New Location
This subject matter will henceforth be covered at Hyde Park Urbanist.
Gray Line Lite
The map on the left is from Metra's website and depicts the Electric Lines serving the southeast Chicago, Blue Island and University Park. (Metra has not taken a position on the following plan.)
Michael Payne's Gray Line plan would involve increasing service on the Electric Line segments going to both Blue Island and South Chicago. I applaud Michael's unceasing efforts to promote this idea, but will argue below that we start with the South Chicago branch because it lies in a more densely developed corridor and because its stations offer fewer security concerns.
Currently, Metra offers commuter rail service along the South Chicago line, with trains running to and from the Loop every 20 minutes during rush hours and hourly service at other times. Using the same rail tracks, these neighborhoods along the lake would be served by the equivalent of CTA el lines if two changes were made:
1) Passengers could transfer between the South Chicago line and CTA vehicles for 25 cents with a single fare card.
and
2) Service on the South Chicago line was increased to every 10 minutes from 7am to 11am.
The South Chicago line is quite an anomaly. While it lies completely within the City of Chicago, the line is owned and operated by a commuter rail service agency whose primary concern is transporting suburbanites from their homes to the Loop in the morning and then back home again in the evening. Their funding comes from a mix of sales taxes collected in the suburbs and state matching funds. Obviously, expecting Metra to pay for increased service is a non-starter. The likely scenario would probably revolve around the CTA taking over the line but contracting with Metra to run it.
Would this be expensive? It would take a study to answer that and no one so far has been willing to put together the funding for a study, but CTA officials have never told me that they think the long-term costs are prohibitive. Instead, they've expressed interest, even calling this approach "innovative", but their immediate priorities at this cash-strapped agency lie elsewhere. Since Metra is a suburban agency that simply doesn't run el lines, they have little motivation to pursue this. The obstacles in our way are short-term political in nature, not long-term financial.
One way of looking at this is to stand back from the present realities and imagine we were starting from scratch. Would anyone in the region argue that a rail line existing completely within the city should be run by a suburban agency with a separate fare structure requiring a different fare card? The present situation is the result of historical accidents rather than rational planning, but we don't have to look back very far to see how the region dealt with an analogous situation.
In 1993, the city (not the CTA) paid for, and still owns, the Orange Line. The city could have set up the Orange Line with entrances separate from other el lines, charging a whole fare for transfers. Would that have brought in more revenue for the Orange Line? I doubt it. By adding the Orange Line to the rest of the CTA system, it made the Orange Line a good choice for more riders. And, the addition made the entire CTA system more valuable as well because transit users could get to Midway faster. A CTA study done in 1995 found that public transportation use in the neighborhoods near the Orange Line had increased by 25% and I think we'd see substantial gains along the South Chicago line if it, too, were added to the CTA system.
Also, moving riders by rail can be less expensive than buses if ridership is high enough. Rail has large fixed expenses, but the variable expenses-- mostly personnel-- can be much less per rider because trains can carry more riders per operator. Just as importantly, trains move riders more quickly. A trip from Hyde Park to Randolph Station is about 25 minutes by Metra, but closer to 40 minutes by bus, depending on traffic. On an operator-hour basis, rail expenses per rider can be substantially less than bus expenses. And Gray Line Lite marginal costs would not include most of the track maintenance expenses since Metra already has to pay those. The number of trains on the line would have to be doubled, so there would be some capital and maintenance expenses there, but the number of train runs would sextuple for a modest investment.
Gray Line Lite would result in substantial bus route changes as Electric Line travel would draw riders away from many of the express routes. Again, the Orange Line provides a good analogy. The CTA still runs local bus service along Archer Ave, but express routes were shut down. Many southeast Chicago riders take long bus rides west to the Red Line. Gray Line Lite would provide a quicker alternative, again resulting in some CTA savings as operator-hours per rider would be reduced. A quicker trip for CTA customers can be a less expensive service for the CTA to provide.
I'm not going to claim that Gray Line Lite would save the CTA money. But I think there's a very good chance that extra expenses will accompany increases in transit usage in the affected neighborhoods and a small increase in transit use elsewhere in the city. CTA per-ride subsidies may actually be lower. The long-term financial consideration is not whether Gray Line Lite would pay for itself, but rather how it would affect the 50/50 split the state mandates for fares and public subsidies.
I've made a case for subsidizing public transit elsewhere, so I'll just make a couple arguments about the advantages to our communities that the Gray Line Lite might bring about. The first is that Chicago has horrible asthma problems and we're pretty sure that more than half of urban air pollution is vehicle exhaust. Taking the bus cuts pollutants on a per ride basis substantially, but electric rail is the most environmentally-friendly method of travel, except for biking and walking.
The second is that these neighborhoods in southeast Chicago were built with the trolley in mind. In the automobile age, we struggle mightily with parking issues which affect residents, customers and employees. Trains are much more popular than buses as a method of transit because their schedules are largely unaffected by personal vehicle traffic. Train stations are usually more comfortable places to wait. Development along Chicago's el lines over the last 15 years confirms this. Making transit a more pleasant and less costly alternative will gradually decrease the proportion of travellers driving and parking in our neighborhoods.
The stations along the South Chicago line are generally considered safe places to be, so it's not imperative to employ personnel at these stations. That could make the Gray Line Lite the most cost-efficient el line in the city (besides the Red Line). Population density along this route looks higher to me than along the Brown Line, probably more like the O'Hare branch of the Blue Line. These considerations make this branch a better place to start than the Blue Island branch.
Obviously, there are quite a few details to work out, but I'm confident that political will is what we're lacking. The key components of Gray Line Lite are 25-cent transfers and 10-minute service. Any plan which includes those components will greatly improve out neighborhoods.
Hyde Park Herald article: "New #15 wins praise locally" by Nykeya Woods
Editor's Note: This version of the article keeps only those portions where the HPKCC and its Transit Task Force were talked about and was a slightly longer front page story in the Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Hyde Park Herald. The photo of a #6 bus is from http://www.chicagobus.org/ , an independent transit site.
Two years after fighting to have the #15 Jeffrey local bus route move to Lake Park Avenue, the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference boasted on its website, “We win one—the #15 back to Lake Park” on Sunday, Aug. 28…
“It’s something that we asked for last year and we are happy about the changes,” HPKCC Transit Task Force Chairman James Withrow said. He said having the #15 along South Hyde Park Boulevard created traffic congestion. Having the route move to Lake Park Avenue is more logical because it is a commercial strip in the neighborhood and is equipped to handle the traffic. The new reroutes will provide the best travel for residents in west and central Hyde Park, he added.
The HPKCC Transit Task Force is a community-oriented group… During 2004, the task force held four workshops for input on the second reroutes that occurred for the #15 and the #28 Stony Island local. During the workshops, residents decided that they wanted both routes to travel along Lake Park Avenue.
HPKCC’s Gary Ossewaarde agreed with Withrow and said the #15 on South Hyde Park Boulevard crowded an already densely populated area. He suggested that residents and businesses would benefit from it if the route were move to Lake Park Avenue.
“Business customers for the Co-op (Markets) and residents of several high rises sought this change which they believed would better serve their needs. This change jwould also significantly shorten the route, including for those wishing to transfer to the #55 Garfield and #X55 Garfield Express routes,” Ossewaarde said.
Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) said that the task force efforts were important to having the bus situation resolved.
“A combination of constituent requests to our office, as well as involvement by the Hyde Park Community Conference task force, and a separate survey conducted by the CTA put all of this in place,” Hairston said.
The only problem Withrow had was that the CTA notified residents 10 days before the reroute was expected to be implemented.
“We’re disappointed they gave us 10-day notice before (the route) changed,” he said. By doing this, he said the CTA missed a change to show riders that they are responsive to their needs….
#15 to move to Lake Park
Sue Purrington, aide to Ald. Leslie Hairston, informs me that the CTA has decided to move the #15 from Hyde Park Blvd to Lake Park. There was no explanation for the timing of the announcement, which can be found here:
http://www.yourcta.com/news/ctaandpress.wu?action=displayarticledetail&articleid=118448
In 2005, the Hyde Park Transit Task Force held a series of workshops to discuss where our neighborhoods' bus routes should be placed. Along with Ald. Hairston and Ald. Preckwinkle, we told the CTA that we preferred the #15 to operate along Lake Park because South Hyde Park Blvd. is a busy residential street, while Lake Park is a vital part of our business district. While S. Hyde Park has more bus riders in general, few of them use the #15 there, so these buses were going out of their way-- the route is longer along S. Hyde Park-- and clogging traffic for no good reason. For the last year, the CTA has told us that #15 should be on S. Hyde Park and we've received no hints that they were considering changing its route. And again, the CTA has made a needed correction to a route, but with inadequate notice to the community-- 10 days in this case.
Earlier this year, I worked with a group of neighborhood and regional groups in the Chicago Transit Coalition to lobby legislators to increase state funding for the CTA. Time and time again, legislators and other important actors in the area's transit-funding drama expressed to us their concern about sending more money to an agency which was generally viewed by the public as unresponsive. My personal view is that the CTA does a pretty job of providing a lot of transit given the resources we provide for the agency, but that its relationship with the public and our elected officials is abysmal-- excepting the mayor, of course. And it should be pointed out that the CTA has, up to now, avoided the scandals that we've seen in some of our municipal departments of late.
I would like, first, to thank the CTA for changing the route to reflect the wishes of our Transit Task Force, the Aldermen and the overwhelming majority of our residents, riders and non-riders alike. But, I wish that the CTA had acknowledged by name the Aldermen, our TTF and other groups who advocated for this change. It would have been a cheap and easy way to show they were being responsive to responsible groups who advocated through proper channels.
You're welcome to voice your thoughts on this change by placing a comment.
Subway Ipod Maps
This website gets a big thumbs up from me: http://www.ipodsubwaymaps.com/ They provide subway maps for cities around the world that you can put on your ipod. Chicago's is at http://www.ipodsubwaymaps.com/download.php#chicago .
CTA to pay for state audit
The CTA has agreed to pay for an audit of its books, ending a tussle with Illinois Auditor General William Holland. The CTA claimed three things-- that they had no money to pay for the audit, that the state should pay for the audit and that the cost should be more or less fixed, or at least predictable. But state legislators (and pretty much everyone else) assumed the CTA was dragging its feet on submitting to the audit.
House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) threatened to introduce a bill in the fall that would "intercept" a portion of the CTA's budget to pay for the audit, at which point CTA Board President Carole Brown saw the writing on the wall and surrendered.
In my opinion, Brown has made some small moves to make the CTA more transparent in its dealings, but this latest problem makes it look like her reign will be more of the same. I hope that won't be the case.
Here's a link to a Sun-Times article on the subject: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cta04.html
Congress may Encourage Private Toll Roads
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050630/ts_nm/bizhighways_dc
"Looking for ways to finance highway projects without hitting the public trough, the U.S. Congress appears set to pass a proposal to encourage private ownership of new toll roads."
The idea is that new toll roads could be financed by tax-exempt bonds. This would make the bonds a much more attractive investment. Some states-- and I'm most familiar with the case of suburban Austin in Texas-- are already encouraging, sometimes mandating, that new expressways be toll-based.
The social costs of suburban sprawl-- air pollution and obesity, for starters-- tend to be underappreciated. Currently, government makes sprawl easier by paying for expressways. It's fairer for the costs of these new roads to be paid by the people who use them.
No Doomsday This Year
It's official. The CTA will not cut service or raise fares this year. The state legislature, er, shifted around some money so that schools and health care could be better funded and the CTA ended up $50M richer. I had expected the state to funnel money to the CTA in a quieter fashion, but, in the end, it was all out in the open. Pace will take over paratransit and state money will find its way to the CTA.
Friend of Transit Rep. Julie Hamos of Evanston was on the radio this morning saying that the CTA would have another budget deficit next year, but that the legislature had done its part and it would be up to the CTA and the city to close the next gap. THIS IS IMPORTANT. It would be wise for us to look at the future and lobby our aldermen and the mayor to increase the city's funding of transit. The numbers I've seen suggest that Chicago is not as generous toward transit as most other cities, especially concerning operating expenses. I'll pass along on this site information I come across concerning that.
Transit riders owe a debt of gratitude to the legislature this year. The Democratic leadership appointed Rep. Hamos to lead on the issue of transit funding in our region and she led. In the next two years, the legislature will probably continue to look at transit's funding formula and some changes may be made. But, it's an absolute must for the city to contribute more money to the CTA's operating expenses.
Transit is one of the most important quality of life advantages our city has. The el lines obviously played a huge part in revitalizing the north side, attracting young people to the city again. The Loop wouldn't be what it is without transit. The Near South Side is going thru its own boom now and transportation choices combined with wonderful architecture make these neighborhoods an especially good investment. Transit is a gem of an investment and my gentle readers can refer to the article below Reasons to Subsidize Public Transportation for arguments to make to elected officials.
CTA Funding Legislation
I caught pieces of a radio story today implying that the Illinois House had passed a bill yesterday to change paratransit funding. I've described the current funding fix rumor in the article called CTA Funding, the Legislature and Hyde Park below, but the plan goes like this. Responsibility for paratransit funding would be shifted from the CTA to Pace and the state would send money Pace's way to pay for this, with some federal Medicaid dollars possibly finding their way to Pace. Because paratransit has become very expensive for the CTA, shifting this responsibility would help close the CTA's budget deficit by some $55 million this year. This solution allows legislators to vote for something that helps the CTA while not actually sending the CTA any more money, i.e. this is not a bailout. Given the CTA's poor relationship with legislators, riders, and transit activists, this is the only measure the legislature is likely to pass that would help this year. And, it's unfair that the CTA has gotten stuck with an expense that should really be borne by the federal and state governments.
At this time, I haven't found any news on the web that the legislature passed anything on this subject, but I wanted to send along a link to check from time to time: http://www.juliehamos.org/transit/ Julie Hamos is a Representative from Evanston and she was chosen by the House Democratic leadership to head the Special House Committee on Mass Transit. Hamos done a great job of listening to as many sides as possible while seeking short-term and long-term solutions to transit's funding woes, not an easy task. Her work reflects well on the Democratic leadership in the House and I'm sure she'll recommend something that's good for the region and the state. The link has plenty of interesting information concerning transit funding.
UPDATE: Friday, May 27th-- the papers are saying that the Dems and the Governor have reached a deal that raids the state pension system to fund schools and health care, with the CTA getting a little under $50M in the deal. Pace will still get paratransit, but that hand-off of responsibilities may not actually help the CTA's budget after all. So far, I'm having trouble getting the details.
We're Number 2! We're Number2!
From a John Hilkevitch Chicago Tribune article brought to my attention by HPTTF member Judy Chernick:
"Drivers in the Chicago area are spending more time behind the wheel during an ever-expanding rush hour, according to a study released Monday (May 9, 2005) that bumped the region into the No. 2 spot for roadway congestion nationwide.
"The Chicago area had been ranked the third most traffic-clogged since 2000 but passed the San Francisco area for the first time."
Take that San Francisco! That'll teach you Bay Area snotty upstarts to have an excellent public transportation system. Worry not, my fellow Friends of Transit! If our public servants can't agree on new funding legislation, the CTA will enact their Doomsday scenario and then maybe our region can be numero uno for traffic congestion.
More info here (Tribune free registration required):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050509traffic-story,1,4475017.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Recent Comments