CTA Tattler

I certainly hope you're right that the Red Line extension is the next big capital project, but the Circle Line seems to be further along. The alternatives analysis process for the Circle Line got started almost a year earlier than it did for the Red Line extension, and CTA is about to hold Screen 3 for the Circle Line while the Red Line is only on Screen 2. The progress of all the alternatives analyses under way can be seen at http://www.transitchicago.com/news/whatsnew.wu?action=displaynewspostingdetail&articleid=124434

It really says something about CTA's priorities when an extension that would help some of the poorest and most isolated people in the city has to take second place to expanding transit options for some of the most privileged people in Chicago.

Jake,

I'm sure we could argue about the merits of providing for poor people vs priveleged people. I am personally for an expansion of public transportation no matter where it is. However, the CTA is not a agency committed to helping poor people. It is there to provide the best transportion to the most amount of people. You could argue that the Red Line will serve a very isolated group, but could counter that with asking who will ride it since that area is very poor... Alternatively, if the Circle Line gets approved you say that it is for people with already good transit options, but you could also say that the people of these communities pay more in property taxes and thus more of their money goes toward taxes that the CTA counts as income. I don't think we need to turn this into a rich vs. poor debate, but I think most everyone here backs both projects. I'm hopeful for both and as quickly as possible.

Why is the CTA allowed only one project at at time? It seems like every interstate in the Chicago area is under construction. Until we divert much more roadway money to public transit we will not be able to build all the infrastructure that the regional rail system needs. Let's build the circle line, red line extension, metra star line all now... quick, until someone realizes gas is under $2 again.

Am I wrong to assume that even if the screening process is further along for the Circle Line, the Red Line extension would be easier to build and take less time?

irving park brown line will reopen on the morning of December 6...!

http://ctabrownline.com/irvingpark.html

There is a project we can all agree on, which is the MidCity Transitway (MCT). This project would put rapid transit along existing rail right 2 blocks east of Cicero Ave (Where Daley I wanted to put the Crosstown Expressway).

Not only is it the rapid transit project with the highest projected ridership of any project in Illinois, it would also primarily serve 3-4 low income working areas of Chicago and surrounding suburbs. It has undergone market and ridership analyses by Wilbur Smith firm.

Thanks to comments from LVEJO and other community activists, CTA released $1.8 million additional funds to include this corridor in the Circle Line Alternatives Analysis Study a couple months ago. Combined with the Red Line Extension, this project could potentially provide rapid transit expansion that also creates equity.

Also, Chris makes a good point that CTA is not an agency committed to helping poor people. Though I would argue that it should. Historically it has been true that CTA is not committed to equity, whether you look at the pattern of service cuts or the elimination of cash transfers. A lot of poor people depended on reliable transit in their area and a cash transfer to ride it.

The reality is that poor people are more often than not, transit dependent. Providing them with reliable transit benefits them and larger society. Also, the CTA does have an obligation through federal environmental justice executive orders to address disparities in service for low income groups. We do not believe most of those obligations go far enough, but they are a start.

I think it would be great to make the MidCity Transitway part of a large transit belt around the city, including an extension along the south lakefront.

This would make suburb-to-suburb commutes easier while adding capacity to more areas.

None of these mega projects are particularly cost effective considering there are very few neighborhoods in Chicago that are truly dense enough to support a rail rapid transit line anyway. Chicago is certainly not dense enough to support a crosstown rapid transit line - there almost no crosstown lines in existence anywhere in the country. There is one such "crosstown" line in New York, the G, and it's their lowest ridership line (you can arguably count the 7 and the 42nd Shuttle, but those are really more like circulators within the midtown district than actual crosstown commuting lines). Even in NYC, every other line is oriented towards serving a major employment district, either Midtown, Lower Manhattan, or both.

Bottom line is that rail rapid transit in this country has to be oriented towards a dense central business district. The Circle Line and Mid-City are non-starters from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. If CTA devotes resources to expansion, focus on the logical minor extensions like Red, Orange, and Yellow to serve nearby untapped markets, and enhance circulation downtown (revive the central area circulator perhaps) to improve connectivity between Metra and CTA.

Otherwise, why not direct scarce and precious capital dollars towards fixing up the existing system? Chicago's rail system is already too big given the relatively low level of potential ridership, so expanding the system will make the structural operating deficit that much worse. Priority #1 should be full modernization and enhancement of the existing infrastructure, with priority #2 being only incremental expansions where cost-effective.

"Chicago's rail system is already too big given the relatively low level of potential ridership"

Relative to what? I'm not sure where you got this idea, but the potential ridership seems rather high to me and somewhat untapped. With 3 million Chicago residents, your comment seems way off base.

I would also question the idea of "low potential ridership," not just because of the large number of people who already live in the city, but also because transportation influences development. You build a freeway, you get stripmalls and burger joints. You build a transit line, you get higher-density development.

Maybe Chicago is different, but I know that in Charlotte, developers were fast at work building higher-density residential and commercial properties all along the new light-rail line -- 2 years before the line opened. Now the line exceeds its original ridership projections by almost 100 percent.

Does anyone have a clue when the Damen brown line will reopen?

I've been wondering that myself. Damen closed before Irving Park, but Irving Park is opening this Saturday. Damen is still closed, and no word on why.

Chris and Tecki,

According this this it should be reopened the 4th week of December:

http://ctabrownline.com/pdfs/construction_sched.pdf

I enjoy the mystery and spontaneity behind CTA's decision-making on the Brown Line project. It makes life much more exciting. Of course, neither Irving Park nor Damen is my stop, so I can afford to be amused.

I certainly hope that the CTA has some plan under wraps to apply for New Start funding for a North Branch of the Red line rehab, especially for the crumbling concrete embankment portion from Wilson to Howard. A Red line extension to 130th will be pointless if the line starts to have emergency shut downs due to repairs of crumbling bridges and retaining walls and trains cannot go South from Howard yard. I can't even imagine the chaos a shut down would create with traffic and buses routes. I am going to continue to stand my ground and periodically contact my elected reps about this. Its very foolish to have all this planning and info on extensions and new lines when there is no formal planning going on about single heaviest used branch in the entire system.

A friend that is a structural engineer went for a walk with me a couple months ago and he was in complete shock when I showed him the huge cracks and concrete debris along the retaining walls in Edgewater. He said if the fill behind the walls became very saturated with water from either rains, broken pipes, etc. that it is a major disaster waiting to happen. All it takes is for some it to liquefy and begin pouring through a crack for the whole section to collapse. Of course the greatest pressures occur when a train (or on occasion up to four trains) go past. And no surprise he said running trains at 15mph exerts same amount of force, just somewhat less vibration. So much for slow zones keeping us safe.

Does anybody know what happened on the redline right now, speaking of it? We heard a fire was started in a trash bin at Jackson.

Ed: That's a good question for the next Coffee with Ron.

I do know that they say they will be doing more slow zone work on parts of the line north of Belmont through 2009, but no idea on if that is related to what you're talking about.

Anyone else?

"Historically it has been true that CTA is not committed to equity, whether you look at the pattern of service cuts or the elimination of cash transfers."

Michael,

What are you talking about? Can you name a single significant service cut that the CTA has made in the past 10 years? Or even the past 20 years? And you are now around the thirtieth person I have seen state that the elimanation of cash transfers somehow affects poor people the most. Each time someone mentions this they either give no reason to support this contention or they state something completely false(such as stating that you need a credit card if you use a farecard). Whenever they are confronted about their misconception, they never respond. So hopefully you can now be the first. Why would the poor somehow not be able to use a farecard like everyone else? Also, what specific service cuts are you referring to?

MK, there were large bus route service cuts in the 90's.

And Anonymous, the difference between the Mid-City Transit Way and any other "mid-city" routes around the country is Midway airport, an big traffic generator. It would also be possible, depending on how it's done, to route trains from the mid-city route to O'Hare connecting at Jeff Park.

"MK, there were large bus route service cuts in the 90's."

Feel free to be specific, Ryan. Michael stated that there was a "pattern of service cuts" that resulted in a "lack of equity". When someone makes a statement like that, you might think they would give some concrete examples. I am know that the CTA made some modest service cuts in 1997. I didn't live in the city then. But I did look at some news articles at the time which indicated that those cuts were very small. But if either of have a different opinion, feel free to try to enlighten me. For the dozen years since, the CTA has added service by around 20%.

While it seems like it should be a no-brainer to connect rapid transit to the airport to create a grand multi-modal network, it just doesn't work that way.

Once the lines are actually built you find that by far the biggest user are airport employees. An airport is a huge center of jobs.

Oh, sure, you get a few locals who think they're being slick by taking the budget-basement public transit route to the airport instead of an expensive cab or limo. And you get a few tourists/visitors who just like blending in with the natives. (Or blending in as much as they can with luggage.) But it's a falicy that train to plane is some big market for a city's transit system.

As for connecting the two airports together, that's something more appropriately funded by airlines direct contributions, as well as taxes and fees on airlines and airline passengers. While it might make sense for there to be an easy way to change planes between two airports so close together, that's not something that the locals should be funding. It doesn't fit with the CTA or RTA mission.

Now, as far as crosstown rail goes, New York probably isn't a good place to look at because of it's geography. But even so, the point that the crosstown route has the lowest ridership is true, and probably would be true even in Chicago. But some route has to be at the bottom. Being at the bottom doesn't mean that there isn't enough traffic to justify a rail line.

While rail lines are more expensive to build, they do have operating efficiencies. And even more potential for further operating efficienceis.

How about this for the Crosstown: Light rail with automatic, remote control of the trains? Not only would operating labor costs be lower, air polution and noise polution would be less.

But it's probably true that ridership would never be high enough to justify that. But the Crosstown line, operating on a grade seperated PROW would be a good place to send all those BRT buses once they find out how BRT is a bust on surface streets.

Why do we care about poor people again? Doesn't their oft overwhelming presence deter many otherwise middle class passengers from using the CTA (e.g.: compare CTA to WMATA or MTA with regard to class ridership). Every time someone starts complaining about how the poor people are being screwed by (insert: Daley, Blago, CTA, CHA, republicans) the world's smallest violin plays in my front yard. The focus should not be whats good for them, or for any particular group, but rather what is in everyone's collective interest.

That said, I think any line extension is a great idea as it promotes greater urban renewal and development.

If nothing else, the circle line will remove cross town travelers from trains at their most crowded points.

"You could argue that the Red Line [extension] will serve a very isolated group, but could counter that with asking who will ride it since that area is very poor."

Actually the bus routes that the Red Line extension would draw from have respectable numbers - precisely because they serve poor neighborhoods, where people are less able to afford cars. Contrary to popular belief, most people in these neighborhoods have jobs, and they rely on the CTA to get them there. But after you sit on a bus for awhile and then transfer to a long ride on the Red Line, your commute time starts to get out of control. That's why the areas that the Red Line extension would serve have some of the longest commute times in the city: http://alwaysintransit.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/09/commute_time.jpg

We rely on these people to do the worst jobs in the city, and pay them a pittance for it. That's fundamentally unjust, and it should be changed. But a fair economy will take a long time to create. In the meantime we should use public money to mitigate the unfair effects of an unfair social system.

Whenever I see a post from Jake I can always count on a few laughs. In fact, I spent a fairly long period of time this past week looking around Jake's blog. It was very entertaining. He is so far to the left that he seems to consider individuals who most people believe to be fairly liberal to be evil for not going to his political extreme. He even stated that the executives at the car companies should go to jail for, apperently, manufacturing cars(I would have at least assumed he was joking but he made it very clear that he meant it). Several months ago on this blog he stated that janitors should be paid the same amount as business executives. He is a socialist.

"We rely on these people to do the worst jobs in the city, and pay them a pittance for it. That's fundamentally unjust, and it should be changed. But a fair economy will take a long time to create. In the meantime we should use public money to mitigate the unfair effects of an unfair social system."

I always find it fascinating to explore how these types of opinions come about. Maybe it's because I have a degree in psychology and have always been interested in what makes people tick. Why is it, Jake, that you seem to think that life can and should always be absolutely fair to everyone rather than thinking that people's own actions should dictate, to a large extent, their place in the world? Why do you seem to think that society as a whole is being unjust if it rewards those who provide the most intellectual and entraprenurial capital? Just to remind you, there have been a variety of countries that have tried your philosphy, socialism, and it didn't work. My theory is that these leftist opinions often come from being brought up to believe that life is always fair. I think many parents teach their children that everything should always be perfect for everybody and if it isn't than someone is being evil. Then when these children grow up they are conditioned to believe that anything that comes short of perfection is an outrage and therefore the entire social system must be thrown out and changed to fix this. Is that how you were brought up, Jake?

The reality, of course, is that no economic and social system is going to be perfect. Life is not perfect. But it works quite a bit better to have a system that rewards success than one that has no incentives. There is a reason why the United States has surpassed any other country with regard to innovation and success. Far more successful international businesses were created here than anywhere else. If someone is thinking of a new idea or a new product, it is far more likely to be in the U.S. than anywhere else. People in other countries look up to the U.S. All this is because we have a great entrapernurial climate that encourages progress. And this comes from the fact that our economic and social system rewards success far more than countries in Europe with similar standerds of living, which often have cumbersome business restrictions and regulations. That doesn't mean everything is perfect in the U.S. Many people in very poor areas have little chance of getting a good education. This results not only from poor schools but also from the fact that crime is often prevelant, which destroys the community. But the solution is to focus on those problems rather than act as if rich people (or even both middle class and rich people) are evil and to suggest that the entire economic foundation be changed. Because if you get your wish (although obviously you won't) then the things you apparently are fighting for will get worse. Obviously, if people are not encouraged to develop successful businesses and other institutions then there won't be any place for janitors and other lower payed people to work.

MK, I won't respond to all your points because they aren't relevant to the discussion. Suffice it to say that you have an understanding of our economy that is both highly ideological and strikingly naive. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they give all the credit to the "great entrapernurial [sic] climate" but remain blind to the massive role of the government in innovation, especially via military spending (see, eg, the internet), or they seem unaware that the far less "entrepreneurial" economy of Japan has a record at least as good as America's on innovation.

I would recommend reading some economic history in addition to your steady diet of the American Enterprise Institute or whatever other apologists for inequality you read. Giovanni Arrighi's *The Long Twentieth Century* would be a good place to start. Also try reading a little about socialism. I think you'll find that almost no one who considers themselves a socialist would agree that a Soviet-style authoritarian planned economy would be desirable, or socialist.

Rusty,

While I agree with you that the blue and orange lines service many employees at the airports, I think you highly underestimate how many people use this option to get to the airport to catch a flight. I certainly see a lot of it when I have used it.

As to Jake, a large reason why commutes on the south side are longer is because is partially due to lack of transit. The other reasons you did not mention include the fact that most people on the south side use cars and the area is much less dense than other areas.

[And this comes from the fact that our economic and social system rewards success far more than countries in Europe with similar standerds of living, which often have cumbersome business restrictions and regulations.]

I'm loath to go too far off-topic here, but there's a paradox contained in this sentence that I don't think you recognize, MK.

[As to Jake, a large reason why commutes on the south side are longer is because is partially due to lack of transit. The other reasons you did not mention include the fact that most people on the south side use cars and the area is much less dense than other areas.]

This is a self-reinforcing set of conditions, though, isn't it? Of course the area is less dense with more cars - there's a clear lack of public transit!

I think a lot of people have this backwards. Dense areas that rely heavily on public transit will (obviously) never exist unless the transit is already there. People won't give up their cars just on the hope that an L line might be built nearby someday.

===
I think a lot of people have this backwards. Dense areas that rely heavily on public transit will (obviously) never exist unless the transit is already there.
===

Excellent point.

In the first half of the last century, tranist was built first, and development followed. After acquiring a large expanse of land, your next step was to strike a deal with the owners of the appropriate transit company to build an extension. Only after that did you invest in other infrastructure, and start building.

These days, the first thing you do is get roads planned. Yeah, you have to do some other infrastructure first because it goes under the roads, but the most important thing is roads. Where those roads will access existing roads. How wide they'll be. How many curves to slow-down traffic you'll put in. Where driveway access will be. Etc, etc.

It's always been recognised that the most important aspect of any development, whether it be residential, commercial or industrial, is the way people (and goods) will get in and out. Transportation is the key.

Today, that means roads. Automobiles and trucks. Buses and trains are seldom even considered except for in-fill and redevelopment where that infrastructure already exists.

One recent example where transit preceded most of the growth would be the West Side MAX line in Portland, OR. Yes, Washington Co. Oregon was also known as the Silicon Forest, and there were an increasing number of jobs, and an increasing amount of housing in the general area, but when the line was built in the late '90s, much of it ran through empty fields, and the stations were surounded by rural density.

However, before the line was finished, developers were building small transit/pedestrian oriented communities around the stations. Yes, a lot of infrastructure was also dedicated to cars. After all, it was the suburbs. The far suburbs, for the most part. But much higher density development occured around the transit stations than most people would think of as being part of the suburbs.

The line has exceded ridership projections. And there were a lot of people who thought the projections were way too ambitious for such a rural area.

Sometimes, when you build it, they will come.

On the other hand, once an area is developed, and has adjusted to its transit options, building a higher level of mass transit may not change much. At least not in the short run.

Still, new transit as a development tool can be far more effective than more transit as a reaction to existing conditions. I just don't expect to see the former in the Chicago area, and I barely expect any of the latter.

"a large reason why commutes on the south side are longer is because is partially due to lack of transit. The other reasons you did not mention include the fact that most people on the south side use cars and the area is much less dense than other areas."

Do you have figures on this? I'm pretty sure South Siders are *more* transit dependent than people on the North Side. The commute times on that map include *all commutes*, including those done by car, so we might expect times to be shorter if South Siders really do drive more. As this map shows, transit use is already quite high across the South Side: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/publictransitcity2000.jpg

As for density, a number of neighborhoods near the lake are every bit as dense as average North Side neighborhoods, which is why the Gold Line proposal (a pared-down version of the Gray Line) makes so much sense. See this map: http://alwaysintransit.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/16/density_2.jpg

Other neighborhoods have lost density because of the economic disaster of deindustrialization and the numerous city teardowns of apartment housing stock. But don't confuse the South Side with the suburbs. If these neighborhoods are revived, they will use transit just as much as on the North Side.

On of the things that bothers me is that way that the CTA keeps on getting expanded farther and farther away from the downtown. Stations are placed farther apart on lines, with more importance placed on bus transfers and park 'n ride lots than placing the stations in places that are walking distance from residential areas. The CTA is starting to more and more resemble a commuter service.

"It's hard to take anyone seriously when they give all the credit to the "great entrapernurial [sic] climate" but remain blind to the massive role of the government in innovation, especially via military spending (see, eg, the internet), or they seem unaware that the far less "entrepreneurial" economy of Japan has a record at least as good as America's on innovation."

Oh my goodness! First of all, in the course of the few hundred years that the country has existed you will of course find a few things that the government had a significant part in developing. That is not a "massive role". And it certainly doesn't make the case for socialism. What I find truly hilarious is that the only thing you could think of involved military spending, which is something that you have stated should be massively reduced. You are someone who probably recoils at the site of anything involving the U.S. military. Yet you went ahead and gave that example anyway. It shows you were very limited in the options of what you could use to support your argument. The fact is that nearly every product or service has come completely out of the private sector. The government has some role in making sure that the climate encourages ideas to flow freely (such as some minimal antitrust laws and regulation of the financial markets). But it would be an absolute disaster if the government took control of industries, such as what you are advocating and occurs in a socialist system. And, of course, the government may have made a significant contribution to the development of the internet but even that was still small compared to what the private companies did.

I find your statement that Japan has a record "a record at least as good as America's on innovation" to be truly hilarious. Yes, there are many successful Japanese companies. They are primarally in two industries, autos and electronics. But did they invent any of those products? No. People in the U.S. did. Yes they did some innovation, in many cases, to enhance these products but the products started here. Can you name a single major product (or service) that was invented by the Japanese? And, of course, the reason why these Japanese companies were able to become successful is because there was an opening as a result of the U.S. companies being weakened largely as a result of our labor laws. So ironically, your examples actually support my point.

" Suffice it to say that you have an understanding of our economy that is both highly ideological and strikingly naive."

Well, probably around 97% of all people have an opinion that is closer to mine than yours. Do you think it is really likely to be the case that such an overwhelming majority of people are naive? Essentually, you would be almost alone in not being so.

And, by the way, I have spent far less time listenting to people from the American Enterprise Institute than I have to those who are pretty liberal on these issues. I am certainly not someone who only seeks views that I agree with. If anything, I seek opposing views more often because I enjoy arguing (as many people have probably noticed). In fact, I grew up in a family where just about everyone was almost as liberal as you(well, that might be an overstatement, but they are to the left of probably around 90% of the population). So it will not work to dismiss my arguments as being from someone who only listens to a certain point of view.

A follow-up on the Damen vs. Irving Park thing -- the schedule says that Damen needs more "bent foundation repairs, and I drove by yesterday and saw that part of it is being held up by some kind of huge vice and they're digging underneath. Probably a good idea not to open the station until that is taken care of.

Yeah, I have no idea why people expect that all the stations would neccessarally open in the same order that they closed. I'm certainly a bit baffled by Martha's comment that this is "amusing" and that it indicates the "mystery and spontaneity" of the CTA's decision making. I also don't get why Tecki for some reasons expects the CTA to explain why Damen is opening later than Irving Park. Construction is a complex process and it is not identical for everything that gets built. Different projects have different things that need to get done. You may notice, for example, that some condo buildings may take two years to get built while others may only take a year and a half. That same would be true with train stations. Life does not always work in an orderly and predictable manner.

Obviously I meant "the same would be true", not "that same" and "for some reason", not "for some reasons".

You're "baffled" because you're reading WAY too much into it, MK. I was being sarcastic. Lighten up before your head explodes. Criminy!

Until federal transit funding is tied to a mandate to revise land use and upzone near stations, the "build it and they will come" potential seems remote for a hypothetical crosstown line. The land along the current west branch of the Green Line is underutilized as it is.

I have to agree with many southsiders on this one, Yes the red line should of been extented years ago and it would of, but now Roseland/Pullman are mostly African American. I am a commuter of the red line and I witness the discrimination public transportaion display day to day. How is it that when youre downtown waiting for a southbound train and 2-3 northbound trains pass by before that one southbound train comes along? or Why is is that the trains going southbound experience more delays that northbound trains. Its time to provide for every citizen in Chicago not just the wealthy.