CTA Tattler

Whoops, Sorry that last one @Kiel was posted my me and not Kiel.

@Lone Gawker (I assume that "@Kiel" is, in fact, Lone Gawker:)

Yes, Jake is advocating new trains and all those other things - just ask him to post that same, tired link he keeps directing Tattler readers to as though WE are the ones who just don't get it.

But anyway, I've always thought we need something like the Chicago Card: whatever it is or looks like, you only get it if you want to ride both CTA AND Metra - you can fill it with money at CTA vending machines just like the Chicago Card, and also at the Metra stations that have vending machines. Electronic card readers get installed in the vestibules of all Metra train cars, and you swipe your card as you get onto the train. The Metra conductor is there to monitor that your card swiped correctly just like on a CTA bus, and is also there to punch the tickets of the commuters who are still using the old tickets because they don't need the CTA transfer. No conductors lose thier jobs to CTA fare turnstile conversion, and the only costs are installing the fare card readers on the trains and the long-term costs of getting vending machines that can handle these cards installed at the non-downtown stations. Transferring between CTA and Metra too expensive? Voila, problem solved, and all over the system, and not just on the electric line.

This of course, solves every problem except off-peak train frequency, which would unfortunately still require good old-fashioned politicking: calling and pestering governor/mayor/reps/senators/aldermen/city councillors and demanding that Metra be given a subsidy to run their trains all day, if they cannot already afford to do so (or be pressured to do so regardless of $$$).

@kiel

I agree that your proposal is an excellent one for the near term. And maybe I sound silly, but I think we should be looking ahead towards building a world class 21st century public transportation network... having different intracity rail operators seems a bit patchwork and not in keep with that idea.

So for the near-term I totally endorse that, but for the long term I think its important to integrate the ME into the el system.

@Stephen

I'm not so sure that I agree. Having different intracity rail operators DOES work in a lot of places: New York (MTA, Long Island RR, NJTransit), London (overground & underground), Paris (Metro & RER), and even works to some extent here.

And I don't disagree with you, but I think fare integration and more frequent service does integrate the ME into the rest of the El system, not to mention the other Metra lines.

Long term, I dunno, plentiful funding for public transportation may not happen in our lifetimes, or ever for that matter. When the El was new, there were no buildings in the way to seize and demolish or underground utilities to reroute, both at great expense. I think that a full physical integration of the ME with the rest of the El to the extent that the same kinds of trains could be rerouted onto either would be prohibitively expensive. So expensive, in fact, that we might as well do as (gasp!) UC-c suggested and reroute the green line into a subway under Washington Park and the Midway, which I think is a GREAT idea:) You could have stops at King Dr., Cottage Grove, the UofC, the Metra, the Museum of Sci/Industry, and then the subway could turn at Stony Island and keep going south under Stony for miles. There wouldn't be any buildings in the way needing demolishing, and it would take the green line far enough to the east of the red line (and through Hyde Park!) that people may finally start using it in large numbers. A boy can dream :D

" I've always thought we need something like the Chicago Card: whatever it is or looks like, you only get it if you want to ride both CTA AND Metra - you can fill it with money at CTA vending machines just like the Chicago Card, and also at the Metra stations that have vending machines. Electronic card readers get installed in the vestibules of all Metra train cars, and you swipe your card as you get onto the train. The Metra conductor is there to monitor that your card swiped correctly just like on a CTA bus, and is also there to punch the tickets of the commuters who are still using the old tickets because they don't need the CTA transfer. No conductors lose thier jobs to CTA fare turnstile conversion, and the only costs are installing the fare card readers on the trains and the long-term costs of getting vending machines that can handle these cards installed at the non-downtown stations."

I think that would be a very good system and the major reason why is precisely because it will allow the amount of conducting staff to be dramatically reduced. Right now, the majority of Metra trains have between three an seven (yes, seven) conductors. That is inexcusable with the technology available in 2008 and wastes a ton of money that could be used to expand service. The tickets need to be electronic. Machines should be placed at each station where tickets can be bought and value added. This will also allow them to lay-off all of the ticket agents (at least at the non-downtown stations). Each seat on the train should have a device that lets the passenger automatically pay with their ticket and a green light will show if this is done. The conductor will just walk through the train to make sure everybody's light is green. If anybody does not have a valid ticket, there would be a surcharge for purchasing from the conductor which will mean that almost everybody will have their tickets(just like it is now, except it will exist all day and be higher). This should require the work of no more than one conductor per train (perhaps two on a few really busy rush hour trains). It will cost some money to implement this. But this will be miniscule compared to the huge amount saved by having around 85 to 90% fewer conductors. There is no excuse for Metra having such a huge staff in 2008. The reason they do is bacause they are still using 1920s (or earlier) ticket technology.

hmm MK, but then how would you implement this considering that many Metra rush hour trains are standing room only?

What if the residents of edgebrook demanded that the md-n line become a cta line, or the residents of beverly demanded that the rock island district become a cta line?

Reuben, I doubt we'll ever see any such demands, but if the residents think that would serve them best, what's wrong with it? But the fact remains that the Metra Electric is far more similar to El lines than it is to the other Metra lines.

MK, wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to install fare collection equipment at all Metra stations and eliminate the conductors entirely (which would also allow some kind of CTA transfer)? I don't use commuter rail so maybe there's some advantage of having conductors I just don't know about.

Lone Gawker, yes, as I've written repeatedly, what I'm calling for on the South Shore line is increased service (which would involve buying more trains), a CTA fare structure (which would require installing fare collection equipment), reclassifying the Metra Electric as an El line (so we'd have to print new system maps), and miscellaneous station, track, and signal improvements. By far the biggest expense is the new rolling stock, but if we want regular service we'll have to pay for that.

Kiel, I'm surprised to see you impugning me since I thought we'd basically settled our differences. In a previous discussion you agreed that more regular service was desirable, and to get that requires some capital funding. $200m is not a lot of money - compare $500m for the Pink Line project (which produced almost no new benefits), over $500m for the Brown Line renovation, or conservative (and now very outdated) estimates of over $1 billion for the Circle Line. If Obama wins, and maybe even if McCain does, we should see significant new federal construction funds made available. The survival of the economy really depends on it and as long as the price of gas doesn't fall all the way back to $1.50, people will continue to demand it.

I'm even more surprised to see you distorting the proposal as a big investment just for tourists. Yes, it would benefit tourists, and the contempt for tourists that some people seem to feel is strange to me. But most of the benefits would go to the people who live along the line, which is one of the densest corridors in the city.

And how can you try and make this a South Siders vs everyone else argument? How is a major service upgrade on the South Shore line any different than the Brown Line capacity expansion project or the Blue Line slow zone elimination project? These, too, involved spending millions of dollars in capital funds on improving service for the people who use them. I happen to think that's what our public transit agencies should be doing.

There isn't a need for a third El line down the eastern South Side. The Green Line is already under utilized, and you want to create another line that will further decrease the ridership on what already exists.

But why do we have to keep going over these same points again and again?

Accept that it's not going to happen, and move on to some other pipe dream. You've wasted enough time on this non-starter already.

"hmm MK, but then how would you implement this considering that many Metra rush hour trains are standing room only?"

Yes, this would also require that money is provided to allow the neccessary amount of rail cars for the passnegers using it. If the Springfield (or Washington) can think long-term enough to provide the resources for the ticket machines and ticket paying devices on seats, they certainly should be able to allow for the purchase of any additional rail cars. It was very rare for any Metra trains to be standing room only until Blagojevich caused nothing to get done in Springfield. Long term, the cost for all this will be dramatically outweighed by the much more efficiant operating structure and hugely decreased operating costs.

Jake,

The Metra stations really are not equipped (at least on the lines other than the Electric) for turnstiles. Unlike the CTA stations, most have numerous ways to enter. And also, probably with the exception of the electric line, the train doors really need to be opened and closed by staff in the passenger cars. Unlike the CTA, the person operating the train cannot really take over the responsibilities of the conductors. So you will still need one conductor. But this would still be a dramatic reduction of staff from the way it is now and will have enormous benefits. There are eight crew members on some Metra trains.

Rusty, if you don't want to engage in the conversation, just don't post anything. Don't tell the rest of us what we can talk about.

The people who would use the improved South Shore line are not using the Green Line right now, they're using the CTA buses. The existence of the Green Line is irrelevant to the debate.

Metra Electric operates like a commuter line because it does serve suburbs like Homewood.

And before the south shore line get's converted into a rapid transit line, it should be elevated.

Oh, for goodness sake, Jake, here we go again.

I'd thought we'd settled our differences, too, but that's clearly not the case, since every time someone mentions the south side, you start singing the same Gray Line song you've always sung, regurgitating the same debunked arguments over and over like nothing's changed.

I would love to see service improvements on that corridor. That hasn't changed. But you've never admitted that a universal fare card solves everything but increased service frequency, and keep retreating to replacing the whole service with the CTA. I pointed out once that more than half of Metra's trains sit in rail yards when it isn't rush hour and that there wouldn't be any need to buy more. IIRC you agreed, but your proposal still contains the purchase of a fleet of rolling stock, as well as the ridiculous contention that $200 million dollars - no doubt an underestimate anyway - is "not a lot of money."

But anyway, some brief rebuttals:
-money isn't going to magically appear no matter who (Obama) gets elected president this fall. Don't rely on it for the sake of planning or argument.
-People along the ME corridor DO ride it in large numbers. We're not talking about providing a service to people who don't have one already, which makes the perceived need for this weaker.
-The whole South Shore line is NOT though one of the densest parts of the city, especially between downtown and Hyde Park, where there's no existing density to speak of at all, and no guarantee that there will be any time soon in this economy. And down in South Shore, not all of those riders take buses, many take the south shore line!
-Any time YOU bring up tourists, it hurts your argument. Too much of the El system is in a state of underfunded decay to talk about doing something/providing services for people who don't live or work in the city without some people thinking that an unfair argument. Who wants to talk about spending our tax money on getting people to McCormick Pl. 5 minutes faster when the Argyle station drips filth on our heads, the State/Lake loop station has rickety 100-year-old wood floors, and conductors and bus drivers aren't always exactly sure what to do in an emergency.
-No one's making this a south siders vs. everyone else argument. In the past 20 years, station upgrades or complete renovations have happened on the green, Dan Ryan red, pink, and brown lines, and slow zone work has taken place on pretty much every line as part of that work, with the red and blue lines tacked on the last couple years. The CTA clearly doesn't neglect any one part of the city in favor of the other, and I don't recall anyone here suggesting otherwise. You, on the other hand, cling to this proposal even though CTA-Metra transfers would benefit everyone in the city.

But it's so hard to make one's self completely clear in typed form, and make all the points one would like to. *sigh*

@kiel

A couple of points in defense of Jake:

-Tourists would use it... its not being made for them, but as riders they would bring revenue to that line.

-Metra, as I think you pointed out, uses an outmoded ticketing model that results in ridiculously high labor costs.

-$200m is not a lot of money for a transit project that serves as many people as this would. And yes, who gets elected does matter. Remember that it was Kennedy who created the Urban Mass Transit Agency (now the FTA), it was FDR's WPA that built the State and Dearborn Subways, and it will be a Democrat who once again brings home the pork for projects like this. Think Sarah Palin gives a shit about Chicago? think again.

-You're right, within the context of the last 2 decades anything relating to the Gray line is a "pipe dream", but I do think that America is in the midst of a serious transformation, both culturally and economically.

-If the Olympics come to Chicago (we are the frontrunners for this thing I would remind) having 1 efficient, easy to use transit system would put a much better face on Chicago than the clusterfuck that is Metra-CTA.

It's not the existence of the Green Line isn't what's relevant. It's the PROXIMITY of the Green Line that's relevant.

And I'm not telling anyone what they can say or not say. What I'm saying is we've already had this discussion before. Multiple times.

And every time we have the discussion, the result is the same. No one is pursuaded by your same, old, tired pipe-dream idea. Nor do you seem to be paying any attention to those who are telling you how unrealistic your fantasy is.

So why do you keep bringing it up? The result will continue to be the same. What are you trying to prove? That you can outlast everyone else?

Metra uses conductors because the fare system isn't as simple as the CTA.

"It's not the existence of the Green Line isn't what's relevant. It's the PROXIMITY of the Green Line that's relevant."

The Green Line is so far away from the Metra Electric that no one who rides it now would switch to an improved South Shore line, with the possible exception of people boarding at Cottage Grove/63rd. The people who would benefit are riding CTA buses right now. Where exactly do you think the riders who would be stolen by the improved South Shore line are living?

"we've already had this discussion before. Multiple times. So why do you keep bringing it up?"

The reason I raised it in this thread was a couple early comments from Hyde Parkers who clearly weren't aware of the proposal. But coming from someone who raises apocalyptic scenarios every single time BRT is mentioned, this seems a bit hypocritical. If you're not interested in the discussion, don't read it.

"The whole South Shore line is NOT though one of the densest parts of the city, especially between downtown and Hyde Park, where there's no existing density to speak of at all, and no guarantee that there will be any time soon in this economy."

This is a good point (altho I think the residents of Kenwood and Oakland would argue that they do exist), and it'll be interesting to see what happens to this land and to the land at the end of the line where South Works used to be. As I've mentioned, there are plans for a major increase in density between 27th and 35th, several new high rises planned in Hyde Park, and an unknown future for the South Works site. The question is whether the projects will go forward despite the recession.

It's too early to tell right now, since we don't know how long or deep the recession will be, what effect it will have on jobs in the Loop, where gas prices will go, or whether we'll get the Olympics. But we shouldn't assume that a recession will reverse the trend of people returning to the city, and may even strengthen it. We'll have to wait and see.

It seems like it would be sort of a waste to spent a lot of money to make Metra Electric rail lines part of the CTA without going the extra mile and actually connecting those lines to the existing CTA rail network.

Actually, it seems like it would really just be an extra half-mile. A little googling suggests that Metra Electric and the El both use the same track gauge. If that's the case, it would seem the two systems could be linked up by building about a half-mile of elevated track to connect 18th street Metra station to the elevated El tracks at a point about a half-mile south of the Roosevelt elevated station.

There's already a rail bed (not elevated) running roughly between those two points, so building over that would not require knocking down a lot of buildings. Getting the Metra trains up to the Roosevelt station would require adding about a half-mile of overhead lines to supply power, but in the grand scheme of things that seems unlikely to be all that expensive.

As for the cost of building the half-mile of elevated track... Certainly not a trivial cost, but what are we talking about? $50 million? $100 million? Perhaps somewhat more to add a new platform to the Roosevelt station to avoid interfering too much with existing CTA train service.

But, by comparison, for the relatively modest value of linking the red and blue lines underneath Block 37, the CTA has spent far, far more. And connecting the Metra Electric and CTA rail lines would add much more connectivity.

Just because the guage is the same doesn't mean you can mix trains on the same line. Much of the El would crumble under the weight of a Metra train, even a Metra Electric train. And even if you didn't have those physical problems, mixing the two kinds of operations on the same tracks would require safety measures that would simply rule-out headways necessary to make either service useful to anyone.

This isn't the Illinois Historic Railway Museum we're talking about. We're talking about working railroads here.

I doubt that much of the "L" would crumble under the weight of a Metra train. Yes, some parts of it would, but a lot of the system was designed for much heavier locomotives and even freight. The real consideration is the length and width of the cars. While the loop elevated structure could take the weight, the train itself wouldn't be able to make it around the corners.

L cars weigh about 25 tons.
Metra coaches 80+ tons.
8 car L train = 200 tons.
10 Metra coaches = 800+ tons.

Complete & total destruction of the L cars in a collision, hundreds dead.
Or didn't you see what happened to the LA Metrolink coach that was crushed a month ago?

===
but a lot of the system was designed for much heavier locomotives and even freight
===

I think that depends upon how you define "much heavier". In this case, "much heavier" wouldn't even hold a candle to the weight of a locomotive used on a modern railroad.

I'm not even sure I'd want to see what would happen to a typical, flat section of El track not on an elevated structure after just one pass of a typical deisel locomotive. The electric locomotives used on Metra electric could probably pass a couple times without totally wrecking the trackbed, but wouldn't be able to do so on any regular basis.

And you are right about the curves. The longer cars used on real railroads couldn't negotiate many of them even outside the 90-degree turns in the loop.

And if that weren't enough, one pass by a platform, and, well, no more platform, and a badly damaged train.

The point is that the guage of the track is probably the *least* important issue. There are places were narrow guage railroads and normal guage railroads share the same right-of-way. You just put a third rail in the middle. (Oh, yeah. Let's not forget about third rail -- electrified, in this case -- issues.)

Yeah, you can create solutions for many of these issues, but you're talking about major infrastructure changes, and some really interesting engineering issues. But to what end? It's not like there's a lot of demand to travel to the Metra Electric coridor that isn't already being met by existing infrastructure and service.

I'm not sure where the idea of running commuter trains on the loop came from. However the north side main line north of Wilson was built to handle freight, so that section should be fine.

Folks seem to be having fun attacking straw men here. The question isn't whether "much of" the El system could handle the weight, but rather whether the half mile of elevated track south of Roosevelt could - or could be made to do so for a reasonable cost given the considerable benefit of linking two large rail networks.

I wasn't suggesting that Metra trains could feasibly run throughout the El system; regardless of the weight of the trains, it would cost a fortune to have a dual power source throughout the El system. Doing it for about 2500 feet of track on the other hand, is something that is within the realm of reason.

More generally, remember that my point was not that this should be the CTA's highest priority, but rather that if one were to spend something on the order of $200M to integrate the Metra Electric into the CTA in some way, then there might be more useful things to do than simply operating the existing system with reduced headways and a CTA fare structure.

@irk: Or, alternatively, RTA could create unified CTA/PACE/Metra passes and increase Metra Electric service between Millennium Station and Pullman. It seems like the least expensive, more logistically sound solution than any other "'L' on ME" plans suggested so far.

Jake is right, the Gray Line conversion is a good idea. The problem with the current system is that Metra is a suburban commuter system and operates these lines like suburban commuter lines, when what is needed within the city is Rapid Transit. The transition would be very doable and much less expesive than building new subway or elevated lines.

The probem with having a productive discussion on this topic on this forum is that a number of closed minded people are determined to intimidate anybody who wants to speak in favor of this proposal, and are willing to get nasty and resort to name calling to accomplish this.

And stick to your guns, Jake! You are on the right track. Don't let them intimidate you!

For those of you who are willing to consider the pros and cons about the Gray Line conversion with an open mind, you can get a good summary of how the plan would work at the following site:

http://www.geocities.com/grayline2002/

"Arg. Someday Hyde Park will get a station, and the only goddamned university in the city without a train line anywhere near it will finally be connected."

The Gray Line conversion would give Hyde Park more than one rapid transit station.

There is no reason why the converted Gray Line system would HAVE to physically connect with the rest of the radid transit system. But if such a connection is needed there are MORE THAN ONE WAY to achieve it. AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT COULD BE DONE ONLY, the tracks from McCormic place west could be used to route some of the trains into LaSalle Street station, where there would be a connection with the Blue line.
OVER THE VERY LONG RUN, the next time the equipment would have to be replaced due to depreciation, it could be replaced by lighter equipment compatible with the CTA rail system and then the trains could be run into the CTA subway system.

>>>
However the north side main line north of Wilson was built to handle freight, so that section should be fine.
<<<

It was originally built to handle freight using special equipment. However, it has not been maintained to handle freight, and even when it did handle freight, you couldn't send a normal train down the line.

Our Interstate highways are built to handle freight, too, but even if you eliminated the flanges on the wheels of Metra equipment, you'd wreck the roadbed in very short order.

It's not what you're transporting. A 250lb person weighs as much as a 250lb crate. The fact that they at one time transported feight on that part of the line does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that you could run a Metra train on that section.

And weight issues aside, you still would have clearence problems when passing platforms. And even if you made the platforms convertable, or cut them back, and put bridges on every El car, you still can't mix the kind of heavy equipment used on Metra with the relatively light equipment used on the El. At least not safely.

I dont know where this discussion is going or why we'd assume that if the CTA was willing (along with FTA funds) spend $200 million on the transition they wouldn't also electrify a third rail the ME and use the same fleet of cars they do on the el. I don't think anyone is arguing that commuter trains would be put on el/subway tracks. That notion truly is ridiculous.

I agree with Stephen. I think most would just be happy with the train meeting with the orange and red lines at Roosevelt which is a good idea. From Roosevelt it is a quick trip to the loop to what ever train you would like. Why are we discussing commuter trains going through the loop? Of course that is crazy.

When is the CTA going to start through-routing Yellow Line trains to Sheridan during rush hours? It would be simple to do, would use existing equipment, and would only slightly disrupt other service (through the need to turn around at Sheridan and head back north). How long must Skokie residents suffer?

So there are so many people who'd want to transfer between the El and Metra Electric that it would make sense to stop sending the trains to the Loop, but divert them to Roosevelt, where all the Loop-bound passengers would need to transfer to the El just to get to the Loop?

That's just silly.

As for sending the Yellow down to Sheridan, are there really that many people traveling from Skokie to the neighborhoods between Howard and Sheridan? Loop-bound Skokie folks would still want to transfer to a Red or Purple at Howard where they'll have a better choice of seat. Skokie-bound from the Loop they'd probably want to tranfer at Sheridan for the same reason, but what's the point?

All you'd be doing is essentially adding additional Red service between Howard and Sheridan, but with shorter trains.

Operationally, if you can't get the trains down to where they can connect with the Brown Line, you're not gaining anything. And I'm guessing that there aren't that many riders who'd want to go from Yellow to Brown, either. So if the Yellow isn't going all the way to the Loop, there is no reason for them to go further than Howard.

The idea is to move people along paths they want to travel. The idea isn't to just connect lines on a map.

I was trying to start another contentious debate. I realize that the Yellow-to-Sheridan idea makes no sense.

Well, it was right on par with Metra Electric rerouted to Roosevelt instead of going to the loop, which seems to have a couple of fans for some reason.

It's tempting to rise to all the troll-bait that Rusty leaves on here, but since he hasn't really said anything substantively new or more persuasive I'll just let all that be.

Except for one easy one: at Roosevelt you can take the orange line and get to any stop on the Loop, and the Green line will take you to half of the stops in the loop as well as stops all along Lake Street out to Oak Park.

Leaving people off at Millenium Park just isn't very helpful for most people going to the Loop. Most commuters aren't going to the park every day.

"Leaving people off at Millenium Park just isn't very helpful for most people going to the Loop."

Routing half of the Grey Line conversion trains from McCormic Place into La Salle Street station would solve the problem. This would provide a direct connection with the Blue Line.

Millennium station is about one block away from Randolph/Wabash, and about 2 blocks from Lake/State and Washington/Dearborn. Additionally, Van Buren Station is only a couple of blocks from Library, Jackson/State, and Jackson/Dearborn. Plus, most of the loop is walking distance from these 2 stations. Rerouting trains to Roosevelt is unnecessary.

Isn't the Loop already kind of crowded? Wouldn't routing Gray Line trains onto the Loop be an intolerable strain on its capacity?

Routing some trains to LaSalle is an interesting idea, as long as it didn't mess up the Rock Island Line's schedule. That would make transfers to both the Loop lines and the Blue Line easy.

But none of these ideas is going anywhere until we actually convert the Metra Electric to rapid transit service. So send me an email if you want to help out.

"Leaving people off at Millenium Park just isn't very helpful for most people going to the Loop. Most commuters aren't going to the park every day."

I should point about that Millenium Station and Red Line State/Lake station are connected via a pedway corridor. Granted, it's closed during the evening, but during the day, it's pretty useful

"Routing half of the Grey Line conversion trains from McCormic Place into La Salle Street station would solve the problem."

A point of information: Is there existing track that permits this or would construction of new track be needed?

===
Is there existing track that permits this or would construction of new track be needed?
===

Sort of. The St. Charles Airline leaves the IC mainline under McCormick place. It crosses the tracks going into LaSalle St. Station by 16th/Clark, but there is no interlocking. There is also no interlocking between the Metra Electric tracks and the St. Charles Airline. The track is currently used by freight trains, but there are plans to abandon the tracks. Creating a curve near 16th/Clark would probably mean demolishing most of the block. Also, new interlocking smeans new signaling and control systems have to be installed.

If/when I go to MSI, I take the green line and bus. Why? 1) Cheaper. 2) I know the metra electric is there and would probably be more convenient, but it's a pain in the @$$ to go from the el to the metra electric. Why wouldn't I just transfer to the green line and keep going? If there were easier transfer points, and it were CTA fare compatible... and I knew I could get there and back after rush hour (see, I thought evening rush was the end of service for the day) I'd probably take the Metra Electric. I just don't think of it as convenient, viable, or reliable.

It seems that most of the anti-ME conversion people have been quiet. I think they might finally realize that it makes sense to somehow make the transfer easier and much more prominent on cta maps. Who cares how it gets done, it just needs to get done and we need to get those in the leadership of the RTA, CTA, and Metra keen on this idea.

No, the anti-Gray Line people, like me, have been quiet because the pro-Gray Line people unfortunately are lunatics who live in a dream world where all you have to do to get something is just to wish for it & poof, it happens!

If you want to talk about a good strategy to get the Metra Electric improvements we're talking about, then let's talk strategy. Some of us are not just "wishing" for these changes, we're actively working to force myopic decisionmakers to seriously consider them.

There's really no place for the level of disrespect that the anti-Gray Line folks have been throwing around. You can make arguments without insulting people or relying on ad hominem attacks.

======
You can make arguments without insulting people or relying on ad hominem attacks.
======

We did. Over and over again. There had to be at least 30 threads this year in which we did that. But no matter how much sense the arguements against made, you'd bring the subject up again in another thread, and take it right to the begining, without addressing any of the issues brought up already.

What does it take to get your attention? The bulk of your rebuttle has been to just repeat the original points without addressing any of the points against your pipe-dream.

I can't remember the last time a thread in this blog was actually about the Gray Line, yet it seems to be the most often brough-up subject. And it's not being brought up by the people against it.

Wake-up and smell the coffee. Unless you come up with new information to address the concerns of others, the Gray Line is as dead here as it is in the plans of the powers that be.

It's nothing more than a flying-cars-type vision of the future. And continuing to bring it up over and over again isn't going to change that.

How many times do we have to have the same debate before you get that you've lost? How many times will you start the whole thing over again?