Transport Nexus

The nexus between transportation and land use.

Tag: CTA Page 1 of 2

The real Blue Line problem

By

On February 27, 2018

In Heavy Rail (metro), Transit-Oriented Development

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.

 

Urban Street Transformation – Loop Link

By

On December 21, 2015

In Bicycle, Bus Rapid Transit

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

By

On July 8, 2014

In Light Rail, Transit Planning

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?

Why mass transit is doomed

By

On December 2, 2013

In Politics

Metra over traffic

Mass Transit in Chicago. Source: Steven Vance @flickr

I can’t recommend reading Alex Pareene’s article enough on why mass transit is doomed. Sure, it’s true that politicians don’t use it. Let’s put this into a Chicago context. How often do you think Rahm Emanuel rides the CTA, despite living a couple of blocks from the Montrose Brown Line? What about Pat Quinn, who could commute from his northwest side neighborhood in Galewood on the Metra? Before you answer – consider this fact. There exists, under the James Thompson Center (aka Illinois Capitol Building north), a non-public parking garage restricted to select public employees. A similar parking situation exists in the Daley Center, next to City Hall. When parking is free in places it shouldn’t be, what are the incentives for politicians to drive?

Another example. Several years ago, when I was an intern with the Chicago Transit Authority, the Board of the CTA took a tour of the Block 37 cavern. (Let’s neglect the fact that this behemoth was sprung from the brainchild of another politician known for never riding the CTA, Richard Daley. And let’s neglect for the moment that a $200 million basement makes a difference to precisely no one. Imagine a $200 million investment in trains and buses). How did they get there? Not by the Green Line Clinton Station, right outside CTA headquarters. No, there was vehicle transportation arranged for them. Keep in mind that this is the Board of the Chicago Transit Authority.

This is despite the fact that 27% of workers within the City of Chicago take public transportation to work. One in four.

And now, when the CTA is proposing a bus rapid transit solution along Ashland Avenue that speeds up travel times on one of the busiest bus routes in its system, it runs into vehement opposition because it makes driving a car slightly more cumbersome. Because, you know, driving is a god given right also enshrined in our constitution. And everyone drives (except for those 27%).

The problem is, Chicago’s mass transit system, combined, is the third largest in the country. It faces a significant capital shortfall of $18 billion to address state of good repair needs and needs an additional $12 billion over 10 years for normal capital reinvestment. Yet, the system’s sources of funding are not stable and subject to economic swings (sales tax receipts, real estate transfer tax, etc.).

You know when the State gets its way on a ridiculously flawed highway proposal that it cannot afford, and it steamrolled the transit agencies to vote in support of it, against their interests, that mass transit is doomed.

Transit Disinvestment

By

On January 14, 2013

In Infrastructure

A CTA train emerges from the north portal of t...

Rising up or falling down?  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In my hometown, Chicago, the CTA raised fares today.  Lots of people are upset, and for good reason. In many cases it’s easy to blame the low hanging fruit – mismanagement, corruption, government waste, high salaries and benefits, etc. Often, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is none of these things. Raising fares is a rational response to a systemic problem in this country – the poor state of good repair as it’s called in the business, or the lack of well maintained infrastructure. It is a lack of a commitment nationwide to maintaining our infrastructure – and the problem is that we’re overbuilt – causing these state of good repair issues. And I don’t mean that we’re overbuilt on transit – it’s the roads, our development pattern and our suburban experiment that is bankrupting us.

CTA, like transit properties nationwide and like Metra here in Chicago, is raising fares in part due to declining federal and state support for capital expenditures and a poor economy  that has devastated the operating side of the budget. This is happening all across the country. Therefore, it’s easy to see how transit gets into a situation, a cycle of slow, but perpetual disinvestment on the capital side, not out of poor management, but rather choices in which one must choose the least bad option. Then, the economy goes down, bringing down sales taxes – the principal operating finance mechanism – and now transit is unable to make payroll. This is referred to as the transit “death spiral.”

Transit is in a pickle. In the vast majority of cities it carries just a fraction of the overall work commute. In the Chicago metropolitan statistical area, that number is 11.5%. We’re in fourth place behind New York (31.1%), Washington D.C. (14.8%), and San Francisco (14.4%). It’s difficult to marshall the political forces needed to support transit locally and nationally when only 11.5% of the region’s work trips are made by transit. These numbers are so low precisely because of the built environment we have created. And until the fundamentals of that growth mechanism known as our suburban experiment change, I think the cycle of disinvestment in our infrastructure is likely to continue.

Page 1 of 2

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén