Metra Electric/South Shore Chicago Boardings

[artthouwill]

I found this article in the Trib

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-metra-southshorejan04,0,2377858.story?obref=obnetwork

Basically, there is a group claiming the South Shore is discriminating by not letting passengers board inbound trains heading downtown at Kensington or 57th. This group wants south side passengers to have the option of boarding either SS or ME train.

On one level I think it does make some sense, since the train is stopping there anyway. The problem is that these are actually two separate railroads and if SS collects any fares, that would take away from Metra (even if Metra governs the fare in Illinois). Besides, I really don't think SS riders would be enthused about picking up additional passengers on an already crowded train. In emergency situations when ME was not able to pick up mainline passengers, SS has been able to pick up ME passengers at Kensington and 57th and honored ME tickets. Even though SS puts the blame directly on Metra, I'm also sure that SS would not want to lose any revenue by boarding outbound passengers with a Zone C or D ticket and riding into Indiana. Honestly, I believe most people that would try that would get caught because the Hoosier passengers would rat on them quickly. (Side note: I remember when I would get on at 115th to ride to Gary and the passengers would make it a point to point me out to the conductor [like I was some criminal]. When approached, I politeley would pull out my 10 ride or monthly ticket and smile at those worrisome passengers).

[Busjack]

I had a rather excoriating reply to that article. Among other things, the article indicates that the state senator has proposed a bill with a drafting error that would have abolished all Metra express service.

Illinois would become obligated to subsidize NICTD for the additional riders,* but the RTA can't support existing service on the CTA and Pace.

Besides that, while Metra is a creature of the Illinois legislature, the South Shore is in interstate commerce, and any state legislation affecting it would be unconstitutional. Hence, this legislator proved that he did not have the background of his predecessor (which I believe was Senior Lecturer of Constitutional Law at the U of C).

With regard to overloaded trains, it was my impression that the South Shore was the one that was overloaded, resulting in it getting 14 more cars. The degree to which the ME 200 series trains have been cut back indicates that, if anything, Metra is the one with extra capacity.

_____________

*Metra does subsidize the South Shore based on Hegewisch boardings. The last time Metra had a fare hike, NICTD raised its fares, too, because it did not want Hegewisch passengers boarding in Hammond, instead.

[trainman8119]

The degree to which the ME 200 series trains

Huh ?????

Also, my ire was raised by this article. Can't anyone accept the word "no" anymore ???

[Busjack]

Huh ?????

Maybe I was a bit obtuse. What I meant to say is that local service between 67th and Blue Island isn't what it was 30 some years ago, indicating a lack of demand. But since you punch tickets on the ME, maybe you have a better feeling.

Also, my ire was raised by this article. Can't anyone accept the word "no" anymore ???

This politician, nor any other, probably not, although I attribute most of this to publicity hounds finally getting their publicity.

[trainman8119]

Maybe I was a bit obtuse. What I meant to say is that local service between 67th and Blue Island isn't what it was 30 some years ago, indicating a lack of demand. But since you punch tickets on the ME, maybe you have a better feeling.

I can't comment on 30 years ago (ICG days), but there is not much there now at all, probably not enough to pay the electric bill for service there. If Metra was really serious about crying poor and saving some money, the BI branch could be history with little fanfare. That branch could easily be served by the Main Line (UP), the Rock Island and Pace/CTA.

[artthouwill]

Metra now is part of a lawsuit.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/2010/01/class-action-lawsuit-alleges-race-discrimination-on-the-cta.html

[Busjack]

Metra now is part of a lawsuit.

http://www.chicagono...on-the-cta.html

Since it was pointed out by the CTA Tattler that he received a "media release" about this, I think it, combined with the article at the top of the thread indicate that someone is seriously seeking publicity, regardless of the merits of the supposed complaints.

Since I have given my opinions of the three supposed lawsuits or legislative proposals, I'll leave it at that.

[Busjack]

If Metra was really serious about crying poor and saving some money, the BI branch could be history with little fanfare. That branch could easily be served by the Main Line (UP), the Rock Island and Pace/CTA.

Given the two stories provided by art, can you imagine the political fallout? Need I say more?

[artthouwill]

I read the article found on this homepage:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-metra-bills-20101127,0,4747330.story

The article says those who filed the lawsuit mentioned in the earlier posts support the proposed bill.

On another note, I recently took a ME South Chicago train for the sake of it (could've used the 26 South Shore Express, it would've been faster). It's a wonder this line still exists. Most of the passengers got off in Hyde Park. South of Roosevelt, this train stopped at McCormick, 27th, 47th, Hyde Pl/53rd, 55th/56th/57th, and 59th before branching off. When I was a shorty, this train didn't stop at McCormick, 27th, or 47th (that was handled by the Kensington Local). Personally, I would love to see a S. Chicago Express. It would certainly attract people from the CTA Expresses. Too bad they couldn't start a six month "experiment" to see how it would work. The upcoming winter would be a perfect time to test it out. On the flipside, I don't think Hyde Parkers would like losing their 10 minute intervals (which would go to about 20), but they won't be too inclined to board already crowded CTA expresses in their neighborhood.

[geneking7320]

I have a feeling Mike Payne might agree with you.

Oops! In light of the Community Guidelines let me add some clarification.

From following Mike's Gray Line postings in the Yahoo! Chicago Transit group

I think he is advocating use of the MED South Chicago train as an additional

CTA rapid transit line instead of the south lakefront express buses. I think

you might be heading in that direction also.

Personally, I'd like to the the Gray Line come into existance.

BTW, I can't prove this but I thought the IC had South Chicago express trains

in the 1960s.

Gene King

[artthouwill]

I have a feeling Mike Payne might agree with you.

Oops! In light of the Community Guidelines let me add some clarification.

From following Mike's Gray Line postings in the Yahoo! Chicago Transit group

I think he is advocating use of the MED South Chicago train as an additional

CTA rapid transit line instead of the south lakefront express buses. I think

you might be heading in that direction also.

Personally, I'd like to the the Gray Line come into existance.

BTW, I can't prove this but I thought the IC had South Chicago express trains

in the 1960s.

Gene King

I don't remember that far. I do remember the old single level brown cars and very vaguely remember the interior, but by that time the Highliners were being phased in.

As for Mike's idea, I'm not completely sold on it. For one, the S. Chicago branch already competes with CTA fare wise, since the entire branch is a B zone, and yet it is still not profitable. I think the better way to go is with a universal smart card (like a ChicagoCard) where you can use the card to pay for a ticket at an ME vending machine. It would be nice (though I'd imagine it wouldn't happen) if you could "transfer" from Metra to CTA or Pace for a quarter (much like transfering from bus to bus) with the smart card deducting that from your ride. That type of cooperation will help people choose public transportation.

I think Mike would cede all city ME ops and the BI branch to CTA, but they would still have to share trackage rights with ME suburban mainline and South Shore trains which already have a high rush hour frequency, so increasing that frequency would be difficult. What about stations like Kensington where all three lines share the same platform? Would CTA go to a Metra-like ticket system or would we see the return of the turnstyle? Under his plan, would there really be a need to extend the Red Line to 130th?

[Busjack]

As far as South Chicago expresses, even after the about 1972 institution of zone service, one had to take the Kensington Local during rush hour to get to 57th, as the South Chicago train didn't stop there. The current schedule doesn't reflect that.

As far as the Gray Line, I think that Payne's comments in Dennis Byrne's blog indicate that he's pretty much shot his wad, and I am about done considering that.

[artthouwill]

I see on the homepage that Mike Payne won't let this "Gray Line" thing go.

1. I once had my own plan for the CTA to take over the S. Chicago branch of the ME, but it would've required a change of rolling stock and connectivity to the end of the Green Line at Cottage Grove or just west of King Drive. But since Metra tracks (and thus Metra) is considered a railroad (I forget which class), I found that to not be feasible.

2. I question M.P's $200 million price tag on the basis of rolling stock alone. We won't even discuss CTA becoming a railroad and everything associated with it.

3. If inner city passengers aren't using the existing ME service, what is going to make them use the Gray Line? There is still technically no connection to the rest of the system, save maybe Roosevelt, Van Buren, and Randolph, but the connectivity is better with the existing CTA system. It is just a pipe dream.

[Busjack]

I see on the homepage that Mike Payne won't let this "Gray Line" thing go.

...

2. I question M.P's $200 million price tag on the basis of rolling stock alone. We won't even discuss CTA becoming a railroad and everything associated with it.

3. If inner city passengers aren't using the existing ME service, what is going to make them use the Gray Line? There is still technically no connection to the rest of the system, save maybe Roosevelt, Van Buren, and Randolph, but the connectivity is better with the existing CTA system. It is just a pipe dream.

I said on the CTA Tattler today why this won't happen, and won't repeat that here.

But with regard to the two above comments:

2. Theoretically there wouldn't be a cost with regard to rolling stock, in that the rolling stock is sitting in the yard around 14th St., anyway. However, the capital cost not addressed is separate station facilities for points such as 57th, where the locals and expresses now use the same station, or bus transfer facilities, which gets us to...

3. While the Gray Line wouldn't connect with other rapid transit, bus transfer facilities could, for instance, eliminate the 14 bus, if the Jeffrey bus were routed into an intermodal terminal at 71st and Jeffery. However, that gets to the core of why the Gray Line would not work in practice. Mike keeps saying that CTA would realize savings, even though it would have to purchase service from Metra, but the only way it would would be by cancelling the 14, 26, and X28 buses (and maybe 6). In effect, though, CTA passengers have voted with their pocketbooks, at least to the extent that the 14 is overloaded and the 26 runs mostly parallel to the South Chicago branch. If someone forced CTA to cancel the 14 bus, imagine the howling you would hear from that corner of Chicago.

Of course, Mike never discusses what the operating cost Metra would charge CTA would be, if (assuming that Metra would have terminated the runs if they were empty) Metra claims it would lose potential revenue by accepting CTA transfers, and if Metra would (as Mike suggests) expand mid day service on the South Chicago and Blue Island locals to 20 minutes from once an hour.

[sw4400]

Hypothetically.... if the CTA did turn the Metra Electric Line into the Grey Line, what stock would run on it? Would they run CTA "L" Cars on it, or would they also buy the Metra Electric Cars and just wipe off the "Metra" Logos and change them to "CTA" Logos?

[busfan2847]

Hypothetically.... if the CTA did turn the Metra Electric Line into the Grey Line, what stock would run on it? Would they run CTA "L" Cars on it, or would they also buy the Metra Electric Cars and just wipe off the "Metra" Logos and change them to "CTA" Logos?

They would not be allowed to run CTA "L" cars on it as they do not have the collision strength to run on a main line railroad unless the tracks they run on can be totally separated from the Metra Electric Main Line.

[MetroShadow]

Hypothetically.... if the CTA did turn the Metra Electric Line into the Grey Line, what stock would run on it? Would they run CTA "L" Cars on it, or would they also buy the Metra Electric Cars and just wipe off the "Metra" Logos and change them to "CTA" Logos?

You'd have to get the stock from Metra or buy your own. I don't think it would be wise to use CTA's cars (which aren't tall enough unless you get large enough pantagraphs).

[Busjack]

Hypothetically.... if the CTA did turn the Metra Electric Line into the Grey Line, what stock would run on it? Would they run CTA "L" Cars on it, or would they also buy the Metra Electric Cars and just wipe off the "Metra" Logos and change them to "CTA" Logos?

Look at the Gray Line site. As I noted above, the theory is that Metra stock is sitting in the 14th St. Yard in non rush hour.

[Mike Payne]

As I have stated from the very beginning 15 years ago (I don't know how anyone can still misunderstand this), the Gray Line would use the same L E A S E D Class I Metra Electric EMU's that would continue to be used on the MED University Park services - but with CTA decals on their sides instead of the Metra logo.

They will be manufactured in the new Nippon Sharyo Plant (Jobs) in Rochelle, IL: http://www.nipponsha...om/tp101020.htm

N O T CTA 'L' cars (which as observed - cannot run in common with or proximity to Class I Equipment).

Metra is already Fully Funded for the new Class I EMU's for the MED (1/2 without washrooms); for the Gray Line the Shoreliner configuration would be used for the extra doors, with the vacant washroom bay equipped with stanchions as a standee area: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3bUxWTaRApc http://www.nipponsha...om/tp101018.htm

I have given up trying to persuade the Transit Agencies to coordinate their services - I am trying to work through their Springfield funding sources instead - based on their wasting (by Metra and CTA competing with each other) a portion of the scarce Operating Funds that they seek (like leaving the refrigerator door open).

[Busjack]

...

I have given up trying to persuade the Transit Agencies to coordinate their services - I am trying to work through their Springfield funding sources instead - based on their wasting (by Metra and CTA competing with each other) a portion of the scarce Operating Funds that they seek (like leaving the refrigerator door open).

I'll go into some Insane Clown Posse politics here (at least insane).

Now that the realization is that 3 of the 4 dysfunctional agencies are not going to do anything about this, maybe legislation is the way to go. At least the General Assembly thinks it can send down all sorts of mandates to Metra, at least supposedly effective in 2015.

I cited in the CTA Tattler the example that somehow Pace got legislation that paratransit comes off the top, and also got other things off the top, such as the South Cook Job Access fund, which basically just is an operating subsidy to Pace, since the 889 project died after 3 months.

One can also remember that Pace got Chicago paratransit because Carole Brown complained that CTA had a $55 million deficit in 2005, and paratransit cost $54 million. Only later did she realize that the money for paratransit would go with the service, thereby not curing her deficit.

The one point lost at the end of the Pace v. RTA case, where Pace got the right to sue RTA, is that all service boards must be joined because there is only one pot, and whatever one gets has to come out of the hide of the others.

However, as in the paratransit case, I don't think that CTA can figure that out, and hence there is a chance going the legislative route.

Of course, as in the case of Pace trumpeting that the legislature just guaranteed paratransit $115 million off the top, the legislature, if it does anything, will only tinker in such a way as to make the overall situation worse.

To Mike: Since you said on the Tattler than you would not mandate canceling any bus route as a prerequisite to implementing your plan, the refrigerator door would remain open, nonetheless, so you don't have that argument, either.

[artthouwill]

As I have stated from the very beginning 15 years ago (I don't know how anyone can still misunderstand this), the Gray Line would use the same L E A S E D Class I Metra Electric EMU's that would continue to be used on the MED University Park services - but with CTA decals on their sides instead of the Metra logo.

They will be manufactured in the new Nippon Sharyo Plant (Jobs) in Rochelle, IL: http://www.nipponsha...om/tp101020.htm

N O T CTA 'L' cars (which as observed - cannot run in common with or proximity to Class I Equipment).

Metra is already Fully Funded for the new Class I EMU's for the MED (1/2 without washrooms); for the Gray Line the Shoreliner configuration would be used for the extra doors, with the vacant washroom bay equipped with stanchions as a standee area: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3bUxWTaRApc http://www.nipponsha...om/tp101018.htm

I have given up trying to persuade the Transit Agencies to coordinate their services - I am trying to work through their Springfield funding sources instead - based on their wasting (by Metra and CTA competing with each other) a portion of the scarce Operating Funds that they seek (like leaving the refrigerator door open).

I fully understand the concept, but do you really think CTA is going to pay Metra to run a service the Metra already runs with somewhat low ridership? Even if CTA and Metra agreed to this somehow, isn't there a clause in their contract with the union that "work" cannot be contracted out? I think the union would object to that portion (unless the engineers, conductors, etc became CTA employees and unionized). I wonder how this works with the Northstar in Minnesota?

[Busjack]

I fully understand the concept, but do you really think CTA is going to pay Metra to run a service the Metra already runs with somewhat low ridership? Even if CTA and Metra agreed to this somehow, isn't there a clause in their contract with the union that "work" cannot be contracted out? I think the union would object to that portion (unless the engineers, conductors, etc became CTA employees and unionized). I wonder how this works with the Northstar in Minnesota?

I think you are wrongly assuming that this would be farmed out work or work done by CTA employees.

Clearly, this would be a purchase of service contract, and the service would be run by Metra (NICRC) employees, whether trainman punches Metra tickets or honors CTA transfer cards.

No different than "Metra UP" trains being operated by UP personnel under a purchase of service contract.

In any event, the personnel would be subject to the Railway Labor Act, as Metra personnel now are.

Of course, this is not analogous to the Northstar, in that there isn't here one agency (the Met Council) running both services.

The real issue is "will CTA pay Metra," and while it can be finessed in the manner I stated above, the "one pot" issue still remains.

[Mike Payne]

I'll go into some Insane Clown Posse politics here (at least insane).

Now that the realization is that 3 of the 4 dysfunctional agencies are not going to do anything about this, maybe legislation is the way to go. At least the General Assembly thinks it can send down all sorts of mandates to Metra, at least supposedly effective in 2015.

I cited in the CTA Tattler the example that somehow Pace got legislation that paratransit comes off the top, and also got other things off the top, such as the South Cook Job Access fund, which basically just is an operating subsidy to Pace, since the 889 project died after 3 months.

One can also remember that Pace got Chicago paratransit because Carole Brown complained that CTA had a $55 million deficit in 2005, and paratransit cost $54 million. Only later did she realize that the money for paratransit would go with the service, thereby not curing her deficit.

The one point lost at the end of the Pace v. RTA case, where Pace got the right to sue RTA, is that all service boards must be joined because there is only one pot, and whatever one gets has to come out of the hide of the others.

However, as in the paratransit case, I don't think that CTA can figure that out, and hence there is a chance going the legislative route.

Of course, as in the case of Pace trumpeting that the legislature just guaranteed paratransit $115 million off the top, the legislature, if it does anything, will only tinker in such a way as to make the overall situation worse.

To Mike: Since you said on the Tattler than you would not mandate canceling any bus route as a prerequisite to implementing your plan, the refrigerator door would remain open, nonetheless, so you don't have that argument, either.

[Mike Payne]

Cancelling bus routes on opening a rail line is a sure way of creating strife - the refrigerator door would

close after ridership equalized (about 6 months) ; and then services could be modified based on usage.

Folks out by 130th have been waiting decades for rail service, a few months for cost efficiencies to kick in isn't

too bad.

Because of many comments I have rethought how the service might be funded; instead of having CTA pay Metra to operate the services - the funds collected through the CTA TVM's in the Gray Line stations could go directly to Metra; and an arrangement would be made through the RTA for inter-agency compensation for transfers and pass usage.

Since a new Fare Collection System (with Fare Coordination) must be in place sometime in the next 2 years, this would be an easily incorporated addition; and computers could figure out who gets what.

And I continue to stress that creating Jobs and Economic Development in the neighborhoods along the line has always been the Primary goal of the Project.

Is anyone aware of any other plan that would accomplish those goals for the South Lakefront Corridor??

Please post information on it here.

[Busjack]

Cancelling bus routes on opening a rail line is a sure way of creating strife - the refrigerator door would

close after ridership equalized (about 6 months) ; and then services could be modified based on usage.

However, as many have pointed out, people have already voted with their feet, in that, for instance, the South Chicago branch is light while the 14 bus is crowded. You would have to prove that the only reason is the lack of a transfer at 71st. I think I said before that someone would have to conduct a ridership survey on that, but you said you couldn't afford it. Hence, we can't take this on faith, and no transit planner that had any clout would accept in on faith.

For that matter, it appears that people in Hyde Park have comparatively reduced their use of the 53 and 57 stations for the 6 bus, even though there is no transfer issue (see below), and it doesn't seem like anyone promotes 57th as the way to get to the Museum of Science and Industry--there is the comparatively new 10 bus, though.

Folks out by 130th have been waiting decades for rail service, a few months for cost efficiencies to kick in isn't

too bad.

This argument doesn't hold H₂0 either, because

• The farthest south the IC Blue Island line goes on the mainline is Kensington (115th) and 120th (to Blue Island).
• I've stated on the CTA Tattler the mess that the current federal transportation bill is, so I don't know if we will see the Red Line extension, but that at least would connect with the rest of the L system, while this basically only serves those going to the vicinity of the Art Institute and Prudential Plaza. They would then have to walk (at least on the Pedway) to Wabash (L). State (but that station's gone) or Dearborn to connect back up.

Because of many comments I have rethought how the service might be funded...

None of these solves the "one pot" problem.

Is anyone aware of any other plan that would accomplish those goals for the South Lakefront Corridor??

Please post information on it here.

No, but:

• I mentioned to Anonymous cyberstalker on the Tattler that people in Hyde Park used to take the IC, and didn't even recognize the CTA or much else of the real world. That seems to have changed, in that there is the U of C-CTA community service. I would like to see what the boarding statistics are at 57th, compared to, say, in the 1970s. Also the statistics for 53rd, even though the IC messed it over in the 1970s by making it only a local stop. The IC also messed up 57th at that time, although with the rebuilding, the ME transfer point was moved to 57th. Apparently Rahm and the U of C have an agreement to fix 59th.
• Notwithstanding the previous bullet point, the reason why Hyde Park stays economically viable is that the U of C owns most of it. Appaently is also trying to take over the property on Garfield west of Washington Park. That's their economic development program.

I know that I am really going to tee off someone here (as I did when I mentioned why enclosed fare areas on the Jeffery BRT wouldn't have worked), but:

• South Shore, Grand Crossing, West Pullman and the like are sure not the neighborhoods they once were (again I am referring to compared to the late 70s), at least as typified by crime problems. That may have deterred development or result from development having been deterred, or maybe from removal of people from the State Street corridor, but is a problem that must be addressed before anyone is going to invest there.
• Basically, to have economic development, you need a plan for transit-oriented development at each station. You are not going to get economic development (except for a doughnut stand) just because people have to transfer there and wait 18 minutes for the next train. Note all the problems CTA has in renting out vacant storefronts on the north side L (at least the builders of that thought about transit oriented development 80-90 years ago).
• Scooter had pointed out the rebuilding of the Green Line, and how that didn't really work. There were supposed to be mega station developments at Pulaski and Garfield--has anything really happened there, after 15 years (about 10 after Garfield was rebuilt)?
• For that matter, has anything new and substantial been built along the Green Line south of 35th, or does that area remain fairly decimated, despite its access to rapid transit? As far as I know, the only concerted effort was on 63rd east of Woodlawn--after the L was demolished.

For all the above reasons (Four Seasons no, not really), in an era of capital and operating funding scarcity, you have to make a stronger showing than the assumptions made here. Making a showing before a planning agency that has no power, in a metropolitan area where planning is an oxymoron, certainly isn't getting the job done. I suggested talking to JJJr before (before he tarnished himself by messing with Blago), and if someone with his or Sandi's mouths can't get you anywhere, no one (especially clowns in the state legislature) can.

See if you can rebut any of the above. I hope you can.