CTA Tattler

From the CTA's own website:
"During the construction, customers will continue to access the station through the newly opened three-story south entrance located at 7519 S. Paulina, which provides a convenient, accessible path between the station platforms and the multi-story parking garage and bus terminal on the west side of the Howard station."

I really want to see someone access the Howard station from 75th & Paulina!
That's one hell of a bridge, I hope there's a moving sidewalk like at O'Hare.

Does anyone at the CTA know what proofreading is?

I'm sure you'll be happy to tell them.

The linked press release now says N.

They must have read it, the address has been corrected.

Does CTA really stand for "Can't Type Anything?"

The Gray line conversion would do much more to bring rapid transit to the south side of Chicago than the proposed Red line extension. As a matter of fact, the Red line extension represents a wasteful duplication of existing Metra electric infrastructure.

One of the proposed routes would use the IC right-of-way. In any case it certainly wouldn't be the first rapid transit line to be built alongside a commuter line.

I was also looking at the BRT idea. How would that reduce congestion at the 95th terminal?

Gray Line: For those along most of the Electric stops, I can't imagine L-like service being preferable to Metra. The Metra is much faster and runs like clockwork--highly superior for commuters. In that respect, I don't understand the Red Line expansion either, since a ride from the new southern terminal to downtown would take forever.

The Gray Line would be great as a service to 63rd:
1: It would serve a community of non-commuting public transit users in Hyde Park who would benefit from the increased off-peak service of the L.
2: It would serve dense communities that can support day-long public transit use. South of ~63rd, it's not dense enough to have enough demand except during rush hours. Thus, Metra is preferable there, since it peaks during the rush.
3: It would serve reverse-commute destinations, taking people from the loop to: Museums, Soldier Field, McCormick, HP/UChicago, and MSI.

Unfortunately, it's just not worth it to repurpose such a short section of the Electric line. Which is a real shame, because come 2016, we'll need something much more useful than the Electric to service the south lakefront.

I do want to know where they're getting their numbers, because I can't figure out how demand for the L would be high in distant neighborhoods already served by Metra.

The hyde park area is served by the 6 and X28 buses. I just have to wonder how many of you have taken these buses.

The CTA knows that there is demand for service since a lot of people are transferring from buses to the 95th terminal. The station sees 4.2M boardings/year, making it the busiest L station outside of the loop. Stations along the line are spaces about a mile apart, so I assume service could be fast.

" The Metra is much faster and runs like clockwork--highly superior for commuters."

The problems with Metra are:

1. No transfers to the CTA available.
2. It is operated like a suburban commuter line with infrequent service except during rush hours and the areas WITHIN THE CITY need rapid transit. If they did not, there would be no point in expanding the red line south. The Gray line conversion would provide more extensive rapid transit service to that area than the red line expansion would and, because it would not require building new infrastructure, would cost a lot less.

When I lived in HP, I took the 6 all the time. It worked, but a train running along the Metra tracks, would be twice as fast (15 vs. 30 minutes), would be far more visitor-friendly than a bus, and would stop at Soldier Field and McCormick Place, both necessary for a 2016 solution.

As for the transfers, that'd be great for riders, but brutal for RTA income. They aren't gonna spend money to rehab stations just so they can give us all free transfers and collect even less money.

What I'm saying is most of the people along the south-side Electric stops would probably prefer a speedy train that comes frequently during the rush to a slower L-like service that's spread out evenly over the day. The only exception to this would be the young, dense neighborhood of HP, which has reverse-commute destinations.

I think the Red Line extension, if they go with the UP Corridor, is designed to serve areas that aren't covered by the Electric. Thus, while I think people there would prefer express commuter service, the L is better than nothing but buses. At least that's why I think. I'm still skeptical.

Where this all comes together is that I don't get why they're gonna drop this much cash on such a small extension when bus routes get the job done. If "there are bus routes" isn't a barrier to train service, then why not do the Gray Line just down to 63rd, to improve upon and alleviate congestion on the 6 bus?

I would love, LOVE to see the gray line happen in a rich world. I just don't think it makes enough sense south of 63rd, and is therefore a non-starter politically.

One proposal has been Gray line lite. This would only involve the south shore branch and then the sevice from there to downtown.

In any case the legislation that bailed out the RTA also calls for the RTA to have authority with respect to any expansions that potentionally involve more then one of the RTA components. Since any Red Line expansion would involve dupliction of CTA and Metra Electic infrastructure, this will give the RTA the authority to determine whether there should be a Red Line expansion or a Gray Line conversion, or some combination.

The South Chicago line runs at grade level. You must be joking when suggesting running rapid transit along the line.

If you want an option that allows you to leave whenever you want, then you could always take your bike. Hyde Park is about 30-40 min from the loop by peddling. Even faster with practice.

reuben: the gray line project's actually far more simple than you think. It would use existing metra trains with repurposed stations and schedules. It'd be the same cars, but accepting CTA fares and running at L-like intervals. Regular Metra trains would take 2 of the 4 tracks and all express from wherever the gray line starts all the way to downtown. That's why it'd be so cheap--you'd just be installing CTA fareboxes. If the Metra can run on those gray line tracks, the gray line could do it too. It's a simple two step change: change the scheduling intervals and change the fare collection system. That's it, as far as I know.

You also seem to miss the point of public transit. We have public transit so we don't have to take our own bike or car. You would have those south of 95th bike to a CTA or Metra station. Expansion recognizes the inconvenience of bus travel and especially bike travel (during the winter?) and tries to bring the far more convenient and reliable train service to more.

You seem to think everyone should just buck up and leave earlier. We can do that, or we can make a better L. Generally, I'll pick the latter.

The point of public transportation is to mitigate the negative effects of automobiles. Biking from Hyde Park is very viable option as it is linked to the loop by a very fast bike path. And I do believe that except for a section in the gold coast that it is plowed and salted.

The IC Mainline only contains 3 electrified tracks. So the grey line would take up 2, so Metra and NICTD would be left to fight over the remaining track. Plus running trains at 10 minute headways would require more equipment, and yards to store them. Stations would have to be reconfigured to create a CTA paid area separate from any metra platforms and stairwells. This could get tricky at a station like Roosevelt. There are other things that I can't think of right now.

Also, forget about South Chicago and Blue Island branches, as both of these are grade level.

"The South Chicago line runs at grade level. You must be joking when suggesting running rapid transit along the line"

The last parts of the Brown and Pink line run at grade level, and so does much of the Yellow line.

For many years much of the outer part of the old Garfield Park line ran at grade level.

The idea that people going to work could bike to work on days when it is raining or snowing is preposterous. Even on nice days biking will get one's suit messed up.

The IC mainline has four electrified tracks.

The IC Mainline once contained 10 tracks from Randolph to Kensington/115th. It was the widest rail mainline in the world.
There were the four commuter tracks, two tracks for intercity passenger trains & four freight tracks.

Once again, the so-called Gray Line is a rehash of the original 1960s plan that was never carried out after the Dan Ryan L line was completed.
The entire South Side Mainline of the CTA, the present Green Line was to be abandoned & rebuilt on the IC Mainline using the space of two tracks. The CTA would then have the frequent stops & the IC was to close most of its stations except for 23rd St./McCormick Place, 57th-59th & one somewhere between 59th & Kensington.
With the stupid & absurdly expensive rehab of the Green Line, parallel & just blocks from the Ryan, it's no longer financially feasible to do this.
It's dead people, deader than General Franco, so give it up already.

The Metra Electic lines are far enough away from the green and existing red lines to make this feasible. They serve different geographic areas. But a red line expansion south would be a wasteful duplication of existing Metra Electric infrastructure.

The fact that a serious mistake was made years ago in not doing something like this then is no reason for not doing it now.

So because Metra also serves Evanston & Wilmette, we should abandon that CTA Line? It's just a duplication, what with the Davis & Main St. L stations just a few feet from the Metra stations in Evanston.

You Gray Line fanatics are just going to waste your time & energy on foolishness that will never be built in our lifetimes.
And delay any CTA southward expansion.

The brown line runs for less than a mile at grade level, and nowhere is it running in a street. It was allowed because it was grandfathered in when the streets where taken over by the city. I highly doubt that people in the affected areas would take this without a serious protest.

On another note, if the traffic could justify it, Metra would be running more frequent service themselves. No need to bother with sending money to an agency that has little to do with the tracks.

In the case of Evanston and Wilmette, the infrastructure is already there. Southward expansion of the red line requires expensive expenditures on NEW infrastructure.

The reason that Metra service is infrequent is that it runs this it a suburban commuter line, with long trains which can only be filled if run infrequently. Rapid transit would run shorter trains more frequently.

Metra Electric trains run in two car couplets & trains can be as short as a single couplet.
Building your Gray Line will require massive new construction, all new stations, all new rail, roadbed & signal system.
If you haven't noticed, the CTA uses crushed limestone for its roadbed, not the heavy crushed granite that Class 1 railroads use. There's a huge difference between the 30 ton L cars & the almost 100 ton coaches of a real railroad.
You have no idea what you're talking about, you just have an unobtainable dream.
And with $137 million sunk into an unusable Block 37 station, the CTA has no money for unobtainable dreams.

"The point of public transportation is to mitigate the negative effects of automobiles. Biking from Hyde Park is very viable option as it is linked to the loop by a very fast bike path. And I do believe that except for a section in the gold coast that it is plowed and salted."

We don't need public transit at all! We've got bike paths! Since everyone can bike to work through any weather, why not disband the CTA altogether? God, the northern Red Line's completely useless, too. Why don't people use the perfectly good lakefront bikepaths instead?

You're nuts.

If you include the time to walk from my house to the South Boulevard Station, waiting for a train, and then time spent on the actual train trip then the bike is a faster option during off-peak times.

The above posters don't like infrequent service. So they can use their own transportation which leaves whenever they want it to. I do realize that biking in inclement weather isn't for everybody.

In a city with long, cold winters and a lot of rain, bicycles are of only a very limited value as a method of public transportation. If that is the only alternative to driving, the overwhelming majority will choose to drive in a heated and air conditioned car in which you do not get rained on.

"Building your Gray Line will require massive new construction, all new stations, all new rail, roadbed & signal system."

Not so. The advantage of the plan is that most of the existing infrastructure, including rail, roadbed, and signal system as well as rolling stock can be used. For details see:

http://grayline.20m.com/

You just don't get it, do you?
If it would be profitable, Metra would run more trains on the IC Mainline.
The CTA will never pay another agency to do a job for it.
It's a bureaucratic turf war.
The CTA unions won't allow it.
The railroad unions won't allow it.

As far as turf is concerned the new transit legislation makes the RTA the arbitrer when service could be provided by more than one of its components. This is clearly the case for any possible red line expansion, since it would involve duplication of existing Metra Electric infrastructure.

The objections raised here are anticipated and answered at the Gray line conversion Web site at
http://grayline.20m.com/

People who evangelize bikes as the answer to all transportation questions, please go away.

I'd have to agree that if there really was any potential for the Gray Line, Metra Electric would have tapped into it years ago, turf war or not.

And the situation is not comparable to the Red Line extension. Failure to see how different the concepts are is not a good sign that there is anything credible in praising the Gray Line.

The only advantage to the Gray Line is it would serve some of the potential Olympic venues. But the day after the Olympics closing cerimonies, it would turn into the same ghost town atmosphere that lead to decreases in Metra service to stations in the corridor.

It's a pipe dream, and a poor one at that.

[People who evangelize bikes as the answer to all transportation questions, please go away.] [In a city with long, cold winters and a lot of rain, bicycles are of only a very limited value as a method of public transportation. If that is the only alternative to driving, the overwhelming majority will choose to drive in a heated and air conditioned car in which you do not get rained on.]

Because I was advocating the complete destruction of the red line, and expecting a quarter million people a day to take a 12ft wide trail. Jeesh. Public transportation already exists in the areas your talking about, and I would never advocate tearing it down.

I'd like to add that the red line expansion is completely hinging on a full funding grant from uncle sam. Could happen, but the CTA has no funds to extend the red line.

"I'd have to agree that if there really was any potential for the Gray Line, Metra Electric would have tapped into it years ago, turf war or not."

Before the recent legislation that gives the RTA the authority to make the decisions when more than one of its components could potentially serve an area, turf battles largely prevented this. The three components were competing with each other about serving various aras, such as the Interstate west of O'Hare. With RTA now having control, such interservice arrangements become more feasible, making it possible eventually for metropolitan Chicago to have one integrated public transport system instead of 3 separate, poorly connected, ones.

To form an informed decision on this, instead of dismissing it out of hand, you need to look at the material on its website at http://grayline.20m.com/

When you create your own Q&A, it's not credible.
Exactly like the Gray Line.
For once I will agree with Rusty, if there was the ridership to use the Electric line, Metra would have increased service on it by now.
It's not there & it's not going to be there except for special events.

Your constant harangue on the Gray Line is sort of like poking a stick through the bars at a gorilla.
You're wasting your time & making the gorilla mad.

The more you push for this foolishness, the more you will be ignored!

Land use along the Metra Electric basically dictates it function as a commuter line. Basically from the Stevenson (~26th St) all the way to 47th St, there is almost nothing; no residents, no employment centers to generate traffic. How can you possibly justify a rapid transit line in this stretch? Such long gaps between anything can only be justified in cases like the O'Hare Blue Line extension, where the end terminus is a major regional activity generator and vital to connect to the transit network.

Maybe if there were some actual high density development along the south lakeshore the Gray Line would make sense, but as it is there isn't even enough to justify any express buses serving areas north of 47th street or any intermediate stations on the ME.