CTA #2 in the Nation. Interesting Surprise

[jajuan]

Well while surfing the web about different cities' transit system I happened to find a November 29, 2012 Huffington Post article and photo essay that said based on a survey of cities for transit and walkability done by Travel and Leisure Magazine for its "Favorite Cities 2012" feature, Chicago and CTA ranked #2 out 18 cities. So basically from that while we legitimate criticisms of how CTA can improve, the tourists still liked our system enough to make it #2 on the list. Denver had the top spot based on that same survey.

[Busjack]

Well while surfing the web about different cities' transit system I happened to find a November 29, 2012 Huffington Post article and photo essay that said based on a survey of cities for transit and walkability done by Travel and Leisure Magazine for its "Favorite Cities 2012" feature, Chicago and CTA ranked #2 out 18 cities. So basically from that while we legitimate criticisms of how CTA can improve, the tourists still liked our system enough to make it #2 on the list. Denver had the top spot based on that same survey.

Link is here.

Never know about these surveys. For instance, the CTA Tattler had reported about a year ago a survey that the Chicago rapid transit was not pedestrian development friendly, to which my reaction was "what do you expect when a mess of stations is in the median of expressways, especially the Dan Ryan?"

Neither the Huffington Post nor the linked stories said what the methodology was.

If nothing else, that shows that the results depend on where you go. Given that the survey was apparently of tourists, I bet it mostly consisted of either the Blue Line O'Hare branch or North Michigan Ave.

But one thing we can't argue about--Chicago rated #1 for pizza.

[mkohut]

I do agree with Busjack.

It depends on time and day.Where they were going and if there were any slow zones.

[jajuan]

Link is here.

Never know about these surveys. For instance, the CTA Tattler had reported about a year ago a survey that the Chicago rapid transit was not pedestrian development friendly, to which my reaction was "what do you expect when a mess of stations is in the median of expressways, especially the Dan Ryan?"

Neither the Huffington Post nor the linked stories said what the methodology was.

If nothing else, that shows that the results depend on where you go. Given that the survey was apparently of tourists, I bet it mostly consisted of either the Blue Line O'Hare branch or North Michigan Ave.

But one thing we can't argue about--Chicago rated #1 for pizza.

Before we go overboard in getting caught up in the ins and outs of how surveys work, I already acknowledged that it's a matter of perspective. The article itself even made that acknowledgment when it mentioned area residents' legitimate complaints of the rising of unlimited pass prices or as we call it the "fare increase that wasn't an increase as stated by Rahm". Now if we want to go deeper into perspective it's necessarily just a matter of sticking only to the O'Hare Blue Line or the Mag Mile. Either way whether some of us wish to admit it or not, the system does work well compared to other agencies as evidenced by my having friends or relatives come in from out of town and tout how CTA gets you directly from point A to B in one straight shot compared to their hometown transit system's take you all over town before getting getting you to the intended destination.

[rvwnsd]

When I lived in Chicago, I was a frequent critic of the CTA as well as being a huge fan. After living in San DIego for 13 years and using the systems in LA and San Francisco, I can tell you that Chicago has little to complain about. The San Diego Trolley is accessible if you catch it in the downtown area. Elsewhere, the stations are tucked into industrial areas and behind shopping malls. At least bus lines have stops at the L stations running down the expressway median. There is no such thing as a direct route here. The 5-mile trip from my home to downtown San Diego takes 45 minutes due to the circuitous route the bus takes. LA is lightly better (the Rapid bus service is actually pretty good) and SF is slow. CTA is not wothout its flaws, but it is a heck of a lot better than many systems.

[geneking7320]

@rvwnsd;

Would you say the California systems you mentioned are serve areas which are less "grid oriented" than here in Chicago?

I believe your post proves something I read years ago - a transit system is different when used to go to work vs when ridden as a fan. I've ridden the SDT, Muni, and BART a few times over the years. Unfortunately, in LA I've only ridden the Blue Line. I found all of them easy to use but I was just vacationing. I think our biggest problem here in Chicago is that over the years economic downturns have forced cutbacks in service.

[BusHunter]

I find that survey finding CTA #2 in the nation hard to believe. CTA has cut alot of service. Express bus service is non existent for 3/4 of the city. (There's just Jump and that is basically a #14.) Rapid transit in the rush is painfully overcrowded. Overnight owl service is slowly being eliminated along with routes in the outlying parts of the city. Secondly, I question why Denver would be #1. I would think a place like NYC would be the best, because they have an extensive rapid transit system which can get you from point A to point B fast. They have a BRT system in place. I believe 80 percent of New Yorkers use public transit. We would never hear a statistic like that around here. And with Ventra on the way the service may become more expensive and confusing as well.

[Busjack]

I find that survey finding CTA #2 in the nation hard to believe. CTA has cut alot of service. Express bus service is non existent for 3/4 of the city. (There's just Jump and that is basically a #14.) Rapid transit in the rush is painfully overcrowded. Overnight owl service is slowly being eliminated along with routes in the outlying parts of the city. Secondly, I question why Denver would be #1. I would think a place like NYC would be the best, because they have an extensive rapid transit system which can get you from point A to point B fast. They have a BRT system in place. I believe 80 percent of New Yorkers use public transit. We would never hear a statistic like that around here. And with Ventra on the way the service may become more expensive and confusing as well.

But when you bring up NYC, it went through similar cuts or fare increases in 2010, too.

NYC is talking about things equivalent to BusTracker and Ventra, but seems way behind on both. If you look at the MTA Bus Time page, while I don't know what the total number of routes are, compared to those that are available, I assume that Manhattan routes start with M and only 3 are listed. Unless you are in the Bronx or Staten Island, you are out of luck.

Probably an instance of 'the grass is always greener," or "what you know may not be worse than what you don't."

I will agree with those above that at least CTA has maintained a grid, instead of say, circulating the Ashland bus all over the near west side. Where there have been losses, it has been outside the grid, such as Lincoln and Clybourn. It sure isn't like most of Pace North Shore.

[jajuan]

I find that survey finding CTA #2 in the nation hard to believe. CTA has cut alot of service. Express bus service is non existent for 3/4 of the city. (There's just Jump and that is basically a #14.) Rapid transit in the rush is painfully overcrowded. Overnight owl service is slowly being eliminated along with routes in the outlying parts of the city. Secondly, I question why Denver would be #1. I would think a place like NYC would be the best, because they have an extensive rapid transit system which can get you from point A to point B fast. They have a BRT system in place. I believe 80 percent of New Yorkers use public transit. We would never hear a statistic like that around here. And with Ventra on the way the service may become more expensive and confusing as well.

Again this was a survey asked of tourists who don't necessarily live in the cities polled. So it's pretty much a highlighting of the grass is greener on the other side scenario as acknowledged in the article that referenced the survey. From what I gathered out of it they asked people visiting the city does CTA do a good job in getting folks from point A to point B. Those people asked apparently thought yes. And if we're honest with ourselves, can we really be surprised in hindsight that the 151 had owl service cut? Some of the operators on the forum had been saying the rumor of that happening had been floating around for a long time. And I would also say that the survey brings up that everyday riders look beyond what we transit enthusiasts look for out of a transit system to the point that sometimes what's reality for the enthusiasts isn't reality for the general public. While we have legitimate complaints of CTA operations like the top management levels being held by political hacks for example, we could still be San Francisco in which a distance covered by a CTA local bus in 20 minutes gets covered there in say 45 minutes. You think our system is convoluted by having CTA, Metra and Pace along with RTA as the umbrella agency. Looking at San Francisco again, in addition to Muni, that's city's main transit system, they've got Golden Gate Transit, which runs routes into downtown San Francisco from areas north of the city using the Golden Gate Bridge, SamTrans which runs some routes into downtown from San Mateo and other areas south of San Francisco and AC Transit which serves Berkeley, Oakland and other cities and towns to the northeast of San Francisco and also runs some routes into downtown San Francisco, this time using the Oakland Bay Bridge. On the train side there's also BART, the rapid transit service for San Francisco and Alameda and Contra Costa counties and Caltrain which is a regional commuter train service similar to Metra in this area. All that in a major city that's only 7 miles by 7 miles in area. You think we have bus bunching problems? Again look at the San Francisco example and you find a system that still has a sizable number of trolleybuses serving a good number of the local routes there. At least our buses can circle around each other. Not so with the trolley bus routes in San Francisco. The overhead pantographs on the trolley buses prevent those types of buses from passing each other if going the same direction. If one bus falls behind the rest can fall behind also because all they can do is follow that late bus since the pantograph of one can't cross through that of another on the overhead wires. That can be bad in itself for the buses of a single trolley bus route. But imagine if they're on a street portion where there are multiple routes operated with trolleybuses, and many trolleybus routes do share streets with each other especially when you get closer to San Francisco's downtown. You have a domino effect of bus bunching over a number of sections of that city. Getting back to the survey, I brought it up as a spark of conversation to say hey if CTA being led by political hacks can get high marks on one survey, imagine what people visiting our city would think of our transit system with some improvements and under a miracle scenario that it's not led by political hacks under the Mayor's thumb but instead by actual transit professionals.

[mkohut]

The good news is nobody in the survey try to go to Great American.

[Busjack]

On the trolley bus issue, the question in

...You think we have bus bunching problems? Again look at the San Francisco example and you find a system that still has a sizable number of trolleybuses serving a good number of the local routes there. ...

The issue in SF, which lead to them hanging onto the cable cars (although now a historic oddity) and trolley buses is the hilly terrain. Now whether a current diesel bus could handle it might be a different question, but at the time they thought it couldn't.

I once worked for a company that had an affiliate at the bottom of Van Ness St. People were complaining that they were gassed in the building, until it turned out that the buses were laying over on a hillside just outside the main vent. Don't know how that was resolved, except that the new owners shut down that company.

Politically, SF may be messed up, but the explanation for most of the other transit authorities is that they are on the other side of the bay.

The good news is nobody in the survey try to go to Great American.

Great American Ballpark is in Cincinnati. Supposedly they were building an LRT there.

If you are referring to Great America in Gurnee, Pace apparently was not on the survey list. But I wonder who if anyone takes 284.

[mkohut]

I was talking about Great America in Gurnee.

I have to double check I think there is another route that go there.

[Busjack]

I was talking about Great America in Gurnee.

I have to double check I think there is another route that go there.

565 Grand Ave.

However, you would have to take Metra to Waukegan to connect with it, as a practical matter.Maybe one could spend the day taking 270 to 272 (hopefully interlined) to 572 to Waukegan. 572 might get you to the employee gate.

[BusHunter]

565 Grand Ave.

However, you would have to take Metra to Waukegan to connect with it, as a practical matter.Maybe one could spend the day taking 270 to 272 (hopefully interlined) to 572 to Waukegan. 572 might get you to the employee gate.

You forgot to mention that the 270-272-572 combo takes about 3 hours each way!! I could drive to Milwaukee and watch a Brewers game faster than that!!

[Busjack]

You forgot to mention that the 270-272-572 combo takes about 3 hours each way!! I could drive to Milwaukee and watch a Brewers game faster than that!!

I said "spend the day."

You might be able to take Amtrak quicker, passing by Great America but not stopping there.

[BusHunter]

Again this was a survey asked of tourists who don't necessarily live in the cities polled. So it's pretty much a highlighting of the grass is greener on the other side scenario as acknowledged in the article that referenced the survey. From what I gathered out of it they asked people visiting the city does CTA do a good job in getting folks from point A to point B. Those people asked apparently thought yes. And if we're honest with ourselves, can we really be surprised in hindsight that the 151 had owl service cut? Some of the operators on the forum had been saying the rumor of that happening had been floating around for a long time. And I would also say that the survey brings up that everyday riders look beyond what we transit enthusiasts look for out of a transit system to the point that sometimes what's reality for the enthusiasts isn't reality for the general public. While we have legitimate complaints of CTA operations like the top management levels being held by political hacks for example, we could still be San Francisco in which a distance covered by a CTA local bus in 20 minutes gets covered there in say 45 minutes. You think our system is convoluted by having CTA, Metra and Pace along with RTA as the umbrella agency. Looking at San Francisco again, in addition to Muni, that's city's main transit system, they've got Golden Gate Transit, which runs routes into downtown San Francisco from areas north of the city using the Golden Gate Bridge, SamTrans which runs some routes into downtown from San Mateo and other areas south of San Francisco and AC Transit which serves Berkeley, Oakland and other cities and towns to the northeast of San Francisco and also runs some routes into downtown San Francisco, this time using the Oakland Bay Bridge. On the train side there's also BART, the rapid transit service for San Francisco and Alameda and Contra Costa counties and Caltrain which is a regional commuter train service similar to Metra in this area. All that in a major city that's only 7 miles by 7 miles in area. You think we have bus bunching problems? Again look at the San Francisco example and you find a system that still has a sizable number of trolleybuses serving a good number of the local routes there. At least our buses can circle around each other. Not so with the trolley bus routes in San Francisco. The overhead pantographs on the trolley buses prevent those types of buses from passing each other if going the same direction. If one bus falls behind the rest can fall behind also because all they can do is follow that late bus since the pantograph of one can't cross through that of another on the overhead wires. That can be bad in itself for the buses of a single trolley bus route. But imagine if they're on a street portion where there are multiple routes operated with trolleybuses, and many trolleybus routes do share streets with each other especially when you get closer to San Francisco's downtown. You have a domino effect of bus bunching over a number of sections of that city. Getting back to the survey, I brought it up as a spark of conversation to say hey if CTA being led by political hacks can get high marks on one survey, imagine what people visiting our city would think of our transit system with some improvements and under a miracle scenario that it's not led by political hacks under the Mayor's thumb but instead by actual transit professionals.

Well we have routes that go in circles too, the #85A, #88, #2, the loop elevated. So it just depends on who you speak to whether you will get a positive review or not. San Francisco has a nice transit system with the cable cars and Bart, which is way more modern than CTA's "L". That city is a transit enthusiast's dream. Not only is there old things like cable cars and PCC cars there are modern things like BART and light rail. Then there's trolley buses. They have the most diverse transit system in the world. I believe they have the biggest selection of PCC cars painted in other cities liveries. It like a celebration of US PCC"s. They can't help it they are surrounded by water on three sides. In order to enjoy the beauty there has to be sacrifice as well. We here in Chicago can only dream about such gifts of transit. We most likely will never see light rail, PCC's or cable cars or trolleybuses ever again here. The closest we can come to PCC cars around here is in Kenosha,WI. There's a piece of transit history that many here will never experience. Something I learned about SF that's kind of cool is they have a trolley parade down by the market street museum they have. Definitely a place you want to see at least once.

[Busjack]

Well we have routes that go in circles too, the #85A, #88, #2, the loop elevated. So it just depends on who you speak to whether you will get a positive review or not. ....

There is a difference between buses that have terminal loops and those that prevent expeditious travel because the main portion meanders all over the place to try to pick up passengers.

Locally, you can distinguish Pace routes on main arterials (such as much of South and West division and 208, 250, 270, and 290, although many of the 200s go off the main street to get to the Des Plaines Metra station), with something like 422, which besides being on numerous streets, got a 15 minute detour (as far as 212 riders were concerned) so as not to compete with CTA 205 on Golf Rd. Most Pace small cities service (500s) is similar.

...Or you could take Hammond, which was real bad like that from the 1950s, until it didn't have buses at all (on several occasions, including currently).

[jajuan]

Well we have routes that go in circles too, the #85A, #88, #2, the loop elevated. So it just depends on who you speak to whether you will get a positive review or not. San Francisco has a nice transit system with the cable cars and Bart, which is way more modern than CTA's "L". That city is a transit enthusiast's dream. Not only is there old things like cable cars and PCC cars there are modern things like BART and light rail. Then there's trolley buses. They have the most diverse transit system in the world. I believe they have the biggest selection of PCC cars painted in other cities liveries. It like a celebration of US PCC"s. They can't help it they are surrounded by water on three sides. In order to enjoy the beauty there has to be sacrifice as well. We here in Chicago can only dream about such gifts of transit. We most likely will never see light rail, PCC's or cable cars or trolleybuses ever again here. The closest we can come to PCC cars around here is in Kenosha,WI. There's a piece of transit history that many here will never experience. Something I learned about SF that's kind of cool is they have a trolley parade down by the market street museum they have. Definitely a place you want to see at least once.

And while it may be a transit enthusiast's dream it's the local resident's nightmare. In a way you're actually helping my point about a transit enthusiast's reality and that of a regular commuter in a transit system sometimes don't mesh. Folks there speak regularly of buses taking an hour or more to come if at all in certain parts of the day, largely due to the reason I mentioned which is the buses in question are the trolleybuses and therefore can't pass each other when falling behind a late straggler. The other complaint a lot of them have is when they do get a bus it takes practically forever to get anywhere. It's not uncommon to take a SF MUNI bus and have it take 45 mins to cover a distance that a CTA one would likely take 20 or less because the bus stops in San Francisco are extremely close together in a lot of locations, less than 500 feet apart in some. I've heard of complaints that one block in San Francisco could have three bus stops in the space of that same block. The other reason behind those riders' complaints of slower than necessary buses is San Francisco has a buttload of one way streets and those folks say the buses have to take a lot of unnecessary turns from navigating around those one way zones. in fact it's one reason given by officials for current projects in that city making some of those one way streets two way ones. And there's mention from some folks that the San Francisco equivalent of BusTracker at times shows arrivals based on the schedules instead of the actual physical location of an approaching bus so a person may go to an intended stop only to find there are no buses coming at the times anywhere close to that they were expecting. And you'll probably find plenty of local San Francisco residents who say MUNI's maintenance record isn't all that great. There's mention that their current trolleybuses in the bus part of their fleet replaced trolleybuses from the 1970s that weren't completely retired until about 2007 or 2008. And the older trolleybuses were said not to have been in the best of shape.

[jajuan]

On your mention that MUNI officials keeping so many trolleybuses in the bus freet due to the hilly terrain Busjack, I think they found themselves operating under a possible myth. My mother's childhood hometown is a 45.9 sq. mi town (a little smaller than San Francisco's 7 mi X 7 mi or 49 sq mi in terms of land area) in eastern Mississippi with hills on par with those in San Francisco. And the diesel buses in that town's small transit system have been negotiating the hills there as long as I can remember with few problems.

[BusHunter]

And while it may be a transit enthusiast's dream it's the local resident's nightmare. In a way you're actually helping my point about a transit enthusiast's reality and that of a regular commuter in a transit system sometimes don't mesh. Folks there speak regularly of buses taking an hour or more to come if at all in certain parts of the day, largely due to the reason I mentioned which is the buses in question are the trolleybuses and therefore can't pass each other when falling behind a late straggler. The other complaint a lot of them have is when they do get a bus it takes practically forever to get anywhere. It's not uncommon to take a SF MUNI bus and have it take 45 mins to cover a distance that a CTA one would likely take 20 or less because the bus stops in San Francisco are extremely close together in a lot of locations, less than 500 feet apart in some. I've heard of complaints that one block in San Francisco could have three bus stops in the space of that same block. The other reason behind those riders' complaints of slower than necessary buses is San Francisco has a buttload of one way streets and those folks say the buses have to take a lot of unnecessary turns from navigating around those one way zones. in fact it's one reason given by officials for current projects in that city making some of those one way streets two way ones. And there's mention from some folks that the San Francisco equivalent of BusTracker at times shows arrivals based on the schedules instead of the actual physical location of an approaching bus so a person may go to an intended stop only to find there are no buses coming at the times anywhere close to that they were expecting. And you'll probably find plenty of local San Francisco residents who say MUNI's maintenance record isn't all that great. There's mention that their current trolleybuses in the bus part of their fleet replaced trolleybuses from the 1970s that weren't completely retired until about 2007 or 2008. And the older trolleybuses were said not to have been in the best of shape.

If indeed the survey was from tourists and not the riding public, I don't understand why SF wasn't higher than Chicago on the list. There's alot of eye candy to take in. My only guess from a tourist's standpoint is the Bustracker and Train Tracker systems here are what the tourists are enamored with. (Bustracker has won developmental awards) CTA has made the "L" system here far superior than the bus service. Most likely the tourists are using the "L" and downtown bus service which of course runs well as many routes overlap on Michigan Ave and State St. They definitely are not out here on the NW side waiting for a bus for 35 minutes.

[jajuan]

If indeed the survey was from tourists and not the riding public, I don't understand why SF wasn't higher than Chicago on the list. There's alot of eye candy to take in. My only guess from a tourist's standpoint is the Bustracker and Train Tracker systems here are what the tourists are enamored with. (Bustracker has won developmental awards) CTA has made the "L" system here far superior than the bus service. Most likely the tourists are using the "L" and downtown bus service which of course runs well as many routes overlap on Michigan Ave and State St. They definitely are not out here on the NW side waiting for a bus for 35 minutes.

Perhaps on the L or BusTracker aspect. But neither you or I can say for sure as far as location location since it doesn't say specifically. But we can at least surmise no one was waiting for a bus for 35 minutes because the survey itself was done probably a couple months at least before even the first parts of Claypool's de-crowd plan was implemented. And the survey was done on actual service presumably stuff like does it easily get you from point a to b, not any of the transit systems' eye candy, so SF probably still wouldn't rank any higher on the merits of service.

[Tcmetro]

The City of Chicago really does have a great transit system in comparison to the rest of the nation. The L system isn't complicated, and all the major streets have a frequent bus line. Additionally, the routes are relatively straight and easy to understand.

San Francisco's MUNI is also one of the better agencies in the nation, with all-door boarding and frequent service. However, service seems to be slower and buses are dirtier and older than Chicago's. The light rail system is also ridiculously overcrowded during peak hours and the trains are small. Also, a ride to the airport on the BART is somewhere around $8.

LA's transit system is quite poor, IMO. Buses run every 30 minutes after 7 pm, even on the busiest lines, trains are also infrequent (12 minutes in the day, 20 in the evenings), and they seem to have some bad delays. Even though the system is well laid out, there are too many operators (25 or 30 agencies in LA County alone) and the service isn't that great.

New York's system is obviously the best, the subway pretty much goes everywhere, and the buses are very frequent.

As for transit to the suburbs, that pretty much sucks everywhere. NY and Chicago probably have the best suburban transit networks, and that isn't saying much.

[Busjack]

...

LA's transit system is quite poor, IMO. Buses run every 30 minutes after 7 pm, even on the busiest lines, trains are also infrequent (12 minutes in the day, 20 in the evenings), and they seem to have some bad delays. Even though the system is well laid out, there are too many operators (25 or 30 agencies in LA County alone) and the service isn't that great.

...

Apparently the LA system is better than in the Johnny Carson days, but that was a result of court rulings indicating that there was a constitutional right to transit in California (not worth me looking it up) and air pollution rulings to the effect that they had to have an entirely CNG fleet. I also knew someone who was a former Metra political functionary who ran the LA system for a while (knew him in his early functionary days).

There seems to be enough 217 buses, if late night TV is any guide.

The one time I was there, the taxi drivers used anything except the freeways to get to and from the airport, so I guess that says something about congestion.

Here, the systems seem operationally o.k (unless some tourist is going to ride to 95th), but as pointed out earlier,the tourists don't have to cope with the political dysfunction, nor all the projects hyped that never happen. For instance, today the report is that some consultant said to put BRT in the middle of Ashland instead of Western, but still no one has come up with a source of the $160 million it would take to build that pie in the sky.

[jajuan]

Plus one thing I would add is let's keep in mind as I mentioned above that this survey was done prior to any of the perceived mucking up of the system from Claypool's decrowd initiatives that the CTA Board pretty much rubber stamped. On the BRT point, I'm still wondering where the money for it is going to miraculously appear from myself when present thinking is the system couldn't afford present levels of current regular service to the point that contract routes are being partially or completely cut because the parties involved scoff at Claypool's fishing for more money from them to keep those routes going, that pass prices had to be increased to shore up revenues (the fare increase that wasn't an increase), and that we now have the supposedly budget neutral decrowd initiatives where we see services on some routes ramped up at the expense of cutting services on other routes which some see as just a backdoor way of cutting service.

[Busjack]

Plus one thing I would add is let's keep in mind as I mentioned above that this survey was done prior to any of the perceived mucking up of the system from Claypool's decrowd initiatives that the CTA Board pretty much rubber stamped.

That, again, is one of the political matters I just posted. They might have decrowded North Michigan Avenue and the O'Hare Blue Line, but how many tourists are going from Lincoln and Montrose to Lincoln and Diversey? I don't think they polled the people at the sheltered workshop.