City of Chicago & CTA

[artthouwill]

Bypassing the details, of which I don't claim to be aware, most of these get down to the FTA school bus regs, which essentially state that a school tripper is not supposed to deviate too far from the fixed route, or it is unfair competition to the private school bus operators. About the only place that was tested was Rochester, N.Y., where the school bus company won, but it didn't mean too much, as RGRTA just established the X system of buses that sort of run along the comparable fixed routes, but vary timewise depending on whether school gets out late on Wednesday, for instance.

That gets back to the point NewFlyerMCI made somewhat earlier in that maybe 86 ought to be restricted to the North-Naragansett loop and Pace 315 either extended or reinstated to North Ave.

At one time, CTA had owl on most L lines, while most other cities (I remember WMATA) did not, so you are correct. L might have been more efficient at one time, but I tend to agree with you it doesn't appear so now, at least with the need for a Customer Assistant at each open station, as opposed to a conductor collecting on the train. As you note, the O'Hare branch has some problems, but they could be overcome.

The other thing that supports this is that there isn't any connecting transit service running owl from the Harlem, Cumberland, or Rosemont stations (some after midnight service on 223 is about it).

I actually think extending the 315 to North/Narragansett and cutting the 86 to the same is a great idea.

As far as L owl service, New York City has plenty of it. While I understand juelzkeltz's reasoning, the fact remains that there has to be some level of speed in public transit to justify using it. It's one thing for a trip to take 2 hours going from ORD to the south side when there are 2 train rides and a bus involved, but to extend that to possibly three hours plus possibly another fare (Jeff Pk shuttle, 56 Milwaukee bus, 29 State plus N5 or 34). It is either time to carpool, buy a car, or find another job.

[Busjack]

I actually think extending the 315 to North/Narragansett and cutting the 86 to the same is a great idea.

As far as L owl service, New York City has plenty of it. While I understand juelzkeltz's reasoning, the fact remains that there has to be some level of speed in public transit to justify using it. It's one thing for a trip to take 2 hours going from ORD to the south side when there are 2 train rides and a bus involved, but to extend that to possibly three hours plus possibly another fare (Jeff Pk shuttle, 56 Milwaukee bus, 29 State plus N5 or 34). It is either time to carpool, buy a car, or find another job.

Depends how many employees are on the train. Reportedly 6 on the one that went up the escalator, but they were running 8 cars. If nothing else, that burns a lot of unnecessary electricity.

[juelzkellz]

Me thinks eliminating owl service on the Red and Blue Lines is a very bad idea. However, I would probably suggest running owl service on the Red Line in 20 minute intervals as opposed to 15. That eliminates 2 trains per hour.

A local bus will never be as fast as a train. Trains can run up to 55 mph, something you couldn't do on State St ever. Cutting owl service just puts people in cars. Some jobs, especially those at or around ORD require being at work at or before 5.a.m. and that owl service is necessary to get those people to those jobs

With the trains making every stop, the trains are going about the same speed as the buses at night when there is no traffic. Give or take 5-10 minutes. The Orange Line doesn't have owl service but people still make it to work. NYC has owl service on every line because they have the ridership to necessitate it. I hear some lines in NYC are as busy or busier than our Red Line on the north section during rush hour at night and, they have bigger and longer trains. I believe some day, there won't be owl service on the L. It's just a matter of when than if.

[BusHunter]

There are plenty of routes that can be cut before 24, 39 and 59, some of which are on that list. 43, 37 and although it saddens me, the 11. There is the 96 and even the 68. I do agree with you on the 100, that has actually seen decline from about 1000 passengers (Nov 2012) to 770 (Nov 2013) to 660 (Nov 2014).

I don't know the #24's I've seen NB in the PM rush equaled about 3 riders in three trips, mostly just me. They could change it to rush direction only. The #68's if you catch one around when Taft gets out will come into jeff pk with a standing load. Cutting that will probably upset CPS. They could cut it but I think they really need a Blue line Nagle stop. The #37 does pretty good. The #86's weakest point is north of Wright College, if anything on the #86 gets cut it's that. I've ridden the #59 west of Western and there are not many riders, you can count them on your fingers. The #96 can get a full load too and even the #11 in the rush. I didn't mention the #54A, there's another one that probably could go.

[artthouwill]

Depends how many employees are on the train. Reportedly 6 on the one that went up the escalator, but they were running 8 cars. If nothing else, that burns a lot of unnecessary electricity.

There might have been 6 on the lead car but I'm pretty sure that there were about 30 on the train.

[Busjack]

There might have been 6 on the lead car but I'm pretty sure that there were about 30 on the train.

Even at that, still doesn't justify an 8 car train. Normally, wouldn't even justify a bus.

[artthouwill]

Even at that, still doesn't justify an 8 car train. Normally, wouldn't even justify a bus.

That was just one station at a given time. What we don't know is how many people got on or off between downtown and O'hare, including the previous stop Rosemont. Perhaps owl service on the rails may not be in the future, but I still don't think its good for passengers that depend on it, especially those that live in the far reaches of the city..

[4CottageGrove95th]

I hear some lines in NYC are as busy or busier than our Red Line on the north section during rush hour at night and, they have bigger and longer trains. I believe some day, there won't be owl service on the L. It's just a matter of when than if.

The "E" (World Trade Ctr./8th Ave Local/Queens Blvd) and possibly the "A" (Far Rockaway-Lefferts Blvd/8th Ave Express) are definitely among the busiest (if not the busiest) 24/7. CTA Red Line, as busy as it is, can't touch them ridership-wise. Trains on the IND/BMT lines can range from 8 to 10 cars maximum length depending on the type of cars used to make up the consist. The cars used on the E for example are mostly R160s (60' in length). They generally run in 10 car lengths. On the A, if the train is made up of R46s (75' in length), the longest those run is 8 cars, as where the 60 foot R42s or R32s run in 8 to 10 car lengths.

[Tcmetro]

Cutting 24h service on the Red and Blue lines isn't a very good idea. O'hare is the busiest airport in the country, and there are plenty of workers coming and going throughout the night. The areas on the north side that the Red line serve were all developed around the L, much more than any of the other lines. Forest Park Blue line has pretty awful ridership at night, I'm not sure about the Dan Ryan. But, I suppose running the DR and the FP branches really doesn't add too much to the costs of operation.

Anyways, we're talking about what amounts to maybe 2 1/2 hours of service per night and is something that is important to the health of the city. I don't think the city administration would make a short-sighted move like eliminating overnight L service.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Cutting 24h service on the Red and Blue lines isn't a very good idea. O'hare is the busiest airport in the country, and there are plenty of workers coming and going throughout the night. The areas on the north side that the Red line serve were all developed around the L, much more than any of the other lines. Forest Park Blue line has pretty awful ridership at night, I'm not sure about the Dan Ryan. But, I suppose running the DR and the FP branches really doesn't add too much to the costs of operation.

Anyways, we're talking about what amounts to maybe 2 1/2 hours of service per night and is something that is important to the health of the city. I don't think the city administration would make a short-sighted move like eliminating overnight L service.

Think carefully about that statement. I live in Phoenix Arizona. While Phoenix in NOOOOOOOO WAY comes even close to Chicago in size or population, the point that I'm making is that we do not have a citywide transit system that runs 24/7...Period. Note that I emphasized "citywide". Here's the reason why: The only transit-like system that operates 24/7 in all of Maricopa County is the Sky Harbor Airport bus circulator and the "Sky Train" that takes you from terminal to terminal. And during the hours between 11:30 pm and 4 am, there is hardly a passenger on either of these modes. But, these still run 24/7! Yet outside of airport property, not a single Metro Valley vehicle is moving....including the light-rail. However, the city, county and Metro Valley transit officials (the "administration" as you call it) think that they have a first class transit system.......just as it is. Yeah, there are many people (like myself) who work the graveyard shift. But the ONLY way we can get to our jobs quickly is by personal automobile. No car......NO JOB. The "administration" as you call it, sees no need to change. I hate to say it, but Chicago is not immune to such short-sighted stupidity.

While it was common many years ago for big cities (and a few small ones) to generously accomodate those of its citizens who did not own cars or could not afford to own one by providing truly conveniet public transit, that generosity is slowly going by the wayside folks........and especially with the threat of cuts in federal and state funding that have been a major part of the life blood of many, if not all, transit systems throughout this country. Never forget, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. I'm just telling it like it is. However, if I'm missing something, please correct me.

[Busjack]

...

While it was common many years ago for big cities (and a few small ones) to generously accomodate those of its citizens who did not own cars or could not afford to own one by providing truly conveniet public transit, that generosity is slowly going by the wayside folks........and especially with the threat of cuts in federal and state funding that have been a major part of the life blood of many, if not all, transit systems throughout this country. Never forget, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. I'm just telling it like it is. However, if I'm missing something, please correct me.

Getting back to Chicago, owl service was cut to essentially its current extent around 1997 with the Boos-Allen report. A core system was considered necessary, but stuff like the 4 bus south of 59th (now 63rd) or 77 west of Central (now Octavia) was considered unnecessary, and a direct replacement was not suggested other than use the Red Line and a cross street (routes N5 or N79).

The most direct analogy to what is being debated here is that the L used to be 24/7 except for the Orange Line, but that was cut back, with the N20 bus replacing the end of the Green Line, N201 the Purple, and N60 bus the end of the Pink. The N201 was cancelled, and the N20 no longer runs to Harlem-Green Line.

So, it has happened and will continue to happen.

If it is all about the money, I don't hear anyone suggesting that the fare after 1 a.m. should be $6.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Getting back to Chicago, owl service was cut to essentially its current extent around 1997 with the Boos-Allen report. A core system was considered necessary, but stuff like the 4 bus south of 59th (now 63rd) or 77 west of Central (now Octavia) was considered unnecessary, and a direct replacement was not suggested other than use the Red Line and a cross street (routes N5 or N79).

The most direct analogy to what is being debated here is that the L used to be 24/7 except for the Orange Line, but that was cut back, with the N20 bus replacing the end of the Green Line, N201 the Purple, and N60 bus the end of the Pink. The N201 was cancelled, and the N20 no longer runs to Harlem-Green Line.

So, it has happened and will continue to happen.

If it is all about the money, I don't hear anyone suggesting that the fare after 1 a.m. should be $6.

Granted. But whether the owl service is cut further or the fare is actually increased, to say $6 for rides after 1 a.m., the fact still remains that "people" that neither you, I, nor the "administration" see.....who actually depend on owl service to survive; to make a living......are going to be hurt the most. That's all I'm trying to say. You brought up some good points....I'll give you that. But that reality is there; it's "written in stone". No amount of debating is going to change it. I'm just thinking about the people that are going to suffer the most. You and I both know who they are.

[Busjack]

... You and I both know who they are.

Having worked shift work, people working night shift usually have to be there by midnight (often 11:00 p.m.). While I guess there are some odd shifts, such as for hospital workers, or CTA drivers with the 4 a.m. run, I don't think transit policy can be based on "someone is going to be hurt," or else a route couldn't be cut so long as it had one rider.

It is sort of similar to my thinking that the N4 couldn't be routed to Michigan/Indiana north of 35th or how will people get to Michael Reese Hospital after 3 stops running, except that the hospital was in the process of being closed. It was assumed that the Purple Line or N201 was needed to serve Evanston Hospital, but from what drivers said about ridership, apparently not.

Maybe employers like UPS that have odd hours should be forced to pay for the bus service, as CTA is requiring.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Having worked shift work, people working night shift usually have to be there by midnight (often 11:00 p.m.). While I guess there are some odd shifts, such as for hospital workers, or CTA drivers with the 4 a.m. run, I don't think transit policy can be based on "someone is going to be hurt," or else a route couldn't be cut so long as it had one rider.

It is sort of similar to my thinking that the N4 couldn't be routed to Michigan/Indiana north of 35th or how will people get to Michael Reese Hospital after 3 stops running, except that the hospital was in the process of being closed. It was assumed that the Purple Line or N201 was needed to serve Evanston Hospital, but from what drivers said about ridership, apparently not.

Maybe employers like UPS that have odd hours should be forced to pay for the bus service, as CTA is requiring.

Well, it sounds to me like another "between a rock and a hard place" scenario for a number of Chicagoans. And truth be told, I don't see many companies (if any) paying CTA for the privilege of receiving owl service for their odd-shift employees. Being a FedEx employee myself, I immediately thought about what a pretty penny FedEx would have to pay to CTA for some form of owl service to get its "graveyard shift" people to and from the O'hare Airport Metroplex in the event that the Blue Line no longer provided it. Somehow, "I just ain't seein' it happen". Sad....very sad.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Cutting 24h service on the Red and Blue lines isn't a very good idea. O'hare is the busiest airport in the country, and there are plenty of workers coming and going throughout the night. The areas on the north side that the Red line serve were all developed around the L, much more than any of the other lines. Forest Park Blue line has pretty awful ridership at night, I'm not sure about the Dan Ryan. But, I suppose running the DR and the FP branches really doesn't add too much to the costs of operation.

Anyways, we're talking about what amounts to maybe 2 1/2 hours of service per night and is something that is important to the health of the city. I don't think the city administration would make a short-sighted move like eliminating overnight L service.

Think carefully about that statement........... I hate to say it, but Chicago is not immune to such short-sighted stupidity.

See. I told you that if I sometimes speak without thinking, I have no problem with being corrected......and this might be one of those times.

What I mean is, I might have misspoken by saying that Chicago is not immune to such short-sightedness with respect to the possible elimination of owl service on all of its "L" lines. Given Gov. Rauner's fiscal 2016 proposal to cut between $130 and $170 million of state funding from Chicago-area mass transit, the CTA may simply be forced to make such an elimination just to stay afloat; a decision that would be initiated due to financial circumstances beyond their control. However, unfortunately the end result is still going to be the same.........a lot of Chicagoans are going to be hurt by the cuts and possible significant fare hikes. Not good, folks. Not good at all.

[Busjack]

...Given Gov. Rauner's fiscal 2016 proposal to cut between $130 and $170 million of state funding from Chicago-area mass transit, the CTA may simply be forced to make such an elimination just to stay afloat; a decision that would be initiated due to financial circumstance beyond their control....

Metra noted, in saying they will get a 21st century replacement for their 19th century financial management system, that

By replacing Metra’s current financial management system, Metra will be better able to identify efficiencies, save costs and improve services, Oberman said.

Any proof of savings would probably be welcomed by Gov. Bruce Rauner, who has proposed cutting $20.8 million from Metra’s annual budget and has vowed not to consider any new taxes without a discussion of “reforms.”

Aside from the speculation reflected above about what CTA might do, maybe CTA also should think about reform, instead of the "blame Rauner" game and continuing to profess perfection.

On the Metra beat, note that they are blaming the BN again for not meeting service standards, but the NCS and Milw N are worse, although the derailment at the Bloomingdale junction didn't help.

[juelzkellz]

I actually think extending the 315 to North/Narragansett and cutting the 86 to the same is a great idea.

As far as L owl service, New York City has plenty of it. While I understand juelzkeltz's reasoning, the fact remains that there has to be some level of speed in public transit to justify using it. It's one thing for a trip to take 2 hours going from ORD to the south side when there are 2 train rides and a bus involved, but to extend that to possibly three hours plus possibly another fare (Jeff Pk shuttle, 56 Milwaukee bus, 29 State plus N5 or 34). It is either time to carpool, buy a car, or find another job.

To mitigate the travel time from the south side, a late night owl service that leaves from 69th and or 95th and runs express to Rosemont and the O'hare ATS station could solve that problem. The fact of the matter is that most major cities don't have 24 hour rail service and people still find a way to get to work.

[juelzkellz]

The "E" (World Trade Ctr./8th Ave Local/Queens Blvd) and possibly the "A" (Far Rockaway-Lefferts Blvd/8th Ave Express) are definitely among the busiest (if not the busiest) 24/7. CTA Red Line, as busy as it is, can't touch them ridership-wise. Trains on the IND/BMT lines can range from 8 to 10 cars maximum length depending on the type of cars used to make up the consist. The cars used on the E for example are mostly R160s (60' in length). They generally run in 10 car lengths. On the A, if the train is made up of R46s (75' in length), the longest those run is 8 cars, as where the 60 foot R42s or R32s run in 8 to 10 car lengths.

About NYC, I looked up the measurements and specs for the NYC subway IRT "A" division cars and I see that they are very similar to CTA's specs. The cars a bit longer (51ft vs 48 ft) and a bit heavier (57,000 lbs vs 73,000lbs) but I think those issues can be mitigated. I believe CTA if funds allow should lease/borrow a test train from NYC to see if they meet clearance issues and if they do, piggyback on a future NYC order. By chance they don't, the specs are close enough that a model can be created that achieves at least 80> commonality as far as parts are concerned. That way, both agencies save a substantial amount of money.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

...The Orange Line doesn't have owl service but people still make it to work...

From what I've seen recently from flying in and out of Midway, the airport tends to close up shop around 11 PM-12 AM, though the latest I've landed at Midway is 2 AM due to delays. The CTA Orange Line schedule says the last Loop train leaves at 1:05 AM. I also remember reading somewhere that Southwest Airlines pilots are concerned about late night limitations of flying into Midway due to the hours at the control tower after 12 AM, which implies that the Orange Line pretty much stays open later than the airport.

About NYC, I looked up the measurements and specs for the NYC subway IRT "A" division cars and I see that they are very similar to CTA's specs. The cars a bit longer (51ft vs 48 ft) and a bit heavier (57,000 lbs vs 73,000lbs) but I think those issues can be mitigated. I believe CTA if funds allow should lease/borrow a test train from NYC to see if they meet clearance issues and if they do, piggyback on a future NYC order. By chance they don't, the specs are close enough that a model can be created that achieves at least 80> commonality as far as parts are concerned. That way, both agencies save a substantial amount of money.

In the best case scenario, a NYC test train would only have problems in the Loop Elevated. However, I think the A Division cars are still too long for the CTA, as I heard the Red and Blue line subways can accommodate up to 50 foot long cars, and the elevated tracks seem to be worse. Also, with all the talk of how the newer Metra locomotives are too heavy for the UP-N line, there might also be weight problems on the L too, so maybe the NYC cars would be too heavy for the L.

[juelzkellz]

From what I've seen recently from flying in and out of Midway, the airport tends to close up shop around 11 PM-12 AM, though the latest I've landed at Midway is 2 AM due to delays. The CTA Orange Line schedule says the last Loop train leaves at 1:05 AM. I also remember reading somewhere that Southwest Airlines pilots are concerned about late night limitations of flying into Midway due to the hours at the control tower after 12 AM, which implies that the Orange Line pretty much stays open later than the airport.

In the best case scenario, a NYC test train would only have problems in the Loop Elevated. However, I think the A Division cars are still too long for the CTA, as I heard the Red and Blue line subways can accommodate up to 50 foot long cars, and the elevated tracks seem to be worse. Also, with all the talk of how the newer Metra locomotives are too heavy for the UP-N line, there might also be weight problems on the L too, so maybe the NYC cars would be too heavy for the L.

I just looked up the specs for the North Shore Line interurban cars and they were heavier (averaged around 100,000 lbs) and longer (anywhere from 53-56 ft per car length) than L cars and they routinely operated into the loop. If those trains could work with no technical problems, the IRT spec cars shouldn't have a problem. Besides, the Red, Brown, and to a lesser extent Blue lines could use the extra door during rush hour. (which is probably what the 3 extra feet on IRT spec cars consists of)

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

I just looked up the specs for the North Shore Line interurban cars and they were heavier (averaged around 100,000 lbs) and longer (anywhere from 53-56 ft per car length) than L cars and they routinely operated into the loop. If those trains could work with no technical problems, the IRT spec cars shouldn't have a problem. Besides, the Red, Brown, and to a lesser extent Blue lines could use the extra door during rush hour. (which is probably what the 3 extra feet on IRT spec cars consists of)

Oh OK. Actually the old PATH train cars are about the same length as CTA train cars, and they managed to cram in three doors on each side of those, though the cabs on the old PATH cars don't seem to be full width, making the doors offset from each other.

[Busjack]

.... I believe CTA if funds allow should lease/borrow a test train from NYC to see if they meet clearance issues and if they do, piggyback on a future NYC order. .... That way, both agencies save a substantial amount of money.

This makes no economic sense for several reasons:

• CTA originally posted, and then cancelled a 7000 spec for something the same as a 5000, saying that the Bombardier price, which was about the same as for a 5000, was too high. In that case, why would CTA then give a no bid contract to Bombardier for something that might not even work on the system?
• FTA requires that these contracts be competitively bid.
• There is no such thing as a standard rapid transit car.

Thus, the only way this would legally work is that if you had proof that NY MTA has already bid out the cars, the price is less than the $1.6 million per CTA car, and they have 846 unused and assignable options. I don't think you have any of that.

Without that, the speculation about clearances becomes irrelevant.

[juelzkellz]

This makes no economic sense for several reasons:

• CTA originally posted, and then cancelled a 7000 spec for something the same as a 5000, saying that the Bombardier price, which was about the same as for a 5000, was too high. In that case, why would CTA then give a no bid contract to Bombardier for something that might not even work on the system?
• FTA requires that these contracts be competitively bid.
• There is no such thing as a standard rapid transit car.

Thus, the only way this would legally work is that if you had proof that NY MTA has already bid out the cars, the price is less than the $1.6 million per CTA car, and they have 846 unused and assignable options. I don't think you have any of that.

Without that, the speculation about clearances becomes irrelevant.

It's just an idea for down the road. Things (and people) are too screwed up now to pull something like this off. I believe a standard rapid transit car can be built. If Boeing can make 19 (22 in a few years) versions of the 737 with various configurations and engine options you can't tell me it's impossible to build a standard rapid transit car. All you need to do is design a frame, which you can scale up or down. A body which you can also do likewise. Design motors and other equipment which you can standardize and and tweak according to the customer. The only thing that I can foresee being truly be custom is the signalling system, but even that can be modularized to work in a "plug n play" manner with the rest of the systems.

[qwantae]

Oh, I saw that on GGWash, that was interesting. I just got my new bike too, I'm not sure what I would be able to do in Ferg.

Same with me, I just got myself a new Bicycle few days ago.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Aside from the speculation reflected above about what CTA might do, maybe CTA also should think about reform, instead of the "blame Rauner" game and continuing to profess perfection.

Well, there is definitely no argument there.