nice if there was enough money for transit to be proactive, and build in areas with the intent of marketing mass transit alternatives to people who aren't in the traditional demographic. But unfortunately, there's not even enough money to be reactive by upgrading and preserving existing service.

But however the money is spent, I'd hate to see it squandered on permanent infrastructure to sports venues that except for a two-week period will be largely under-utilized.

Build busways. Buy a huge fleet of articulated buses. After the Olympics, turn the busways into streets or bikepaths, or just recycle the concrete, and use the buses for service that will be needed by the public left behind after the games are done. But don't spend any money on rail lines and stations at places no one will want to go after the games are done.

And for goodness sake, get the rest of the country to chip in. This region already has enough pressing needs for capital funding.

"I'm a little confused as to why you think people living along the first three routes should make do with existing bus service, but you want the Blue Line extension even tho bus service exists there as well."

Well, first of all, as I'm sure you know, the bus routes in Schaumberg are not remotely equivalant to the routes in the areas you mention. As you can see ( http://pacebus.com/sub/schedules/search_results.asp?TYPE=community&KEYWORD=Schaumburg ),the routes in Schaumberg do not run nearly as often. Many of them have very limited service on evenings and weekends. From my brief browsing of the schedules, it looks as if the route that runs most frequently operates every thirty to forty minutes during non-peak weekday hours and only every forty-five minutes to an hour on the weekends. During rush hour, it only runs every fifteen minutes, something most CTA commuters would be shocked by. In the areas you mention, there are busses that will take them to any rail line which operate around every three to ten minutes. And, of course, in the metra electric line area there are EXPRESS busses that will normally get people where they are going at least as quick (and mostly even quicker) as they would with your suggestion for the grey line. Not to mention, that the rail line that you would call the grey line already exists and serves thousands of passengers a day. So it is not exactly true to say, as you do, that the people there have to "make due with existing bus service". Extending the Blue Line to Schaumberg will make it much more efficiant than existing service both for the riders travelling and the service agencies, who will be able to move more people at a cheaper price. That isn't remotely the case with the grey line nor with you suggestion of extending the Green Line. At most, these suggestions would cause a very small amount of people to have a slightly more convenient commute. It is not worth the money. Also, you are really primarally talking only about passengers who would get this small benefit. There are not very many businesses and other employters who would benefit from your suggested projects in the area of the Metra Electric (yes, there are some in Hyde park but that is about it) or the Marquette Park area. Schaumberg is an ENORMOUS employer and is home to numerous corporations and other employers. And the surrounding communities would also benefit from the extention. If the line wouldn't go to a place of employment directly, it would still make it much easier for them to have employee shuttles or other things like that. The extention would have a truly positive and revolutionary effect on the area's economy. That is not close to the case with your suggestion.

And you mention that those in your suggested area on the Green Line are less likely to have a car. Isn't that less of a reason to extend transit in the area? You seem very concerned about the environment and desperately want people to drive less for this reason. If these people are not driving anyway then what is the benefits of having more transit. You wouldn't be getting as many cars off the roads. And like I said, they already have pretty convenient transit. They have better options than probably 99% of the country. It seems obvious to me that it would do much more to fight global warming and that type of thing if you add more public transit to areas where a very large percentage of the people who live and work in the area drive. That is the case with Schaumberg.

Blah Blah Blah, by the time you guys are done arguing over what areas deserve what based on whatever silly metrics you've dug out of who knows where, the sun will have exploded.

Face it. We have a crap system in place for adding and maintaining our transit system. I really could care less about which area needs improvement more. All areas need improvement, but it is only feasible to do so much. Does it truly matter which area gets service first? Does it accomplish anything to argue about it here?

I live 3 blocks from the blue line, and it can take me to work. But it is not as fast or efficient as taking the bus to belmont and sheffield and getting on a brown line train. So which line should I care about seeing upgrades on? The one where I live, or the one that gets me to work in the least amount of time?

Any expansion is good. I would prefer to see rail transit pushed out into the suburbs a bit more and a general boost to the PACE system. I've been heading out to Rosemont and grabbing a 332 PACE every other week to get cigarettes(I can see the Cook County Sign from where I buy them without Cook County Taxes, its funny to me). And to be brutally honest, the city itself seems to be in MUCH better shape than any of the outlying areas.

You guys are arguing apples and oranges here. The lines in the city you want to see worked on only benefit those who already have reasonable transit options. The extension of the blue into the burbs addresses the concerns of those who have to drive to get to reasonable transit options into the city. Expand to places that have fewer options and a more pressing need for the transit. And no, I'm not arguing in favor of anything more specific than "Places that are not served well".

First off, and I apologize for not catching this earlier, what I'm talking about is the extension of the Forest Park Blue Line to Lombard, which is part of the Cook DuPage corridor transit proposals. My understanding was that the extension of the O'Hare Blue Line to Schaumburg is no longer under consideration.

But before we even consider either idea, we should increase bus service on those routes and see how ridership responds. If these routes really do have so much potential, why do the buses run so infrequently? Does anyone know where to get Pace ridership figures?

Again, if study shows a Blue Line extension to have a lot of potential, I would rethink my priorities. But I would certainly like to see some figures on projected ridership first.

Let's narrow this down to a comparison between a Blue Line extension and the Mid-City Transitway. (If the Gray Line conversion gets done it will be in the next couple years because of the Olympics and would be fairly cheap; the Green Line extension isn't being discussed by anyone.) We already know that the MCT would get good ridership because the #54 Cicero has fairly high - and rapidly increasing - numbers, and you have to figure that a good number of people would use it to shuttle between O'Hare and Midway, to make connections between the six El lines it would tie together, and for South Siders to go to one of the airports or commute to the West Side or suburbs.

It should also be cheaper than the Blue Line extension, at least per mile of new track, since building on an existing right of way is easier than building in the middle of the Eisenhower (I'm not sure what the route would be for the Schaumburg extension). And it would serve dense, low-income neighborhoods, which should be a priority as the position of those most victimized by our economy continues to erode.

Again, I'm not against the Blue Line extension, but without more info it seems pretty clear that the MCT is a better investment.

I guess I admire how passionate y'all are about things that will still be utterly hypothetical long after we're all six feet under. But I don't get the point.

Heavy ridership on a parallel bus line may or may not be a good indicator of a good place to put a rail line. While some people may see the two types of transit as alternatives, they really don't attract the same kinds of riders.

A busy parallel bus line may be meeting the needs better than a rail line could. Or maybe not. Looking at the raw numbers won't tell you. You have to get into things like why people are riding, and where their trips start and end. Generally, if people are riding short distances, subsittuting nearby rail for bus service will result in disenfranchised bus riders, and an under utilized rail line. Not a good investment.

That's also why it's not effective to increase bus service to test the waters as to whether rail service can be successful. The two modes won't attract the same kinds of people. A skilled transit planner can make better projections by studying the area under consideration.

Rail and bus are more than just different vehicles. They operate differently, and they attract different kinds of riders. A good system will use both, but it will use them each in the right place.

"During rush hour, it[Pace Bus] only runs every fifteen minutes, something most CTA commuters would be shocked by."

Would they be shocked because the bus is scheduled for every 15 mintues, or because it actually comes by every 15 minutes? (vs waiting at the curb for a CTA bus 20-30 minutes)

China dropped 40 billion dollars on the 2008 Olympics. DO you think the US government, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago is willing to do anything like that?

That was 40 billion dollars of very cheap Chinese labor. You need to at least double that price for the U.S.

As others pointed out, the financing is by far my favorite part of Chicago's Olympic Bid. Yep, per Daley it's supposed to cost $4 billion dollars. China's Olympics cost $40 billion...I guess Daley will get all red faced about "mistakes" after the fact and ask for a federal/state bailout. Will Obama give it?

Well, if we, the US, want to host the Olympics, then we, the US, need to pony-up. The host city/region can't do it all themselves. And no matter what city is the host city, the world will look at it as the US hosting in that city, not a city that happens to be in the US hosting.

Yes, there can be a big economic gain for the host city. For example, construction jobs, and the support systems needed for the construction workers. But so much of that boost turns-off like a giant spigot as soon as the games are done, and what's left behind will be infrastructure that will need to be dismantled, or maintained. And there's no Olympic glory attached to those costs.

It'll be like waking up the day after a big party, and suddenly realizing that the wine fountain that seemed like such a good idea last week is going to just take up a lot of space in the garage for years to come. And how may keg taps does one family need?

If the rest of the country doesn't chip in, that post-Olympic hang-over is going to be a doozy.

I bet the Blue Line to Schaumburg won't be built is because Daley won't want to make it too easy to buy "DuPage Specials", avoiding Daley's and Stroger's ciggie tax. The Pace buses out there are so bad they make the CTA look good, being minimalist at best and non-existent as the norm. An L would be a big improvement over Pace.