CTA Tattler

From the "beating a dead horse" department: please explain to me the necessity for SRO cars on the Brown Line. Presumably, both the end of three-tracking and the Loop signal upgrades will enable the CTA to run more trains per hour. Since both are slated to be completed by year's end, a mere 4 months from now, the cost and hassle of removing seats from dozens of train cars seems reactionary and short-sighted. Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until the three-tracking is over and signal upgrades have been completed and the situation monitored before ripping out seats? Also, think there won't be logistical problems with this scenario? It's the CTA, folks!

The signal upgrades will not be installed until Thanksgiving according to the release. The overcrowding problems they are experiencing (the 9.5% ridership increase in August) are happening now. The removal of seats is happening in trains that will be defunct anyway once they receive shipments of the new cars and start using them after testing.

In my opinion they probably need to increase trains and do the SRO cars to accommodate the ridership increases we already have and probably will continue to have. Remember, when school starts back up there are even more people riding the trains.

Lots of announcements today. UCC will be pleased! :)

Oh thank god the end of the over-the-top red line. It may not seem much longer but after a certain number of times the trek from chicago brown to chicago red feels endless, and playing shepherd to confused tourists was getting a bit old.

I'm not a tourist and still confused to all the work going on this weekend.

Would have been nice if they could have timed this to coincide with replacing the State/Lake platforms which can be kind scary at rush because they are so narrow and often packed.

Hey, fantastic! I love to see more repairs being done. I sometimes picture Frank Kreusi sitting at home sulking because everybody is doing so much more useful stuff than riding trains in a yellow jacket.

Only thing is, they're doing it with money they have thanks to work done by Frank and his staff. All that's happened under Ron has been some minor tweaking of the plans Frank's people had in place.

By the time people realize how little Ron and his people are actually doing, he'll have moved on. And most people will blane whoever takes his place anyway!

The marching band practiced, and practiced and practiced. Then their director went away, and was replaced by some flashy drum major. The drum major now gets the credit for everything the band is doing, but after this halftime show is over, where's the encore? What happens next season without a competent director at the helm?

Is Frank now commenting on this blog under assumed names?

Ok, if you'd prefer we not blame Kreusi for all the work that didn't happen while he was in charge, then at least remember all the deferred / ignored maintenance that led to the blue line derailment and subsequent "discovery" of all these slow zones.

If that wasn't Kreusi's fault or responsibility - then whose was it?

And now that the cheap gas is back under four bucks, can people please stop crowding up my morning bus long before it reaches me kthxplz?

Among these fantastic plans that Kerusi put in motion we have the several hundred million dollar debacle known as the B37 superstation that can't even be used for a airport express line that doesn't exist. Oh, he stonewalled the board too about what it was actually costing and the prospects for it ever operating.

Swell job indeed.

Huberman used capital funds for projects Kerusi never would have started since he preferred to wait on more money out of Springfield while we rode an increasingly dangerous system.

I'm with The Doc on this one. It does not seem to make any sense to create SRO cars if 3-track is going to end in a few months. The CTA could have simply told riders to tough it out until the end of the year. I have this strange feeling that the CTA is using SRO cars to keep from restoring train service to what it was before 3-track.

I'm not saying Frank was prefect. But if you're going to properly hold him accountale for the things that went wrong under him, you also have to give him credit for the things he did right. Those capital funds that Ron has been playing with didn't just materialize due to Ron's efforts. Ron had money because Frank worked to get it.

And those capital funds are a seperate issue from operating funds from Springfield. If we want to talk about getting operating funds, I'm not sure Ron did his part. Part of his job is to lobby those obstructionists in the legislature. Perhaps Frank could have gotten a few suburban and downstate legislators to drop their resistance sooner.

I'm just saying just because people didn't like Frank that we have justification to credit his accomplishments to johnny-come-lately Ron, who jumped in front of the band just before the performance started, and didn't participate in any of the rehersals.

One of the major things that led to Kerusi getting the boot is that the legislature no longer trusted him to deal in good faith. The argument that he could have charmed more money out of Springfield is ridiculous.

Huberman is undoubtedly perusing capital funding from the state and feds as all of his predecessors have done. The difference is that Kerusi wouldn't tap the capital funds or bond out any future funds to fix a system that was on the verge of falling apart today to the extent of seriously compromising safety.

Let's remember that Kruesi actually made strong implications that the legislature should take some of the money that Metra received and give it to the CTA. That is not a way to impress suburbabn lawmakers, whose support was absolutely crucial. So it certainly does not seem to be the case that Kruesi at all knew what he was doing in terms of lobbying lawmakers (not that knowing what you are doing automatically gets you success with those guys, but it doesn't hurt).

Maybe when they rebuild the State/Lake platform, they could make it a center island type platform and build a connection to the Red Line subway at Lake. Someone or something keeps telling tourists to take the Orange Line to State/Lake and transfer to the Red Line and they get lost. I have a strange feeling that the Trip Planner is telling them this. It might be easier for them to transfer at Roosevelt (that's what I tell people to do, anyway). While they're at it, maybe Clark/Lake could be rebuilt with a center platform too.

Where have they mentioned rebuilding the State/Lake platform? Is this a wishlist or did I miss an announcement?

They've been looking at various plans to replace or remove it over the last 10 years. They finally decided on replacement but haven't gotten around to it yet probably due to other funding priorities.

Ahh, my Friday chuckle. Center islands on Lake Street. I can't wait for the middle of traffic turnstyles, stairs, elevators and escalators.

I'm all for the repair and construction that the CTA has embarked upon in the last year or two. The only thing that I'm a little hesitant about is the CTA doing all of the work at the same time. When I heard about the newly announced Loop work part of me was saying "great idea" but another part of me was saying "oh! no, not another repair project".

I've increase my CTA ridership considerably over the past year and I (along with everyone else) have gone through Blue line slow zone repair work, Red line slow zone repair work and detours through the Loop, ongoing reconstruction of the Howard Street station and changing of bus routes, closed Brown line stations due to reconstruction, three-track operations at Fullerton and Belmont, etc.

It's almost like the CTA decided to cram all of the projects in at the same time in the hopes that riders would be willing to endure everything now so that everything would be fine in three years or so.

Again, I heartily applaud the CTA for embarking on all of this work. I just wish (wistfully) that there could be some way of not having to be in alert mode all of the time.

SF said "It's almost like the CTA decided to cram all of the projects in at the same time in the hopes that riders would be willing to endure everything now so that everything would be fine in three years or so."

Or decided to cram it all in now (at least the more recent projects, I know the brown line was long ago in the works) to put on the best face for the Olympic Selection in 2009.

Or i could just be cynical. Either way, despite the hassles, It has been nice to move at a decent pace when riding the train lately though the rehabbed areas, and I'm a big beleiver in the power of Mass Transit as it relates to the health of the city.

Brian - you're probably right about the Olympics being the great motivation (I had my cynicism switch inexplicably turned off). The ironic/sad part is that with all of the work being done Chicago will probably meet just the bare minimum for transportation requirements for the Olympics.

I don't know about the other Olympic contestants like Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, etc but anything compared to Beijing's new transportation system will look pretty feeble and let's face it even with all of the many improvements made the CTA is still showing its age.

You're also right about enjoying the changes that have been made. Riding on the Blue line in the places where the slow zones improvements have been made has been both enjoyable and shocking - isn't this train going too fast?!

Yeah. The El, even in prefect condition, sure would serve the Olympic venues well! lol

If the Olympic bid is won, be prepared for years of all the capital funding beind diverted to create an infrastructure to go places none of us will need to go, save for a two week period if we can get the vacation time off.

If we win the Olympics, this will be the last round of capital improvements that we really care about.

The slow zones in the state street subway have been driving me crazy. I'm glad that they're fixing them. But wouldn't it still be better to run the trains over the top than to use one track?

It might make perfect sense, reuben, if CTA weren't doing much-needed signal work "over the top.". They tried doing Loop elevated work and Red Line work simultaneously earlier this year. The public outcry was immense 'cause it didn't work so well.

[They tried doing Loop elevated work and Red Line work simultaneously earlier this year. The public outcry was immense 'cause it didn't work so well.]

Yeah, that was punishing. I'm all for cramming in as much as you can at once, repairs-wise, but I think a good rule of thumb is for a maximum one set of reroutes at a time.

[If the Olympic bid is won, be prepared for years of all the capital funding beind diverted to create an infrastructure to go places none of us will need to go, save for a two week period if we can get the vacation time off.]

With respect, Rusty, there's just no way we can know this. There's no telling how the Olympics will spur development in the city if they come, and in the long run it seems likely that the very presence of rapid transit will lead to development anyway.

I know this is a hobbyhorse of yours, but it depends on assertions that require a crystal ball, IMO.

"The slow zones in the state street subway have been driving me crazy. I'm glad that they're fixing them."

Just for the record, they were not fixing the slow zones that were driving you crazy. Those slow zones were the construction slow zones that were put in place during the project. As you could see if you happened to pay attention to the track, unlike all the track construction on elevated tracks, in the subway they took out the old track and placed something temporary in its place. Only after this did they install the new track. If you look at the slow zone maps from prior to the project this year, there were only a few minor slow zones throughout the subway. That certainly doesn't mean the project wasn't neccessary. Obviously you don't want to wait until there are severe slow zones before you reconstruct the track. However, the CTA without a doubt is benefiting PR wise from people thinking they fixed something that they didn't.

The Original,

I think it is better for tourists to be told to transfer to the red line at State/Lake. When they do so, perhaps they might notice some of the shops on State Street and spend some money. For that reason, I would also be against building an internal structure that allows for direct transfers. Not to mention, it would no doubt be pretty expensive and not remotely worth the money.

"It might make perfect sense, reuben, if CTA weren't doing much-needed signal work "over the top.". They tried doing Loop elevated work and Red Line work simultaneously earlier this year. The public outcry was immense 'cause it didn't work so well."

Yeah, they did that for one weekend. I do notice, by the way, that that certainly didn't stop the Tribune from stating that the work this week is the "beginning" of the project. Jon Hilkevitch is the worst reporter in the entire city. Every time I see his byline I immedietely know that there are going to be at least two or three things in the article that will be inaccurate, misleading, or make ridiculous assumptions. Unfortunetely my computer was broken when he wrote a ridiculous article comparing a bus rapid transit line in Cleveland with the proposed BRT's in Chicago. Otherwise, I would have made some extreamly nasty personal comments, both here and in the Tribune comments section, about him and his whole body of work. He actually wrote aomething like "the challange for Cleveland, and ultimetely for Chicago, is how to convince riders that bus transportation is not just for the lower class". Apperently he doesn't notice, despite having been the transportation reporter for a decade or more, that thousands and thousands of people who clearly make six figures use the buses in Chicago. It is unbelievably ignorant to compare Cleveland with Chicago. I didn't have the chance to read the comments on that article so I don't know if anyone called him out on that. In this article, as usual, he essentually just parroted Huberman's press conference and/or a press release. It really would be nice to know how exactly the upgrading of the signal system will reduce delays. All Hilkevitch did was just repeat Huberman's statement that trains often stop and start because of the signal system. Of course, trains have to stop and start because it is a busy area with around five rail lines intersecting. Many times trains need to wait while other trains cross one of the two junctions ahead. And many times they will wait while there are many passengers boarding or exiting a train ahead. An upgrade to the signal system isn't going to stop this. That doesn't mean that it won't have benefits. But you would think a transportation reporter would ask what they were and how they will occur.

PRAISE YE CTA FOR ENDING "OVER THE TOP RED LINE" OMG THAT WAS A NIGHTMARE!!! I work near Michigan and buses aren't that feasible of an option for me and I rely on the Red Line to get to work and I work weekends often so I cringed when I saw the "over the top" alerts because taking the red line was not only a longer ride to and from work due to the train stopping everywhere and running slower, but the walk from Chicago & Franklin is a disaster. and those "bus shuttles" were a joke and waiting for the 66 bus is a disaster too. thank god i can take the train to work on weekends again! its been like a year (save a few weekends on occasion). and I noticed some of the slow zones between clark and armitage are gone or reduced!!! whoo hooo. and only a few more months of 3 track! they are already building a new track 4! (or is that track 1?) by building i mean the framework and such for the track and platforms at fullerton/belmont.

oh and dont forget going to and getting home from rush street or clark/division bars!!!!!!!!!!! thank god i can take the subway again. the over the top thing was a freaking joke. at least its over and i know work needed to be done but it was annoying because it almost created a transit desert in near north areas.

I can think of two ways that State/Lake could be rebuilt to allow for a center platform without having elevators and stairs in the middle of Lake Street: 1. Build a mezzanine level below the tracks like at Madison/Wabash to access the center platform. 2. Have elevators and a walkway to go up and over the tracks. I'm not saying it's a good idea (although I think there would be benefits); I'm just saying that it could be done.

Also, if the trip planner is telling people to transfer from the Orange to the Red at State/Lake, this needs to be fixed. Transferring there is far from ideal -- especially for a tourist coming from Midway with luggage. Spending money at State Street stores will be the last thing on a lost tourist's mind.

I may be being naive...but if you look at Atlanta's public transportation system, we are still a million miles ahead as far as the extent/level of transit that is provided. They still hosted the Olympics in Atlanta...I'm sure by using shuttles, etc. So I'm not trying to downplay the role or existing infrastructure could play in the selection of a host city, but just making an observation that there are much smaller, less expansive transit systems than Chicago's in cities which have been picked in te past.

10 Subway Commandments:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16618_10-commandments-public-transportation.html

I've always assumed that they can't put a mezzanine level at State/Lake because it's, you know, on State Street.

Does anyone notice that according to the alerts, they're not doing the Brown-Orange through-routing thing depicted on the maps? I'm very confused by how the Brown Line reroute in particular is supposed to work -- shuttles to Belmont, then a separate train from Belmont to Library? What is the purpose of that? Won't it choke the system having so many trains needing to turn around?

Jason: Try the 147 bus to get to north Michigan Ave.

I find it interesting that all of the suicides and/or accidents that have recently befallen CTA all occurred at stations with island platforms (i.e. Cermak/Chinatown, Berwyn). State/Lake is, without a doubt, one of the scariest stations ever. I have no spatial phobias, but I hated it even before the last ten years' ridership explosion. I find it interesting that no one ever falls on the tracks there. Maybe people are more aware because of the frighteningly narrow platform and take care to keep their wits about them.

I sometimes wonder what it might have been like at the Loop stations before the subway was built. Transit ridership was much higher back then, and everything went "over the top", including North Shore trains headed to Milwaukee. State-Lake must have been even scarier back then!

The slow zone in the north bound Red Line tube has been removed. Imagine my surprise this weekend to be almost rocketing down the line from Clark/Division to North and Clybourn.

5 minutes from Clark/Division to Belmont was pretty nice.

"If the Olympic bid is won, be prepared for years of all the capital funding beind diverted to create an infrastructure to go places none of us will need to go, save for a two week period if we can get the vacation time off."

Can you tell us what you're thinking about here? I haven't seen any information on what infrastructure investments are being contemplated, and I can't really think of anything that would be of much use for the Olympics other than the Gray Line conversion. Since that's something that should be done anyway, I just don't see where this apocalypticism is coming from.

Well, you answered your own question. "I can't really think of anything that would be of much use for the Olympics other than the Gray Line conversion."

So if the Olympics come, capital funding is going to be diverted away from the system we use that won't serve the Olympic venues, and be diverted to projects that are of no use to us, but would specifically serve the Olympic venues.

If they're spending all the money on Olympic infrastructure, there won't be any money left for extending the Yellow, Orange or Red Lines, or for any major rehab projects. If it doesn't lie between the hotels and other Olympic housing and the venues, it won't be funded because all the capital funding will be going to infrastructure to benefit the Olympics. Forget about getting funding for anything else.

"So if the Olympics come, capital funding is going to be diverted away from the system we use that won't serve the Olympic venues, and be diverted to projects that are of no use to us, but would specifically serve the Olympic venues."

I don't know who the "we" that you're talking about is, but the Gray Line plan - incorporating the Metra Electric to the El system by changing its name, increasing service on it, and making transfers easy and cheap - would be more useful to Chicagoans than any expansion plan currently under discussion except the Red Line extension. That corridor is the densest part of Chicago without El service and it covers a key commute route for South Siders. It would also make accessing key destinations like McCormick Place and the Museum of Science and Industry much easier. This is infrastructure that is currently underutilized, and if the Olympics provides an excuse to realize its potential and increase service on the South Side, I can't see any drawback.

For those unfamiliar with this debate, we had a long discussion about it last month:
http://www.ctatattler.com/2008/08/radiohead-repre.html

I find it strange that you linked to that, Jake, considering that it is so abundently clear that you lost the debate. And you lost it very severly. It is so completely ludicrous to suggest that increasing service on a rail line that already has a significant amount of service (and more importantly, where there is a HUGE amount of CONVENIENT buses, including EXPRESS buses) and changing its name is preferable to actually extending rail lines. I think it is really pretty silly, for example, that the yellow line stops just around a mile south of Old Orchard, which not only has a huge amount of economic activity itself, but there are also numerous office buildings and other employers (such as Rush-North Shore Hospital) just a block or so from it. We also discussed extending the blue line to Schaumberg, which it seems quite obvious to me would have the most benefits, in this thread: http://www.ctatattler.com/2008/08/we-have-a-lot-t.html Yet you, for reasons that are inexplicable to me, are suggesting they instead simply convert a line that already exists in an area that has numerous good transit options, and increase service on it a bit. It is nuts. Why are you so adament in your belief that the only transit improvements should be in the city in already transit-rich neighborhoods? The same thing is true with your support for bus rapit transit lines going to the loop during rush hour in areas where everybody already uses transit to do that (and, in which, will result in major traffic problems, which among other things pollutes the environment, and a very significant decrease in economic activity of the businesses on the street). Why wouldn't you be supporting increasing transit in areas where transit is currently pretty limited and there is a strong need for more useful transit, such as Schaumberg and Skokie? I am pretty perplexed by your opinions considering that, from reading your posts, the reason you seem to be so vocal about transit improvements is because you are apparently a strong believer in protecting the environment. And also you seem to be concerned about the poor. Your suggestion of the grey line converstion and the BRTs will not result in any more than a very slight reduction of cars on the road and will not give anybody who is poor a good transit option when they don't already have one. I just don't get where you are coming from.

Uh oh! MK and Jake are going at it again.

Is off-track betting allowed on MK vs Jake? No pun intended, of course.

Rusty made a good point in a previous thread: service should be added in *underserved* areas - which could be either areas with few transit options to begin with, or areas that are already transit rich but demonstrate significant unmet transit potential.

The Metra Electric/Gray Line corridor is an example of the latter. Many people would prefer to use the train if it were as cheap as the bus and permitted transfers to CTA lines. Trains are faster, more comfortable, and more energy and cost efficient. Since this is the densest corridor in Chicago not served by a CTA rail line, and also serves many low-income riders, the Gray Line conversion would be a cheap investment with big returns. Increased transit use among the millions of tourists and convention-goers that visit McCormick Place, the Museum of Science and Industry, and Soldier Field every year is just icing on the cake.

To put some perspective on priorities, consider these numbers: For the entire year of 2007, the Yellow Line provided 587,667 rides. In 2008 April alone, the Metra Electric provided 929,896 rides, and the #6 bus 349,638 rides. Now I strongly support adding stations to the existing Yellow Line and extending it at least as far as Old Orchard, which should dramatically increase those rather low numbers. But the fact is that the need and cost-effectiveness for transit is far higher in dense, low-income urban areas than in suburban areas. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that neighborhood groups along the Metra Electric support the Gray Line conversion
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30609
while the Schaumburg proposal seems to have died.
http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/2020plan.html

Skokie, like most inner-suburbs, is really more of an urban area than suburban. It is a pretty dense suburb, both in population and (especially) with jobs. I don't quite get your point about the number of people who use the yellow line. Of course the numbers are going to be small. There is only one stop on the line, as opposed to something like 30 or 35 for the Metra Electric. And the yellow line did not even operate on weekends during that time. Expanding to Old Orchard would dramatically increase those numbers (no, it wouldn't bring them to the level of the Electric but that has nothing to do with anything, it also would not bring them to the level that United Airlines has). The overwhelming majority of people who would use the line at Old Orchard would be new riders. Currently, if someone wants to get to the Old Orchard area via the yellow line, they would need to get off at its stop on Dempster, wait a few minutes or more for a bus, and than take a bus ride of more than five minutes. In most cases, they would get to Old Orchard around ten to fifteen minutes after they arrived at the yellow line stop in Skokie, which I think is pretty silly for such a huge employment center that is only around a mile away. If the line went to Old Orchard, this would take around a minute or less. Many people from the city who otherwise would drive would decide to take the CTA. Currently, while there may be a fair amount of people who take public transit to the area it is a very small percentage even just of those who live in the city. Those who work there, I'm sure, get free parking (just like those who shop there) and the Edens is right next to it. It is just much more convenient to drive in most cases, even if it is more expensive. This would dramatically change with the yellow line expansion and you will probably get the majority of people from the city (or at least the eastern part of the city) using it. Without a doubt, this is an area that not only is underserved but also has "significant unmet transit potential". So it accomplishes both of the criteria you mention instead of just one (by your own opinion) or neither (in my opinion) for the grey line. It would do a great deal to accomplish what appears to be your major goal, getting cars off the road. The grey line conversion would get very few cars off the road. These people, as you admit, already have a transit-rich environment. The overwhelming majority of the people who use the increased service you suggest on the Electric line would just be using it instead of transit service that already exists(which as you mention, have strong ridership). I just don't see any dramatic benefits to this. Your suggestion, in another thread, that they actually elimanate certain high ridership buses will actually cause more people to have less convenient service than there will be people who have an advantage with the grey line.

"Many people would prefer to use the train if it were as cheap as the bus and permitted transfers to CTA lines. Trains are faster, more comfortable, and more energy and cost efficient."

We already discussed the fact that there really is no cost difference in the Metra Vs. the CTA (especially for people who are regular commuters) unless they are transferring. But there are ways to make transferring cheaper without actually converting a whole line. Yes, trains are more cost efficiant. But you would still need buses in this area anyway. Your suggestion of elimanting the #6 and other buses was rather laughable and is not going to happen. There will not be fewer buses. There will not even be significantelly fewer passengers on those buses. As I mentioned on another thread, during peak hours there already is very frequent service on the electric line and there is still strong ridership on the buses in the corrider. Your suggestion of increasing service only affects off-peak hours. And all other things equal, people do prefer the train. But, as I told you, you seem to be overlooking the fact that for most riders this is not a matter of all other things being equal. Buses currently provide transportation very near the homes and workplaces of many riders who would never be able to get closer that several blocks by the grey line.

It would be an enormous waste of money to do what you are suggesting. This money needs to be used to actually expand transit to areas with transit potential that currently have mediocore or no transit.

On the west side, we have three parallel El lines. Each, on their own, makes sense. Any pair makes sense. But all three together add up to three under-performing lines.

You'd get the same thing on the south side if you built the Gray Line. The Green, already an under-performer, would suffer the most. While the Gray Line in issolation makes sense, in a regional sense it is not the best way to spend our money.

However, you just might see a stub of the Gray Line built to serve the Olympic venues. It would be used heavily for two weeks, but after that, it would be even less useful than another parallel line.

Meanwhile, there are areas that could benefit from extensions of existing lines, not to mention a crosstown corridor that no one seems to be able to come up with a plan for.

So many other places where capital funding could have an impact, yet Jake is still caught-up on the idea of repeating the mistakes made 50 years ago that created three parallel lines in an area that only needed two at best.

If the idea is that the Gray Line is cheap to build, I've got one that's even cheaper. Run the Purple to the loop all day. Add a stop or two between Belmont and Howard. Yes, you'd be putting more service in an area that already has service, but at least the line being duplicated is operating pretty close to capacity.

"If the idea is that the Gray Line is cheap to build, I've got one that's even cheaper. Run the Purple to the loop all day. Add a stop or two between Belmont and Howard. Yes, you'd be putting more service in an area that already has service, but at least the line being duplicated is operating pretty close to capacity."

I bet Jake is going to argue that... well, I'll wait to see what he says before I comment. Otherwise, it would be counterproductive for me to dispute it. He could make it seem like he never was going to make the argument and I would have nothing irrefutable to point to to suggest otherwise.

Are three rail lines on the West Side really redundant? Would three lines on the South Side be redundant? We can only conclude that if we project current numbers indefinitely into the future. But comparatively low ridership on the West and South Sides has more to do with the economic and social catastrophe that befell those areas over the last 50 years than it does with redundant rail infrastructure. As people and capital return - as they will in droves over the next couple decades - we'll be very happy we have that infrastructure in place.

Regardless, this is hardly an argument against the Gray Line. The Metra Electric already has ridership numbers higher than any CTA line except the Red Line and O'Hare Blue Line, indicating significant unmet potential if South Side riders could also use it outside rush hour and for transfers. The Green Line is the real underperformer on the South Side, but as its corridor gentrifies I think we'll see a major increase in ridership.

I'm not convinced that the Yellow Line extension would take more cars off the road than the Gray Line would, if only because of the massive difference in density. But even if it did, I think the crucial point is the cost-benefit ratio. The Gray Line represents a major improvement in convenience for residents and visitors alike at extremely low cost. Rusty's Purple Line proposal would also be cheap, and I think it's worth exploring. But it would benefit far fewer people - monthly ridership on the Gray Line route is around 1.4 million, on the Purple Line around 220,000.

Of course I don't want to criticize the Red, Orange, and Yellow Line extensions, or the Mid-City Transitway El - these are all important projects that deserve funding (the Circle Line is another matter). But if Chicago does win the Olympics, the Gray Line conversion would likely be done out of funds that would otherwise not be available. I simply can't understand why some people on this board are so dismissive of the expressed interests of South Side residents.

No, Jake, the people on this board aren't being dismissive of what south side residents want, they're being dismissive of this particular proposal, which is an over-complicated non-starter.

Look, it's not that there are strong arguments against the Grey Line proposal (you've done a very good job of countering those arguments, btw), it's that there are insurmountable realities against it:

-Because of current rail ridership on the south side, the CTA won't do this without abandoning the Green Line, which they won't do since they just completely rebuilt it less than twenty years ago, with complete ADA accessibility (which most ME stations don't have) and park 'n ride lots. I agree with Rusty that they SHOULD NOT have rebuilt the Green Line in favor of an ME conversion, but they did and now we have to live with it for better or worse.

-An ME conversion wouldn't create very much ridership where there is now none (people who drive instead of taking transit) - those who ride it now would continue to do so, and it would siphon away some of the Red and Green Line's ridership: people who take buses to one of those lines because the ME is too expensive or too far to walk.

-The CTA will not buy a fleet of rolling stock that it can't interchange with the rest of its fleet. First, it would be an expensive to maintain liability, and it already can't get funding to supply and maintain the rest of its fleet. But, as I pointed out in another thread, Metra already owns enough rolling stock to provide frequent all-day service.

-Metra will never consent to give away a chunk of its infrastructure even if paid to do so, not when it needs good ridership numbers in order to get operating and capital funds out of the various levels of government, and the ME is one of its best performing routes. Your proposal would give away revenue and good ridership numbers to the CTA at the expense of Metra's statistics, employees, equipment and infrastructure.

-Metra can't subcontract its services to another agency without the permission of its labor unions, which it isn't likely to get for something like this. It would add an extra level of management for them to contract/argue with.

-The RTA can't override these considerations. Your understanding of the RTA's new powers is un-sophisticated. Yes, under the new legislation RTA can give the green or red light to service expansions based of existing levels of service by the three agencies, and can allot funds accordingly. However, the CTA, Metra, and Pace are still semi-sovereign half-business/half-government entity 'things' (wow), who own their infrastructures fair and square. The RTA does not now, nor has it ever had, the ability to order the three agencies to provide service for one another or to give or sell a piece of their infrastructure to one of the other agencies.

-Kenwood, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, and South Shore are NOT gentrifying. Nor are they likely to in the next decade(s) or so. Further, Woodlawn and South Shore are not very densely populated, but your proposal uses the south shore branch instead of the ME main line, which serves many more people and under-served neighborhoods and makes much more sense. And your contention that good transit should move into a neighborhood before development is erroneous. That may have made sense a hundred years ago when transit was being pioneered by entrepreneurs using private capital investment to lay track through empty fields, but in today's environment of pulicly-funded transit, densely packed urban areas, environmental impact statements, and eminent domain lawsuits, it just doesn't make sense anymore to have frequent transit service preempt residential and commercial development.

I agree with you that the south side and the lakefront tourist destinations would be better served if the ME were a rapid transit line, but the Grey Line proposal in its current form is hideously flawed because of the reasons above and many that others have pointed out (though I apologize that MK tends to lose his temper very easily!) - which is why no one other than a few south side aldermen who stand to gain clout with their constituencies by supporting the proposal has taken it seriously in the ten or so years that it's been around.

I stand by my earlier contention that some kind of universal fare card would be the quickest, easiest, simplest, and cheapest way of dealing with this situation, and much more so than the Grey Line conversion. And if the ME becomes more popular off-peak, then Metra can add trains to the line, and then we'll have frequent service all day and cheap transfers. And there you'd have it.

"Rusty's Purple Line proposal would also be cheap, and I think it's worth exploring. But it would benefit far fewer people - monthly ridership on the Gray Line route is around 1.4 million, on the Purple Line around 220,000."

Good grief! Do you even know what the purple line is? It is an express line that goes through the area served by the northern part of the red line (the busiest rail line in the city) and numerous bus routes with huge ridership. So your comparisent is unbelievably stupid. For someone who goes to the University of Chicago, you should know better. A true comparison (if you just ignore all the other reasons against the grey line) would be to use the numbers of all the bus and train riders on the eastern half of the north side.

I've got somewhere to be in five minutes so I will have to respond to the rest of your post later. I'm surprised that you made a different stupid argument against Rusty's suggestion than I thought you were going to.