Service expansion theories

[Busjack]

Yes I agree in terms of the Express routes being implemented which was a great improvement but more still needs to be done. There are not many express routes and there are routes that that dont have them that should. Also I believe that the rapid transit should expand as well. There hasnt been a new line since the the Orange Line in 1993 and the Pink Line isnt much of an improvement since it already runs over existing tracks. But I feel the rapid transit could be larger and reach more areas of the city. There was talk a few years ago of extending the Blue Line beyond OHare to Schaumburg. There was also talk of Express bus service to Woodfield from Jefferson Park. The Circle Line concept wouldnt reach a wide area. There has to be a rapid transit line that could reach possibly a line from Howard st west to the far western reaches of the city then south or southeast connecting to other lines finally ending at 103rd st. if the Red Line were to reach there. A lone north south rapid transit line along the western end of the city would be a good idea.

Again, getting this to a better thread.

I didn't imply that the X express buses, except X9, were particularly successful, but did cite them for the proposition that restructurings had taken place.

As far as the rapid transit is concerned, the only proposed new start that seems to have demonstrated ridership is the Red Line to about 119th (I doubt south of there to 130th). There seem to be some right of way problems. The Orange and Yellow extensions are marginal. Unless there is a large traffic generator near Ford City or Daley College, the main benefits would be allowing Pace to cut back its Midway Station routes to Ford City.

The Blue Line to Schaumburg was evaluated in a competition sponsored by the RTA, and the Metra Star Line won.

Mayor Daley seems to favor the Mid-City connector, which might be an L train from Jefferson Park via the rows along Cicero Ave. and 75th Street to the Dan Ryan. However, that is not currently in the New Start legislation.

There currently wouldn't be any need for express bus service from Jefferson Park to Woodfield, because you already have it from Rosemont.

Finally, as mentioned today on the radio, if there isn't a capital bill providing matching funds, no expansion will happen.

[Guest]

Again, getting this to a better thread.

I didn't imply that the X express buses, except X9, were particularly successful, but did cite them for the proposition that restructurings had taken place.

As far as the rapid transit is concerned, the only proposed new start that seems to have demonstrated ridership is the Red Line to about 119th (I doubt south of there to 130th). There seem to be some right of way problems. The Orange and Yellow extensions are marginal. Unless there is a large traffic generator near Ford City or Daley College, the main benefits would be allowing Pace to cut back its Midway Station routes to Ford City.

The Blue Line to Schaumburg was evaluated in a competition sponsored by the RTA, and the Metra Star Line won.

Mayor Daley seems to favor the Mid-City connector, which might be an L train from Jefferson Park via the rows along Cicero Ave. and 75th Street to the Dan Ryan. However, that is not currently in the New Start legislation.

There currently wouldn't be any need for express bus service from Jefferson Park to Woodfield, because you already have it from Rosemont.

Finally, as mentioned today on the radio, if there isn't a capital bill providing matching funds, no expansion will happen.

Exactly what my thoughts are, nothing gets done this is why our system does not expand or improve.

[Busjack]

Exactly what my thoughts are, nothing gets done this is why our system does not expand or improve.

I don't follow that I have exactly your thoughts. I thought I knocked down most of the proposals, except the Red Line south and the Mid-City, as not having the ridership to support them, or being duplicative.

[westing]

With all the discussions about service expansion, light rail is hardly discussed. A few years ago there was talk about an Ogden Ave. corridor but that does not have the immediate ridership other corridors might. I think light rail should play a larger role in service expansion for its economical factor. Most cities lack the resources to build metros because they cost the most per mile. Chicago has several streets that could suit a light rail line well.

Western Ave from 79th to Brown Line. No only would this reduce if not eliminate the need for a Western Ave. bus, Western is wide enough to be able to to accommodate such service.

Ashland Ave, duplication of current bus service. While there might be enough room on most of Ashland, some subway portions could help traffic on the northern sections and speed up travel times. Elimination of express bus service would occur.

Maybe this is just a pie in the sky dream but I wonder if this could work in Chicago? Fare collection and evasion would be a problem. On the brighter side, ridership would be higher due to the appeal of light rail vs. buses. Light rail could be a cheaper solution for Chicago.

[Busjack]

With all the discussions about service expansion, light rail is hardly discussed.

There was the proposed, now defunct, Central Circulator, which Krambles said would bring "multiple modal use of surface arteries." Most of us translate that as bringing back streetcars. In fact, that was what was meant by Bill Lipinski when the proposed the Ogden project--his daddy ran a street car, and he wanted to bring that back. Since he was the Congressman who was in charge of transit appropriations, CTA bought that idea, for the purpose of the New Starts proposal. However, given the limited ridership the Ogden bus, plus that it is in the same corridor as the rennovated Pink Line, it makes no sense, except in the political sense. The Carroll portion brings back some of the Central Circulator project. Again, I don't know why it became defunct, but my understanding is that it was connected with the inability to establish a downtown tax district.

When posed as bringing back streetcars, the philosophy goes back to why streetcars were eliminated--there are not sufficient rights of way independent of the surface streets to run them without interference by automobile traffic. (Another book I have says that the streetcar, and hence light rail, survived only where there were rights of way, and the only North American city that has a conventional streetcar system is Toronto.) There are a few medians (such as Stony Island and 87th) where street cars apparently ran, but, given the Ashland example, digging subways would be necessary, and the current thinking is that if that expense is to be incurred, it may as well be for rapid transit. Chicago-L.org describes various transit plans, which, for example, would have an Ashland subway connecting the Ravenswood down Ashland to past Englewood. While some ideas in past plans have been executed (such as the Jefferson Park Blue Line and the Orange Line providing something similar in the Archer corridor), most of them have not.

For what it's worth, light rail was considered with everything else as part of the Red Line Alternatives analysis, and while it made the first cut, as far as station spacing and the like was concerned, it failed the second one, when considering if it would be at grade, elevated, or in a subway.

[rmadisonwi]

Another book I have says that the streetcar, and hence light rail, survived only where there were rights of way, and the only North American city that has a conventional streetcar system is Toronto.

What about San Francisco?

Also, I'm not as familiar with these systems, but don't Philadelphia and/or Boston have streetcars of some sort?

[Busjack]

What about San Francisco?

Also, I'm not as familiar with these systems, but don't Philadelphia and/or Boston have streetcars of some sort?

Yes to all 3, but SF runs them in tunnels and a subway, Philadelphia mostly in a subway (there might be a few surface lines left), and Boston on a railroad right of way into a subway. Cleveland also has a system, in a trench until you reach the outer suburbs.

You also have the one streetcar line left in New Orleans (said to be the only one running pre-PCC equipment), but that has a median.

Some of the newer systems run in transit malls, and you have a few recreated heritage systems, but basically speaking, only Toronto runs them on downtown streets.

Source: Middleton, The Time of the Trolley.

[rmadisonwi]

SF does have a subway, but it also has street running.

For that matter, TTC does have a couple of subway tunnels where the streetcars connect with the regular subway. TTC also has at least one route with a dedicated right of way for most (if not all) of its length.

[Busjack]

Whether a city has some street running or another some dedicated rights of way does not change the conclusion that only Toronto still has a predominantly street system in its downtown.

But, like the peripheral routes, any debate along that line is also peripheral to the topic. Westling's premise was:

Ashland Ave, duplication of current bus service. While there might be enough room on most of Ashland, some subway portions could help traffic on the northern sections and speed up travel times.

Now, as an apparent CTA employee, if you are telling us that CTA considers Ashland to be either (1) a peripheral area where a legacy trolley system can be operated without undue traffic interference with "multiple modal use of [the] surface arter[y]," despite the fact that CTA removed trolley service from there in 1954 (according to Lind) or (2) a place where CTA would build a subway and then put LRVs in it, then we may have something worth discussing. Also, a surface system would probably need low floor LRVs, unless someone is proposing some way of doing street running and having high level platforms at surface stations, or lifts working while the car is sitting in the middle of the street. Just thinking about the ADA requirements seems to make this a very dubious proposition, as do the reported problems with some low floor LRVs in service.