The nexus between transportation and land use.

Category: Transport Modes Page 1 of 3

Hyperloop

I’ve been writing on social media about my disdain for Elon Musk’s foray into solving mass transit problems with the hyperloop for some time. But now we have evidence of a test ride with real people by Virgin Hyperloop in the Nevada desert. CNN covers the event, which is basically a commercial, though their article is a little more circumspect.

Whisking people at speeds of 100 MPH is, of course, an important achievement, despite the fact that Amtrak already achieves speeds of up to 150 MPH on sections of its Acela service.

No doubt, achieving speeds of up to 760 MPH, as hyperloop technology promises to do would be a game changer for intercity travel. The fundamental problem with it is the hyperloop is an unproven technology and Elon Musk, et. al’s constant undercutting or ignorance of actual construction and land acquisition costs itself is a problem. But beyond the technology, the costs, the personalities, it’s the shiny newness of the hyperloop that attracts outsized attention and serious money.

Transit Planner Jarrett Walker has a term for this – elite projection – which is

the belief, among relatively fortunate and influential people, that what those people find convenient or attractive is good for the society as a whole.

The thing is, existing, proven technology already exists that can solve much of the problems that hyperloop is purported to solve – the ability to move people at incredibly fast speed. It’s called high speed rail (HSR) and it has been around for two generations.

High Speed Rail

Source: Virgin Trains

In Illinois, where I live, a HSR project is underway to increase speeds Amtrak’s Lincoln Service between Chicago to St. Louis. The 300 mile route today takes 5.5 hours. Current plans are to get maximum speeds up to 120 MPH, which would result in travel times of around four hours. This is significant as these travel times would beat out travel time via car by an hour – the kind of time savings that results in modal shifts.

But what if we could increase speeds to 220 MPH? This is at the upper bound for speed on HSR and is the game changer that hyperloop purports to be. Even better, this speed is obtainable on current rights-of-way using proven HSR technologies.

At 220 MPH, it’s now possible to travel from Chicago to St. Louis or Cincinnati or Detroit in just under two hours. It’s possible to travel to Cleveland in just over two hours and Minneapolis/St. Paul in 2:40. At these travel times, it opens up the Midwest urban economy to much closer linkages between its large cities.

HSR at 220 MPH is far more obtainable than hyperloop at 760 MPH and achieves much of the same benefits as hyperloop. Even better, HSR achieves these benefits without the technology and land acquisition problems that hyperloop brings. It’s past time to focus public policy on attainable outcomes than pie-in-the-sky shiny objects.

The real Blue Line problem

Boarding signs at Jackson. Source: CTA

After reading and discussing the article, The CTA’s Blue Line has a big problem, I’ve decided I need to weigh in on this. Because, guess what, the Blue Line does not actually have a big problem – in

fact, it’s a victim of its own success! That doesn’t mean there isn’t any problems that can’t be addressed, and the author points out a few of them. They are:

So why do I say that the CTA Blue Line is a victim of its own success? What can be done about the real problems the Blue Line does have?

The Blue Line is a Success

At a time when CTA bus ridership is in decline and rideshare (Uber and Lyft) are chipping away at overall CTA ridership, the ridership increases on the Blue Line are an unheralded success. As fare revenue supports operations, the CTA depends heavily on its riders to subsidize the service. Larger urban planning goals like transit-oriented development also support the sunk costs of the CTA by generating a market dependent on transit for at least some of its trips. As a larger policy goal, we should be supporting TOD in every place it can be built, while also doing transit system planning to accommodate market demand. The Blue Line ridership is approaching historic highs. That is a testament to how well the CTA runs the line as much as it is to policy and geography.

What are the Real Problems of the Blue Line

That said, TOD has strained the Blue Line and presented some very real problems. These problems are antiquated train sets, congested stations, ADA accessibility, capacity and power constraints. Let’s take a closer look at each problem:

Antiquated Train Sets

MP 05 train, Paris Metro. Source: Wikipedia

The Blue Line runs the oldest train sets in the CTA roster, the 2600 series. These cars were built in the early to mid 1980s for the CTA, though they’ve been rehabbed since then. The 2600 series train sets are not optimized for efficient passenger loading, due to their perpendicular seating arrangement, which creates bottlenecks in each of the vestibules. The newer 5000 series train sets that are on the CTA Red and Green Lines have longitudinal aisle-facing seating that allow for wider aisles. This seating configuration increases passenger capacity by 20-30% per train car.

The proposed 7000 series cars that the CTA is purchasing will also have longitudinal seating and will replace the 2600 series cars on the Blue Line by 2020. While they will not be open gangway, a style of train design that allows a passenger to walk from car to car seamlessly (shown at right), they should also increase capacity similarly to the 5000 series. That said, the Blue Line has a track configuration which would be optimal for open gangway design, which would drastically improve train capacity.

A more radical solution than open gangway design would be a move to driverless trains. Train sets like this dramatically reduce labor costs, thus allowing more frequent train service all day. Driverless trains could give the CTA the flexibility to run rush hour service virtually the entire day if it wanted, due to the substantial labor savings.

Congested Stations

Weekday ridership at certain stations on the Blue Line have grown significantly since 2002 including California (109%), Western (75%), Logan Square (64%), O’Hare (58%), Division (54%), Belmont (32%) and Damen (29%). My own Blue Line station (Jefferson Park) saw a 7% increase during this time period.

These increases in ridership have contributed to increased passenger crowding per train car, platform crowding at the station level, train delays due to boarding/alighting, all of which may cause some passengers to wait for several trains before boarding. Ways to alleviate this might mean creating more access and egress points at certain stations. Line level improvements might mean extending all station platforms to accommodate 10 or 12 car train sets. A 10 car train allows for 25% more capacity than an existing 8 car train.

ADA Accessibility

Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, public transit providers like the CTA are required to make their system accessible to the public. In practice, this means that any significant station renovations include accessibility features, most notably elevators. The Your New Blue program added an elevator at Addison, though not at California, Damen or Division, where ridership growth has been strongest.

Capacity Constraints

Capacity constraints occur not just in terms of passenger volume, but also in the number of trains running along the line at any given time. And the number of trains run is governed by schedule, availability of equipment, capacity at the rail storage yard, signaling equipment and power capacity. Your New Blue is modernizing signal technology, which will allow the CTA to reduce headway, or space, between trains.

Modernization of the power substations will allow for more trains. The existing Blue Line is constrained by its power plant, which is largely maxed out.

However, even with a modern power plant, the CTA still needs somewhere to store the trains. And storage yard capacity, particularly in Forest Park, would need to be increased to allow more train sets on the line.

When all else fails, a more drastic solution to capacity constraints may involve the addition of railway sidings and/or additional mainline track. Existing Blue Line two-track configuration precludes the kinds of express services that might be offered. Additional mainline track allows the CTA flexibility to segment its route based on passenger volume. It may even allow express O’Hare trains. However, this solution is probably least likely if only because land acquisition and/or tunneling would likely be cost prohibitive.

So how do we fix it?

It is easy to blame the transit for your commuting headaches. And it is even easier to blame new people for crowding your train. But don’t blame the service provider. Demand better service. Because in the end, transit is by far the most efficient way to get around the City of Chicago.

 

Connecting to the North Branch Trail

North Branch Trail. Source: Forest Preserve District of Cook County

The North Branch Trail, which has been planned for over 10 years, will finally be opening this week (well, Phase I anyway. Phase II is under construction until next year).  Extending the existing eastern trailhead from Caldwell Avenue and Devon Avenue in Edgebrook is essential to making the trail easier to access by bike, as Caldwell and Devon are very difficult terrain for on-street bike riders. So while I am ecstatic about the trail’s southeastward extension, I am still a bit troubled with the connectivity to the trail by bike, at least for those riders who are using Central Avenue to connect to the trail. Let’s go to the maps.

 

Right now, the Phase I trail head will be in the Forest Glen Woods, adjacent to Forest Glen Avenue, which is a small side-street that can take a rider to Elston Avenue, which has buffer protected bike lanes all the way to downtown. But if you live west of the trail head, you’ll likely want to use Central Avenue to access the trail, as it crosses Central at a stop light in Edgebrook Woods. But getting there is dicey. While Central Avenue is a “signed bike route” according to the City of Chicago’s official map, I can find no evidence of a sign, not to mention any sort of road markings indicating Central as a bike route. The image below shows Central Avenue between Bryn Mawr and Elston Avenues, a typical cross-section of Central Avenue on the far northwest side.

Now, Central is actually a decent road to bike on, as it is generally only one lane in each direction and traffic volumes are fairly low. However, Central widens after the curve just north of Elston Avenue on the approach to Edgebrook Woods (background and on left) and the road is very forgiving for drivers that want to exceed the speed limit.

It is precisely this section of Central that is simultaneously closest to the crossing of the North Branch Trail and also the most dangerous approach to the trail itself. The City should prioritize the improvement of access to the trail, as specifically called for in the City’s bike plan.

As such improvements come to the fore, I would recommend we carefully study a road diet for Central Avenue. I envision a road diet to do the following:

  • Reduce the number of through lanes from two lanes in each direction to one.
  • Install a barrier protected bike lane in the southbound direction between Edgebrook Woods and Leonard Avenue.
  • Install a buffer protected bike lane in the northbound direction between Central Avenue and Edgebrook Woods.

Ideally, I could see a road diet on Central through Edgebrook Woods entirely up to Lehigh Avenue or Caldwell, but congestion issues around the railroad tracks may negate this. A barrier protected bike lane would provide the safest path between the trail crossing and Elston Avenue. However, on the northbound side, there are driveways that access Central Avenue which would necessitate a more porous bike lane.

This is my back of the envelope thinking for accessing the new extension of the North Branch Trail. How would you make the trail easier to access?

Urban Street Transformation – Loop Link

Washington Street. Loop Link station. Source: Metropolitan Planning Council

Washington Street at LaSalle Street. Loop Link station. Source: Metropolitan Planning Council

Loop Link, the new bus service with some bus rapid transit amenities, is already having a large impact on the urban streetscape in downtown Chicago in advance of its opening this past Sunday. Even if you don’t ultimately use the transit system part of Loop Link, as a cyclist and/or pedestrian, Loop Link already has a lot to offer.

For instance, the narrowing of the road has already been having an effect, making street crossing on foot easier with the narrower crossing and slowing down drivers on traditional one-way streets.

Another major transformation of downtown is the protected bike lane on Washington Street (picture at left) and the two-way bike lanes on Clinton Street (below). This is a simple reallocation of existing road space from cars to buses and bikes, which carry more than 30,000 passengers per day. The two-way bicycle lanes on Clinton do double duty. They provide a crucial north-south connection to two major commuter rail stations, Union Station and Ogilvie Transportation Center and connect with the CTA Blue Line at Clinton Street. Along the way are Divvy bike share stations at each of the stations, enabling commuters from the train to travel safely north and south and connecting to the east artery on Washington Street to get into the heart of the Loop. As the protected bike lane on Randolph is completed, it will be very safe and easy to get through the Loop from the train stations all the way to the lakefront.

23386294999_51c3294236_z

Washington Street. Looking west from LaSalle Street. Source: Metropolitan Planning Council.

Loop Link has resulted in a major urban street transformation because it’s costs ($41 million) represent a relatively cheap infrastructure investment that can pay dividends for its users – the bus riders and pedestrians and bicyclists that make up the majority of traffic movement downtown.

ClintonLanes

Clinton Street 2-way bike lanes. Near Union Station. Source: Streetsblog Chicago.

 

 

 

 

 

Talking About Transit

Redefine-the-Drive-May_boulevard-detail-section

How does this station work? Is there signal priority for the streetcar? How does existing CTA bus service interact? All transit questions unanswered by this concept.

 

There is a right way and a wrong way of talking about transit. Specifically, when you propose an idea for transit service without mentioning the details. As a transit planner, I love details. Because transit costs money, and because it is seen by many as government largess, if you are going to responsibly discuss your transit ideas, the more fleshed out it is the more credibility you will have with both the public and the government agency that would likely run the system. The project in which I’m referring to is the Chicago Streetcar Renaissance proposal for streetcars along North Lake Shore Drive when that road is rebuilt. I attended a presentation [actual proposal here] by John Krause of Chicago Streetcar Renaissance at the Transport Chicago conference a last month where he laid out his vision for a streetcar (or LRT) running from downtown via Michigan Avenue north along Lake Shore Drive. The vision looks really nice. Many pictures of streetcars in European cities in urban areas at a smaller scale, and perhaps even more dense than the areas around North Lake Shore Drive. And while I was sucked into the grandeur of it, the transit planner in me awoke with these questions:

  1. What is the actual route (from end to end) of service? It’s great to see cross-sections of North Lake Shore Drive, and I’m aware that the streetcar is proposed to travel down North Michigan Avenue and Sheridan Road, but what are the limits? Are there branches of service, particularly at the ends of the route?
  2. Which current CTA bus routes, if any, will this new streetcar service replace?
  3. What is the frequency of service and hours of service? Since you propose to replace many of the buses along Lake Shore Drive with streetcar service, I am wondering if the service plan accounts for headways of 1-3 minutes in the peak period. If so, then…
  4. Where to do you plan for the vehicle and crew facility? Particularly since land is at a premium downtown and along the lakefront.
  5. Will the streetcars have traffic signal preemption?
  6. How do you anticipate at-grade street crossing effecting scheduling?
  7. Could bus rapid transit provide a similar level of service for less cost?

I am not saying this project is a bad idea, by any means and I am receptive to reducing North Lake Shore Drive from a limited access expressway to a boulevard of some type with transit running alongside (or in the middle). But when you propose a new mode of transit, one in which there is no legacy network to tie into, then these types of questions are appropriate. That said, I applaud the efforts Mr. Krause has made to thinking about North Lake Shore Drive differently, and putting his efforts into a concept to show an alternative way of thinking about this corridor. But the pictures are too pretty and now we need to get to the hard part. The system design and analysis.

So, as a transit planner what would I do?

I would flesh out my concepts a little better first, making sure the streetcar is feasible from a physical, operational and market standpoint. That is, addressing the questions above and developing a service plan to compare with existing CTA bus operations. Then I would really figure out a way to pay for it.

What would you do with North Lake Shore Drive?

Page 1 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén