Duplicate Service

[trainman8119]

With all the recent talk about budgets and audits etc, the bulk of the talk

has been about CTA and Pace duplicate service, and their feud, etc.

How about this overlooked little diddy:

Metra Electric South Chicago and Blue Island service. Talk about duplicate

service...yikes. South Chicago trains run along 71st St along the 71st street

route...intersect the 6 (and 15) at Jeffery, and the 26 at South Shore (as well as 83rd st).

The interesting duplication here are the 6 and 26 coming from downtown.

Blue Island trains carry a fraction of the people and are mostly flag trains between

63rd street and 115th street. There is a bulk of people on the morning express

trains who transfer off the Rock Island in Blue Island, because they don't want to

walk the extra 5 or 6 blocks to get to work.

The service would never get eliminated...too much politics. Also, being realistic,

the reason the trains work well there is because the Metra service is decent and

the CTA is not much more than sufficient (considering dealing with LSD traffic).

But imagine the ridership bump the CTA would have if you eliminated Metra

"shuttle" service to the Hyde Park (afternoon Blue Island and South Chicago) trains

lose about 40-45% of their load at 55/56/57th streets) area or force people onto the 6 and/or 26 routes from South Chicago. Blue Island branch riders could use the Rock Island or

Pace and CTA buses into Red and Green Line routes.

The pro for Metra:

*Eliminating cost of maintaining stations, track and overhead wires.

*Eliminating 18 trainmen postitions and 9 engineer positions on the Blue Island branch

and another 15-25 trainmen and 7-10 engineer positions on the South Chicago.

*Potential for increased mainline service.

The con for Metra:

*Big time ridership loss in numbers, which would translate into big time reduction in

government subsidies.

*Big time revenue decline (at least on the South Chicago side)

Pro for CTA:

*Huge ridership gains

*Huge increase in revenue

*Added subsidies due to increased ridership

Con for CTA:

*Huge ridership gains means adding service, which they can't afford (?)

*Lack of equipment (and apparently, storage space) to handle added ridership

Now there are many people who believe Metra should be making more in city stops,

such as Addison Street and 35th Street to service the ball parks for example. But in

all fairness, if we are to condemn the CTA and Pace for overlapping service, then

I would think that this is something that would have to be considered.

Is this an argument for or against unifying the system. I contend that Pace and CTA

should have the same type of fare structure as they are the same type of service.

I believe that Metra is different, in that they cover a greater distance and should have

a different type of structure. I also think the Metra should be a city-suburb, suburb-city

operation and should not be making the stops in the city(to city) taking away from CTA.

I do not think that the CTA/Pace should have an integrated fare structure with Metra...

however, the add on option (link-up passes) that the CTA dumped

was adequate and fair. That said....why does it cost $1.95 to go from Randolph St

to 93rd (or Hyde Park, etc) on the Metra Electric, but $2 on the CTA. Makes you wonder

how the CTA figures cost. I don't think you can pin this on labor...I think we make about

as much as the bus operators, and it takes 3 of us to get the train moving...compared

to only 1 bus operator and/or train operator (they could bring back the conductor and

still be one behind us on crews).

As I said, this type of overlap will probably always continue since there is demand.

But, shouldn't we criticize equally...duplicate is duplicate.

It does make you think, doesn't it ?????

[Busjack]

The Metra Electric was the subject of the Gray Line plan, which I thought made sense regarding the use of an existing asset if there was fare integration with the CTA. However, the proponent of the plan got sidetracked, in my opinion, by bringing racial politics into the picture and thinking he could get something by becoming a "Partner for Transit." He would have done better working through Julie Hamos, since HB1841 addresses his concern that the transit agencies have ignored the CATS ranking of his project, and, as you note, the Auditor General has focused on the problem of service duplication. I also thought he got sidetracked (pun intentionally used twice) by focusing on the supposed capital cost of putting CTA fare equipment in the ME stations and track changes needed at Randolph Street and a few other places, instead of the inherent funding problem in that CTA has no incentive to purchase or subsidize Metra service within the city (or transfer part of its sales tax allocation). Of course, until recently, Carole Brown had severe Metra envy (at least before Moving Beyond Congestion put them all in the same boat of shaking down the taxpayers, and supposedly asking Carole Doris to increase service on the UP-N).

You are right that politics also enters into the equation. The main reason the ME stations in South Shore are being rebuilt is that Cong. Jackson Jr. insisted on it (claiming several times, including with regard to Metra not initially submitting the Southeast Service plan, that his district doesn't get any equity from Metra). I thought that the 7th Ward election would have been an opportunity to get both Jacksons on his side. Also, since the 8th Ward machine runs the county, it might have been possible to exert some leverage there.

As I mentioned, I once lived in Hyde Park, and 90% of the people there used the IC, and didn't even know CTA existed. Times have sure changed.

You are right that there are other service duplication issues. I previously challenged retaining Pace 835 once the Southwest Service was expanded. Pace also mentions, in its part of the Moving Beyond Congestion Plan, express bus service between the I-57 and Ill-394 corridors and Chicago, even though that would directly parallel the ME and proposed SES. It seems like Pace's strategy is consistently asking for everything, and being glad if it gets something.

I also agree that Metra needs to retain distance related fares and was somewhat surprised how low the average Metra fare (according to the Auditor General) was. Too many passes, or too many partially loaded trains outside the immediate suburban area? In any event, I didn't buy Metra's argument that raising the fare 5 to 10% now wouldn't raise enough to be worth it. Things like the Link-Up should be encouraged to keep Pace in its proper role as a feeder, or to distribute the passengers once they arrive downtown.

[trainman8119]

I also agree that Metra needs to retain distance related fares and was somewhat surprised how low the average Metra fare (according to the Auditor General) was. Too many passes, or too many partially loaded trains outside the immediate suburban area?

Usually the reason that trains are "partially loaded" is so that they can keep the consists

together from earlier or for later equipment use. Too many times trains could be operated

as 2 or 3 car consists, but are run as 6, 7, 8 or 9 cars so that they don't have to be broken

up and make quick turn arounds. The only break ups appear to be the ME and the Milwaukee

North and and at times the Rock Island (although they run some ridicously long off peak trains

there).

I will contend that Metra could recoup some of their money from the fare box if they would

quit being so stubborn and review the weekend ticket policy. I still feel they lose too much money

on this. They are being hit for a complete round trip (in most zones) for the cost of a one

way, or in most cases less. I don't by the cost attracts riders any more. With the cost of

gas these days, people are going to take advantage of the service. Perhaps an increase in

fare to at least match the cost of the furthest zone (like $7.50-$8) or what I would prefer,

a Saturday one day pass and Sunday one day pass. If they want to do a full weekend,

then charge for 2 days, even at a discount. They are losing too much fare revenue under the

current system. I would think bringing up this fare level would put a few pennies in the coffiers.

(I also believe this would level the playing field with monthly pass holders, who I contend,

constantly get the shaft((even though they are getting unlimited rides)) with weekend

discounts as well as any time Metra doesn't want to sell full fare tickets, as in the case of the silly protest marches). Don't cry poverty then give away the store !!!

[Busjack]

Usually the reason that trains are "partially loaded" is so that they can keep the consists

together from earlier or for later equipment use

Maybe I wasn't precise enough in saying "partially loaded" trains, in that I am sure that the length of the consist has little relationship to the operating cost, except for the diesel fuel needed to pull the empty cars.

Probably I should have asked whether some parts of the system are overextended, to the extent that the low number of passengers offsets the distance based fare. The Auditor General's main report at page 243 (page 297 of the PDF) says that the average Metra one way fare is to zone E (btw, where I live), which then is discounted for 10 ride tickets and monthly passes. The recovery per mile decreases from there. Update: I found the reference to the Metra revenue per trip, which decreased from $3.52 to $2.89; it is on page 10 of the Executive Summary (page 12 of the pdf), but the cost per trip also decreased, indicating to me that the trips are getting shorter.

Again speaking of which I know, some MD-N trains short turn at Deerfield, which, probably not coincidentally, is the end of Zone E. I don't know if the reason is because the lack of patronage, the single track north of Rondout, or the need to have reverse commute trains from Lake Cook Road.

The possibility I am raising is that demand may justify short turning other trains, and, for instance, the new UP-N ones to make up for the Red and Purple Line cutbacks should only go to Wilmette. Update: Looking at the April 2 schedule, it appears that those trains end in Winnetka. There are, of course, the zone trains on the ME, and apparently the capacity is needed on all of the BNSF (which, according to Metra figures, about breaks even). However, a high level of service to the ends of the UP-NW, UP-W, etc. lines may not be justified.

[trainman8119]

Again speaking of which I know, some MD-N trains short turn at Deerfield, which, probably not coincidentally, is the end of Zone E. I don't know if the reason is because the lack of patronage, the single track north of Rondout, or the need to have reverse commute trains from Lake Cook Road.

It is the single track on the Fox Lake Sub along with the need for trains from Deerfield and Lake Cook Road. Actually the single track is why every other daytime train turns at Grayslake. There would not be time for trains to get off the single track at Rondout and the only passing point is at the siding at Grayslake. There had been some talk that the Grayslake trips would be eliminated and all trains would go all the way to Fox Lake, but Metra is being real stubborn about putting a power switch on both sides of Grayslake which would enable meets to be made without having to manually throw the switch (which is done now) to get into and out of the siding.

The Deerfield turns fill up real fast(3 sometimes 4 cars), but you wouldn't know it if you saw these trains arrive at Union Station. Most of that crowd exits at Mayfair, Grayland, Healy and Western Ave. The same crowds fill up trains Northbound between 6:30am and 8:00am for Northbrook and Lake Cook. There was a crowd both ways at North Glenview for awhile, but it seems that has quieted down a little.

It should also be noted that many of those who board the train at Fox Lake, Round Lake, Grayslake and Libertyville will exit the train at Deerfield and Lake Cook, with enough getting off to allow plenty of seating for those boarding south of Northbrook (and vice versa in the afternoon).

[Busjack]

It should also be noted that many of those who board the train at Fox Lake, Round Lake, Grayslake and Libertyville will exit the train at Deerfield and Lake Cook, with enough getting off to allow plenty of seating for those boarding south of Northbrook (and vice versa in the afternoon).

I used to work with some of these.

Actually the morning trains that are local to Libertyville stop at Lake Cook and North Glenview, and then go local from Morton Grove or Edgebrook, while the express trains to Libertyville make the local stops from there to Morton Grove, except Lake Cook and N. Glenview. I presume the reason is to take care of the commuters from northern Lake County working near Lake Cook and N. Glenview, and served by the Pace Shuttle Bug system. Because the train stopping in Northbrook only started loading in Libertyville, there wasn't any lack of seats.

The afternoon setup is different, since some trains run local to Deerfield, and others run express to Glenview or Lake Cook. Those getting on a local south of Glenview have to transfer at Deerfield (I have seen that happen).

[geneking7320]

In my 52 plus years I have lived in 3 Chicago neighborhoods - Woodlawn, Chatham and Rogers Park [presently]. There is duplicate service in each of those neighborhoods. I'm a railfan and a busfan but I'd like to see the Gray Line proposal implemented. Why not get some of those diesels off Lake Shore Drive? I would really like to see fare integration and the same flat fare for any trip in the city on any carrier. An example of how this would play out in my case would be to reduce the fare on the UP-N to $2.00 from Oglivie to Rogers Park matching the CTA fares. I know I'm dreaming...

Gene King