How the US has destroyed Public Transportation

[NewFlyerMCI]

Figured this was an interesting article.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199/public-transportation-subway-buses

[Busjack]

• Blago sure compounded the "transit as a welfare program" problem. Also Carole Brown and successors with the "suburbs should pay because CTA provides 81% of the rides." See, for instance, Juelz's comment last night.
• Europe may have had BRT long before us, but the problem here is that CTA throws all those ideas against the wall without any plan or means to implement them.
• I've said (at least on the CTA Tattler) "If you want such and such, are you as a passenger willing to pay for it?" Apparently in Europe, not in Chicago.
• Adding 2+2 to get 5: The Ashland BRT was a reaction to having cancelled the X routes, instead of finding a way to make them pay for themselves.

However,

• The location of state capitals makes no difference, as we know that Springfield is dominated by Chicago.
• The article really doesn't take into account that transit in Chicago was bankrupt by 1927 (certainly before auto dominance), although they did mention "contracts that prohibited them from raising their fares and required them to maintain the roads," which was a major downfall of CSL.
• They have a picture of Detroit, before and after, but the south and west sides of Chicago aren't much different. Bad land use planning results in comparative more bus service on the south and west sides, serving fewer, but more vocal, members of the impoverished community. In the meantime, bus ridership is down and the only increase is on the L, which, curiously, is entirely a downtown oriented system. Mare Daley never built the midcity line.

[strictures]

 

• The location of state capitals makes no difference, as we know that Springfield is dominated by Chicago.
• The article really doesn't take into account that transit in Chicago was bankrupt by 1927 (certainly before auto dominance), although they did mention "contracts that prohibited them from raising their fares and required them to maintain the roads," which was a major downfall of CSL.
• They have a picture of Detroit, before and after, but the south and west sides of Chicago aren't much different. Bad land use planning results in comparative more bus service on the south and west sides, serving fewer, but more vocal, members of the impoverished community. In the meantime, bus ridership is down and the only increase is on the L, which, curiously, is entirely a downtown oriented system. Mare Daley never built the midcity line.

I have to disagree about Springfield is dominated by Chicago.

For everything Chicago gets out of Springfield, to get that done they have to give Downstate an equal amount of money & much of it is for totally wasteful junk that really isn't needed. The Downstate pols have refined this to an art. Chicago desperately needs something, but Decatur & Effingham get frosting on a cake, while we get a cheap & tasteless muffin.

There are far too many buses on the #3 & far too few on the #4. The King Dr. 3 is a "prestige route" because parts of it go down a wide street with service drives, while Cottage Grove #4 is mostly a boring business street that gets no respect from CTA management.

[Busjack]

...

For everything Chicago gets out of Springfield, to get that done they have to give Downstate an equal amount of money & much of it is for totally wasteful junk that really isn't needed. The Downstate pols have refined this to an art. Chicago desperately needs something, but Decatur & Effingham get frosting on a cake, while we get a cheap & tasteless muffin.

,,,

Do you have any evidence of that?

My point was that the supermajority in both houses is not downstate Republicans. Maybe the suburban Democrat representatives hold the balance of power, but the Republican caucus sure doesn't.

[artthouwill]

I have to disagree about Springfield is dominated by Chicago.

For everything Chicago gets out of Springfield, to get that done they have to give Downstate an equal amount of money & much of it is for totally wasteful junk that really isn't needed. The Downstate pols have refined this to an art. Chicago desperately needs something, but Decatur & Effingham get frosting on a cake, while we get a cheap & tasteless muffin.

There are far too many buses on the #3 & far too few on the #4. The King Dr. 3 is a "prestige route" because parts of it go down a wide street with service drives, while Cottage Grove #4 is mostly a boring business street that gets no respect from CTA management.

I disagree. First, the 3 is a longer route (serving the Mag Mile and Northwestern Hospital).  I see plenty of Cottage Grove buses.  Perhaps eliminating some of those traffic lights (there are traffic lights at 63rd, 64th, 65th, and 66th (Marquette Rd) and 67th would help.  Also there is a higher population density along King Drive, especially north of 35th, than along Cottage Grove or Indiana/Michigan Ave north of 35th.  The 3 also serves McCormick Place for convention users and workers.

[BusHunter]

• I've said (at least on the CTA Tattler) "If you want such and such, are you as a passenger willing to pay for it?" Apparently in Europe, not in Chicago.

The article states, that people in the US are paying more but getting less. I pay taxes just like everyone else. Why do I have then the cuban transit system outside my front door? One other problem. CTA does not listen to it's riders, look at the #5000's. Those are new trains that no one likes??!! Why doesn't CTA listen to it's riders. We can talk about the NW side getting the shaft until we are blue in the face, does it change anything no. CTA is just going to do what they do and when something happens on a neglected section of track, (remember Lake/Milwaukee) or we have runaways then they have to answer to a higher authority.  It's no wonder bus ridership is declining, one side of the city is being totally cut off. 

[NewFlyerMCI]

I disagree. First, the 3 is a longer route (serving the Mag Mile and Northwestern Hospital).  I see plenty of Cottage Grove buses.  Perhaps eliminating some of those traffic lights (there are traffic lights at 63rd, 64th, 65th, and 66th (Marquette Rd) and 67th would help.  Also there is a higher population density along King Drive, especially north of 35th, than along Cottage Grove or Indiana/Michigan Ave north of 35th.  The 3 also serves McCormick Place for convention users and workers.

"You see", meaning the rest of that statement is subjective. The 3 regularly and far more often gets buses than the 4. The 3 being longer isn't a true benefit and there isn't much NB ridership outside the weekends past NBC building. More often than not the 4 averages more riders per month than the 3. Clearly 77th thought that was enough for the 4 to get an artics the 79 didn't use while they were at 77th before they got annexed. Your point about their being a higher population density specifically north of 35th hasn't seemed to affect the people living there because for some strange reason, the 1 is still a bus route, meaning that either people like walking or the 4 has the same size passenger base in that area as the 3. Chicago is also not like DC, there is a base fare and 2 transfers whether you use bus or train, most people going to the mag mile or NWUH are probably taking the 3 to the train and going from there depending on how far south they live. Besides, where is the owl service on the 3?

[juelzkellz]

Unfortunately, there is still a stigma against public transit in America. The only reason 90 or (heck even 100%) of the people that use public transit use it is because of either a medical reason or it is financially impractical to do so. I guarantee that if everyone had access to car and free to cheap parking, everyone would be driving. We are an automobile based society like it or not. The whole idea of public "anything" is still a very foreign concept to people in this country. 

[BusHunter]

Unfortunately, there is still a stigma against public transit in America. The only reason 90 or (heck even 100%) of the people that use public transit use it is because of either a medical reason or it is financially impractical to do so. I guarantee that if everyone had access to car and free to cheap parking, everyone would be driving. We are an automobile based society like it or not. The whole idea of public "anything" is still a very foreign concept to people in this country. 

It's a good way to go somewhere if you can't park there like Wrigley. Those people are definitely not poor. Also one might wonder where is the parking at the air show this weekend? But yes I do see your point about everyone else, but imagine in 50 years when the cars are self driven and are not running on gas anymore. Why would anyone ride the bus? Flipping the coin, In a weird way it works. We wouldn't be able to handle all the traffic if there was no public transportation and like the car cards say do we really want to pay 30- 40 dollars a day to park downtown. Most riders who use CTA do use it to go downtown, that's probably one reason they are scared to try a mid city transit line.

[juelzkellz]

It's a good way to go somewhere if you can't park there like Wrigley. Those people are definitely not poor. Also one might wonder where is the parking at the air show this weekend? But yes I do see your point about everyone else, but imagine in 50 years when the cars are self driven and are not running on gas anymore. Why would anyone ride the bus? Flipping the coin, In a weird way it works. We wouldn't be able to handle all the traffic if there was no public transportation and like the car cards say do we really want to pay 30- 40 dollars a day to park downtown. Most riders who use CTA do use it to go downtown, that's probably one reason they are scared to try a mid city transit line.

BusHunter, let me ask you this, if money was no object, would you use public transit? Pretty much everyone would drive if money was no object. As far as Wrigley is concerned, if most Cubs fans insisted on driving instead of taking the CTA, I guarantee the Cubs would figure out a way to squeeze in a parking garage or two into Wrigleyville. I don't think the city would implode without public transit. Look at Los Angeles, after whatever semblance of public transit they had was dismantled in the '50's, the city didn't implode on itself. It simply evolved to meet the needs of it's residents. I.E. it spread out. Nowadays, it's pretty much impossible to get around LA without a car. 

P.S. I looked up taking a trip to LA to see a Dodgers game only to find out that the only public transit going to Dodger Stadium on game days was a bus from the Union Station. 

[strictures]

Do you have any evidence of that?

My point was that the supermajority in both houses is not downstate Republicans. Maybe the suburban Democrat representatives hold the balance of power, but the Republican caucus sure doesn't.

The evidence is that the Downstate legislators won't vote anything for Chicago unless they get an equal amount for Downstate. It happens every single time we need something. Downstate has little public transit & they always want more roads, wider roads & more bridges so that the CTA, Pace & Metra can get their new bridges, buses & trains.

It doesn't matter that Madigan runs the place, he still has to make deals with the troglodytes to get funding for the Chicago area.

[strictures]

I disagree. First, the 3 is a longer route (serving the Mag Mile and Northwestern Hospital).  I see plenty of Cottage Grove buses.  Perhaps eliminating some of those traffic lights (there are traffic lights at 63rd, 64th, 65th, and 66th (Marquette Rd) and 67th would help.  Also there is a higher population density along King Drive, especially north of 35th, than along Cottage Grove or Indiana/Michigan Ave north of 35th.  The 3 also serves McCormick Place for convention users and workers.

I have waited 40 minutes or more for a 4 many, many times. Those waits have been on Michigan waiting for a SB 4 at Jackson & at 55th also going south. I've waited that long at 63rd going north & at 58th also going north. The 4 serves the University of Chicago Medical Center, which is larger that the Northwestern Medical Center, yet the U of C has only one route serving it most of the day.

The 192 doesn't count, because it's designed for the employees from the suburbs to use between Union & Ogilvie & the two CTA Roosevelt stations. And the 192 is packed solid for most of its runs from September to June, with plenty of standees. There's no reason for the CTA not to add some extra runs of the 192, because everyone is paying a full, unsubsidized fare & every single 192 was originally a 14 deadheading back to the 103rd garage from the Loop in the AM & from that garage in the PM to the Loop. I see plenty of deadheads in both directions while waiting on the Ryan L platforms, so that the CTA could add once an hour runs during non-rush to & from 59th & Drexel to the Loop & it would cost them almost nothing, once the medical center's patients found out about it.

[BusHunter]

BusHunter, let me ask you this, if money was no object, would you use public transit? Pretty much everyone would drive if money was no object. As far as Wrigley is concerned, if most Cubs fans insisted on driving instead of taking the CTA, I guarantee the Cubs would figure out a way to squeeze in a parking garage or two into Wrigleyville. I don't think the city would implode without public transit. Look at Los Angeles, after whatever semblance of public transit they had was dismantled in the '50's, the city didn't implode on itself. It simply evolved to meet the needs of it's residents. I.E. it spread out. Nowadays, it's pretty much impossible to get around LA without a car. 

P.S. I looked up taking a trip to LA to see a Dodgers game only to find out that the only public transit going to Dodger Stadium on game days was a bus from the Union Station. 

Probably not, the Cubs are building a parking garage as part of the ricketts master plan, but I think it's just to spite people from stealing from their product. It would be part of the hotel they plan on building. It's unclear if it would be enough spots to accommodate even half or quarter the daily Wrigley crowd.

Now on this congestion issue, the closer you get to downtown the more the traffic is affected. Can you imagine all the people on public transit in the downtown area in cars at a given time? Then most of the drivers in their cars are single occupancy. Really that would be a waste, and probably hov laws would reign in the loop to tone down the congestion.

You also have to think about speed. Would a trip to Howard from the loop in the rush be faster by "L" or by car? I know the "L" on friday laughs at the kennedy. I know I've driven it. All you see are trains and trains passing you at least 6 or 7. Too many cars on the road would simulate that everyday. It would be a slower commute by car. That's where CTA and Metra are supreme, you can go express to lake forest or go from the nw side to downtown by "L" in 30 minutes. Can you do that by car in the rush? That's one reason the "L" ridership is high, people have figured that out. Some have gone as far as living near the "L", then they don't have to mess with the bus.

[Busjack]

The evidence is that the Downstate legislators won't vote anything for Chicago unless they get an equal amount for Downstate. It happens every single time we need something. Downstate has little public transit & they always want more roads, wider roads & more bridges so that the CTA, Pace & Metra can get their new bridges, buses & trains.

It doesn't matter that Madigan runs the place, he still has to make deals with the troglodytes to get funding for the Chicago area.

However, you didn't say what the evidence is. Specific appropriation bills, please, not your perception.

Nor have you given any instance where Madigan had made deals with downstate Republicans.

Facts, not conclusions, please.

[Busjack]

.... There's no reason for the CTA not to add some extra runs of the 192, because everyone is paying a full, unsubsidized fare....

Man, you are really having a bad day with the facts here.

The only reason 192 runs is that the U of C pays $106/hour to run it. CTA is not going to put on more buses unless the U of C pays for it.

If you are arguing about anyone paying unsubsidized fares, the fare would have to be about $6, as the article indicates. Nobody is paying that to the CTA.

 

[Busjack]

I'm going to try to respond to juelz and BusHunter without quoting, but I get your drift.

• The main deterrent to driving in the city is that various policies have made it impossible to drive, including jacking up parking rates, the red light camera "revenue grab," constricting streets for bike lanes, etc. However, the only proposed trade off for transit was the Jeffery, Chicago, Halsted and 79th BRT proposal that died at the end of the Bush Administration because the city didn't hike the parking tax in time.
• On the "would you do something else if you could afford it" point, apparently yuppies are moving back into the city, but Rahm wants them to use Divvy and Uber.
• On Wrigleyville, note that on Cubs broadcasts, they say to use the bike racks or the remote parking lot. The Red Line station is on the graphic, but the Cubs do not promote it.
• I agree with BusHunter that travel times make the L or Metra preferable to driving downtown, if that's where you are going. There has been a certain amount of poaching of business from the suburbs to the city, but also take into account the stuff that while Kraft-Heinz is moving from Northfield, big layoffs were announced this morning. Anyway, the article's point seemed to be that the passengers should be willing to pay more than $2.25 if that's a convenience.
• BusHunter repeating the CTA doesn't listen or care point shows that it is a welfare system, no different than that the state (or at least Rauner) doesn't care about those needing social services. I really wonder how many votes Rahm thinks he is getting by putting out a press release that the 125 buses is part of HIS modernization plan. And, obviously, nobody is going to pay a premium fare to ride a 5000. They will to ride a Pace MCI (getting back to that discussion).

[4CottageGrove95th]

I disagree. First, the 3 is a longer route (serving the Mag Mile and Northwestern Hospital).  I see plenty of Cottage Grove buses.  Perhaps eliminating some of those traffic lights (there are traffic lights at 63rd, 64th, 65th, and 66th (Marquette Rd) and 67th would help.  Also there is a higher population density along King Drive, especially north of 35th, than along Cottage Grove or Indiana/Michigan Ave north of 35th.  The 3 also serves McCormick Place for convention users and workers.

 

"You see", meaning the rest of that statement is subjective. The 3 regularly and far more often gets buses than the 4. The 3 being longer isn't a true benefit and there isn't much NB ridership outside the weekends past NBC building. More often than not the 4 averages more riders per month than the 3. Clearly 77th thought that was enough for the 4 to get an artics the 79 didn't use while they were at 77th before they got annexed. Your point about their being a higher population density specifically north of 35th hasn't seemed to affect the people living there because for some strange reason, the 1 is still a bus route, meaning that either people like walking or the 4 has the same size passenger base in that area as the 3. Chicago is also not like DC, there is a base fare and 2 transfers whether you use bus or train, most people going to the mag mile or NWUH are probably taking the 3 to the train and going from there depending on how far south they live. Besides, where is the owl service on the 3?

"Bus Ridership by Route" for March 2015 stats are as follows:

                                                                                   Average Weekly Ridership (Current Year)

                                                         3 King Drive                             20,958

                                                         4 Cottage Grove                      22,646

 

This info I  pulled from a pdf report at www.transitchicago.com. Granted, the 4 is the shorter line in comparison to the 3. However, the 4 has and has always had more ridership than the 3. I cannot argue the point that King Drive may have a higher population density than  4 Cottage Grove, at least up to 35th and possibly north of 35th. But that does not and has not had much of an impact on ridership stats between the two lines. And the 4 has always had owl service (and still does, although cut back from 95th to 63rd St). For as long as I can remember, the 3 never did. IF it ever did, it must have been before the mid-1960s. Speaking of memory, on Saturdays, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, it was not unusual to see 2 to 3 buses "bunch" up at any given stop on the 4. Many a time, I could walk out of my apartment at 73rd and Cottage and just miss a bus, northbound or southbound; I could look down the street by two to three blocks (when I had good eyesight, that is) and there would be another bus or maybe two!  And those buses would be either standing room only or almost seated to capacity......even with bunching!!! 

So which seems to be the heaviest traveled between the two and would benefit the most from the assignment of artics? 

Don't get me wrong.....3 King Drive is no slouch ridership-wise...not by a long-shot. But when it comes to assignment of the best or newest equipment out of 77th street, 79th, 8 Halsted, 4 Cottage Grove and 3 King Drive should be top priority. But hey, that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

 

[Busjack]

..

So which seems to be the heaviest traveled between the two and would benefit the most from the assignment of artics? 

...

But in that 77th managed to get artics banished from that garage, it's a dead issue.

[4CottageGrove95th]

But in that 77th managed to get artics banished from that garage, it's a dead issue.

True......at least for now anyway. But management doesn't remain the same and neither does the issue about the assignment of artics to 77th street as artics are still very popular in many transit agencies around this country, if not the world.

[strictures]

Man, you are really having a bad day with the facts here.

The only reason 192 runs is that the U of C pays $106/hour to run it. CTA is not going to put on more buses unless the U of C pays for it.

If you are arguing about anyone paying unsubsidized fares, the fare would have to be about $6, as the article indicates. Nobody is paying that to the CTA.

 

If U of C is paying CTA for the runs, it shows how stupid the ivory tower people are! Every run of the 192 was originally a deadhead to/from 103rd.

As for no evidence, just look back at every single time that the CTA got state money, Downstate got road money. And the same will happen in the future!

[orionbuslover]

If U of C is paying CTA for the runs, it shows how stupid the ivory tower people are! Every run of the 192 was originally a deadhead to/from 103rd.

That may be the case, as the J14 is still a peak direction heavy route. But deadheading a bus to or from 103rd in the reverse peak direction is pretty fast compared to running the bus in service, even to the the midpoint of U of C. Busjack is right, U of C definitely pays for the 192. I'm pretty sure it was one of the routes that was going to get axed in 2012, if U of C didn't cough up more money.

[jajuan]

True......at least for now anyway. But management doesn't remain the same and neither does the issue about the assignment of artics to 77th street as artics are still very popular in many transit agencies around this country, if not the world.

Yeah management changes, but 77th had artics back in the days of the 7500s and early days of the 4000s. The main and probably only reason then was the #6 being assigned to 77th for a short time after the Lake Shore Drive express route restructurings. Management in those days was different back then it's likely safe to say, but the #6 got knocked back to 103rd 77th didn't keep artics for long then either, having given them all up to 103rd. So 77th has a prior established history of not keeping artics for very long. This second time according to Andre IIRC, they wanted us to believe the laughable reason for shucking artics this time was due to the construction that had #79 and #169 detoured on to 83rd between Damen and Western and that the artics having to turn through those detours was slowing down the route too much. Oh really? It's funny how 169 was managing that same detour as mentioned with few problems, and 103rd never knocked artics off 169. Supposedly 77th was supposed to get artics back after the detour ended, but we're a few picks beyond the end of that detour and 77th still has no artics. It's like Busjack has said, for whatever reason 77th management over different time frames just doesn't like having artics even though the garage has the room and facilities to handle them and routes beyond just the 79th route with numbers that suggest artics would be of some help.

[Busjack]

If U of C is paying CTA for the runs, it shows how stupid the ivory tower people are! Every run of the 192 was originally a deadhead to/from 103rd.

As for no evidence, just look back at every single time that the CTA got state money, Downstate got road money. And the same will happen in the future!

1. Maybe, but given the controversy over counting deadhead mileage as "in service," CTA could have just as well left that bus under Wacker Drive or at Halsted and Division, like it does plenty of other south side buses. Under the Crowd Reduction Plan, Claypool said that the contracting party had to pay for contract service, so either U of C paid or the bus would be cancelled, like plenty of buses were. Orionbuslover is correct.

2. So, I suppose you are now saying that only CTA should get state money. No different that juelz maintaining that suburban residents should pay RTA Taxes to the CTA and not get any service for it. You didn't prove your proposition "The evidence is that the Downstate legislators won't vote anything for Chicago unless they get an equal amount for Downstate." At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any budget.

[4CottageGrove95th]

Yeah management changes, but 77th had artics back in the days of the 7500s and early days of the 4000s. The main and probably only reason then was the #6 being assigned to 77th for a short time after the Lake Shore Drive express route restructurings. Management in those days was different back then it's likely safe to say, but the #6 got knocked back to 103rd 77th didn't keep artics for long then either, having given them all up to 103rd. So 77th has a prior established history of not keeping artics for very long. This second time according to Andre IIRC, they wanted us to believe the laughable reason for shucking artics this time was due to the construction that had #79 and #169 detoured on to 83rd between Damen and Western and that the artics having to turn through those detours was slowing down the route too much. Oh really? It's funny how 169 was managing that same detour as mentioned with few problems, and 103rd never knocked artics off 169. Supposedly 77th was supposed to get artics back after the detour ended, but we're a few picks beyond the end of that detour and 77th still has no artics. It's like Busjack has said, for whatever reason 77th management over different time frames just doesn't like having artics even though the garage has the room and facilities to handle them and routes beyond just the 79th route with numbers that suggest artics would be of some help.

Well, it's just another demonstration of CTA management making choices that defy reason and good sense. 

[Busjack]

Well, it's just another demonstration of CTA management making choices that defy reason and good sense. 

There may be a internal reason for it, not disclosed to us, but again it demonstrates the point of the article. Any business has to be customer focused, or it ends up like Sears or Montgomery Ward. A welfare program trying to get more out of the taxpayers' pockets does not.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Busjack