Category: Transit-Oriented Development Page 1 of 2

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:

Rapid ridership increases at certain stations on the O’Hare branch of the Blue Line, though not a population boom as the author suggests.
Older train cars (notably the 2600 series)
At capacity infrastructure (of which Your New Blue, a track and signal modernization program seeks to address)

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.

The latest example proving the nexus between transportation and land use…

By Ryan Richter

On August 8, 2013

In Commuter Rail, Infrastructure, Transit-Oriented Development

Crossrail Line 1. Source: David Arthur

…Comes to us from London, my brief one-time home. Courtesy of Crossrail, the major commuter rail project linking East and West London together more seamlessly with dramatic expected time savings. While Crossrail is not scheduled to open until 2018, the benefits that the Crossrail project is promising to deliver have already impacted the local real estate market.

Goldman’s employees would be able to reach Heathrow Airport from Farringdon in about 30 minutes on Crossrail, compared with more than an hour on the London Underground. Travel to east London’s Canary Wharf financial district will take 9 minutes, from about 25 minutes today. The City Thameslink system already takes passengers to Gatwick Airport to the south and Luton Airport north of the City.

“That’s what makes this the crossroads of central London,” Rees, the City’s top planner, said in an interview.

Crossrail will build 9 new stations in Central London, provide up to 24 trains per hour (1 train every two and a half minutes!) carrying 1,500 riders each. It will increase the rail network capacity while simultaneously reducing travel times by up to 50%. Transit-oriented development is already taking place, capitalizing on new areas of Central London becoming more accessible. More than 3 million square feet of residential and retail development are anticipated to take place, just over the stations sites.

This is the benefit that transportation infrastructure can bear on a place. It is smart development – taking advantage of the high-capacity, incredibly expensive infrastructure by also providing high density land uses to leverage that infrastructure investment.

See video.

Transit Mode and Development Opportunities

By Ryan Richter

On January 11, 2013

In Commuter Rail, Transit-Oriented Development

I have not mentioned this before, but my favorite planning book in the last year has to be Human Transit. Authored by Jarrett Walker, the book is based on much of what he has been saying on his blog by the same name. Reading his interview with the Urban Land Institute on how developers need to think like transit planners has resonated with me in my own practice.

A significant aspect of my job involves transit-oriented development. My role is to represent my agency as the planning stakeholder. TOD has been the rage in many suburbs in Chicago, particularly the ones with commuter rail. I have a good feeling when I go into a town for a TOD plan which one will succeed and which one will fail. As Walker states:

Even if your development is at a rail station, the bus system is almost always a key part of how a transit-oriented, low-car style actually becomes viable. That’s why it’s important for developers to think about what makes transit useful, which is often very different from what makes it superficially appealing. Only the useful is an enduring value.

I see too many towns that believe that by building development near their train stations that they can breed success. Of course, many of these places do not have bus service of any meaningful kind to provide a modal connection between the commuter rail and the rest of the surrounding area, nor are they willing to drop the parking minimums in the TOD area. Thus, it’s not really transit-oriented but rather transit-adjacent development that is planned. And by not taking into account frequency of service and multimodal connections between bus and rail, many TODs are simply not viable and are instead designed to support the car rather than stand independent of it.

Cars vs. Transit

By Ryan Richter

On July 4, 2012

In Parking, Transit-Oriented Development, Uncategorized

I’ve been mulling over Josh Barro’s contention that cars should not be blamed for the failures of mass transit and his conclusion that planning and zoning is to blame. His basic contention is thus:

…the real culprit keeping Americans away from mass transit and inside cars isn’t subsidies; it’s planning and zoning. Cities impose barriers to density that limit the number of housing units and offices that can be located near buses and trains, which reduces mass-transit usage. These barriers also drive up property prices in areas near mass transit, penalizing transit-oriented living and encouraging people to live farther from urban cores, in areas where they have to drive. Meanwhile, cities often require builders to include a minimum number of parking spaces in new developments, depressing the market price of parking and further rewarding drivers.

A better approach would take advantage of the fact that proximity to transit increases property values. Cities should allow dense development, collect the property taxes that are generated, and use them to finance transit. Increased development also means more transit users and more fare revenues. But locals tend to oppose greater housing density; they also often demand parking minimums, since they don’t want to face too much competition for free on-street parking. An ironic result is that the very urban liberals who like to complain about suburban sprawl can end up encouraging it.

I concur with the larger argument about minimum parking requirements and value capture but I believe the argument falls short. While, I see how decisions made in land use policy at the local level distort the market equilibrium of supply and demand when it comes to parking, it is not as simple as to just blame the planner and the zoning code. The fact is, sprawl is baked into the cake of modern urban (and suburban) development. This makes the failure (or at least, under utilization) of mass transit easier and more likely. Here’s why:

Housing

Suburban development in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We’ve been basically building one type of housing for the past 60 years: single family homes with attached garages, driveways and subdivisions modeled on the Plan for Riverside. When we’re not building single family homes, we’re building townhouses and apartment complexes with a similar auto-centric design. The fact is, despite the population growth in cities over the past 10 years and outside of new urbanism and rebuilding in existing neighborhoods, we have not really built any new greenfield communities that resembles any pre-depression urban form.

Finance

Even if we were to start building communities in greenfield locations with high densities that could support transit, like residential development that was built-in the streetcar era, we still likely could not build these communities without adding significant amounts of parking or by limiting density. This is in large part because of the financial institutions that provide funding for these developments do not properly know how to value these assets. Banks like to finance products in which they know and know well. The suburban form of development is one that banks have been financing for 60 years.

Other Government Agencies

November the 15th Street - also known as Flowe...

This kind of development is illegal under most zoning codes throughout the U.S. However, there are a variety of other factors at play. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s say that we can get the financing to build an urban development along new urbanism guidelines, for example. Let’s say we’ve got the zoning in place and the transit worked out. We still might not be able to build the dense, transit-oriented community we want due to the policies of other government agencies. For example, fire departments have been opposed to new urbanism developments due to the narrow streets within these developments. It turns out that the fire trucks have become too big to fit down these streets or the perception is such that it would be too much of an obstacle to navigate.

It may come as a surprise that transit agencies might also be unfriendly to transit-oriented development, particularly if the predominant mode of access to their stations is via car. The transit agency would want to make sure its commuter parking is located as close to the station as possible. This is a common tension when building transit-oriented development.

Commerce

Strip center in the 1900 block of N Clybourn Ave

Development like this, in the transit rich, dense, urban neighborhood of Lincoln Park in Chicago. Even in dense cities, retailers insist on providing enough parking to “access” their stores. (Photo credit: YoChicago via flickr)

Retailers, particularly of the big box and other large format varieties, often won’t build in town without sufficient parking. When I was in grad school, the adjunct professor for my land use planning course told us that when Chicago was first redeveloping the North/Clybourn corridor from industrial uses to retail, the city wanted far less parking than is currently there. However, the developers balked, insisting that they needed the parking so that customers could access their stores. Of course, there was already 3 bus lines and the CTA Red Line station right there.

As a transportation planner, I appreciate that Barro is trying to explain the nexus between transportation and land use. Land uses drive transportation decisions of whether to take mass transit or cars. But so do a lot of factors beyond just the zoning code and minimum parking requirements.

Transport Nexus in the Polish Triangle

By Ryan Richter

On March 20, 2012

In Transit-Oriented Development, Urban Design

Looking southwest from the Polish Triangle

Of great interest to this site is the connection, or nexus, between transportation and land use. One prominent example of this failure of this nexus is at the southwest corner of Ashland Ave., Division St. and Milwaukee Ave., historically known as the Polish Triangle. Now part of the East (Ukrainian) Village neighborhood, this site is commonly known as the “Pizza Hut” site.

Needless to say, it is an abomination that this site was designed (allowed) in such a way as to maximize the use of the automobile when you have the following conditions present:

Access to the CTA Blue Line at Division St.
The #70 Division bus (running east-west) stop literally next to the property
The #56 Milwaukee bus (running NW-SE) and #8 Halsted bus (running north-south) stops across the street.
Designated, striped bike lanes on Division St. and Milwaukee Avenue.
Rare pedestrian space in the plaza like setting of the Polish Triangle.

Thankfully, this egregious market failure will be rectified.

It seems that after years of waiting, East Village residents will get what they have always wanted:

In early 2007, immediately after the Pizza Hut was shuttered, a coalition of community organizations lead by the East Village Association set forth four policies for redevelopment of the property. They called for a significant building that was mixed-use, high density and transit oriented.

This is, of course, despite the fact that the site faced significant development pressure for a Walgreens and various drive-thru bank facilities. Instead, the community got this:

11 story mixed use building.

The building is an 11-story mixed use facility with ground level retail, second floor office and apartments above. Reportedly, a coffee shop and bank are among the tenants thus far. 117 apartment units are provided with 35 parking spaces provided, 15 on site. One concession: a drive-thru for the bank using an existing curb cut. Interestingly enough, the 20 off-site parking spaces are in a parking lot adjacent to the property, home to an auto-oriented Wendy’s. The parking will not be available to residents, only for visitors, customers, and car sharing. This seems right.

What I find most interesting is that the developers acknowledge that the apartments are primarily for people who do not own cars. It is a tacit admission that not everyone needs a car, that the site will take advantage of its nexus to so many other transportation options that a car can be just one option among many, rather than catered to and coddled into the site. When you have this many transportation options and an urban environment designed for pedestrians, this concept had to fit within and respect those parameters. Kudos to the East Village community and developers Rob Buono and Paul Utigard. If more people thought like this we would have more Strong Towns.