Chicago High Speed Developments

http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/06_30..._STL_Study.pdf

http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/Chica..._June_2009.pdf


http://www.midwesthsr.org/docs/Chica..._June_2009.pdf

^ The last diagram on the last link told me a lot about the expanse of that project.

Wow. Glad you pointed that out.

From that doc: $37.5 million per mile, total cost of $11.5 billion. And that's just for one corridor, I think.

Yowza!

Up front costs is why European countries have built HSR only one line at a time. With more countries in Europe, the expanse of HSR seems fairly quick. Never-the-less, they have been at it for 30 years. Additionally, not every HSR line in Europe was built for 200+ mph trains.

going back the gold/grey line to expand on my previous point. Instead of running more frequent train service, in my mind it would be better to turn part of that right of way into a BRT Trunk line. By utilizing the proposed monroe street transitway and columbus ave (see CAAP) it can more directly integrate the southside into downtown. In addition you can use the existing well traveled bus network an eventual BRT network to feed into the trunk such not just the south chicago branch of the current ME but also the 71st street bus, 55th, etc. Each can be built as BRT and provide direct connections to downtown.

It seems to me this is a cheaper alternative and provides far better service than just running more frequent trains. Opinions?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/...f2a49d5f61.jpg

^I think it's not really addressing the ridership needs. You have five feeder bus lines that are passing both the Red Line and the Green Line before ever getting to the lakefront busway. Why wouldn't eastbound feeder bus riders simply transfer to the rapid transit lines, as they do now?

On the other hand, you've provided no front-door service in the heavily populated west end of South Shore or Jeffery Manor. The market is for door-to-door service from those areas of the South Side to the Central and West Loop. The Metra Electric ROW is unfortunately just not very well-suited for that.

I think in general they would, but the sense I get from watching the city is that they would want to make those routes BRT regardless, with that trunk you've added significant options for a rider not to just get downtown but direct access to the entire lakefront. Its a matter of improving and utilizing existing ridership to help pay for capital costs of increased service in the area the gold line is theoretically targetting.

I choose those feeder routes off the top of my head as they made some logical sense, you can make them anyones you want really, its fairly modular like that.

Operationally, you're basically proposing a similar "zoned" or "tiered" express service comparable to what already exists on the north lakefront (the 130s and 140s), wherein multiple routes sharing a high capacity trunk (lakeshore) have different origin and destination points to serve a wide array of trips.

The difference is a lot more people live on the north side - so demand is high enough to justify frequent bus service on the many tiered express bus routes. If the south lakefront doubled or more in population, the case for such a bus network would be much stronger, but it seems like that could still happen with existing infrastructure (Lakeshore Drive) rather than a great deal of construction work on the IC ROW.

On a much more general note and as a general critique of most rapid transit concepts that get tossed around, Chicago's geographic/economic structure, as a generalization is just a much more natural fit for being served by scalable express bus service, commuter rail, and high frequency arterial bus service - rapid transit is certainly viable in various corridors due to concentrated, high-volume, bidirectional trip density (e.g. the North Main portion of the Red Line), and also justified to serve as a 'trunk' for collecting downtown-bound trips from a given region of the city even if running through lower-density areas (the Dan Ryan Red, Orange Line, O'Hare Blue Line... but its a tough sell to justify two collector rapid transit lines on the south side and three on the west side).

I think that's generally true and I think the improved ridership on the southside wouldn't justify the full build out of that system on its own. However, the majority of the major costs on such would theoretically already be built.

the Cental Action Plan already calls for the monroe transitway, lakefront busway to mccormick, and the clinton street busway. Plans already exist and were going to be constructed on a number of feeder routes to be built as BRT. Essentially the cost of such a proposal isn't any more than building the trunk to link the existing proposals, 6 miles of road on an existing ROW, that's it. I'm just using the "gold line" proposal to argue for it.

^^^^Have their been any studies that attest that people may opt for PT at a greater frequency if the modality is train versus bus.

I for one know many people who think nothing of jumping on the L or the metra but you could not drag them on a bus.


Additionally, do impact studies try to measure the effect of the removal of busses from surface streets. It seems that buses have a tendency to really clog traffic....see Clark Street for one. This problem would not be present with rail.

ALso isn't the on going maintenance and fuel costs of buses substantial higher than trains....I thought I read the ration was in the area of 1.8 : 1

But we do have two collector rapid transit systems on the south side, the red line and south lake shore drive . My argument is basically to consolidate the south east side express bus routes and the south chicago branch of the metra electric into a mostly grade separated bus rapid transit trunk along that stretch of right of way. It would improve reliability, transit times, frequency, traffic, consolidate ridership,and connect those routes more directly into the transit system as a whole for relatively nothing (if you consider Monroe/Clinton Busways and a in-place BRT design as sunk costs post ~2012).

Dan Ryan Red Line: 54,360 Avg Weekday

South Lake Shore Rts 2,6,10,14,26,X28: 37,423 Avg Weekday
ME South Chicago ~10,000 (40,000 for all ME, not sure SC contribution)

^But the South Lakeshore isn't a collector rapid transit line - it's the trunk portion of zoned express bus system. It sounds like what you're suggesting is to use the street-running portion of the South Chicago branch to create a busway for the #6 to run in and switching to 1/4-mile-to-1/2-mile stop spacing along that portion - which sounds like a good idea to me (more cost efficient to operate/maintain in the long term given demand and density), aside from the major capital investment made to rebuild all those stations recently and the politics involved with such a project (e.g. the short-lived idea to replace the green line with enhanced bus service)
Rail bias is real - but generally travel time and travel comfort play a higher role in someone's mode choice than rail v. bus. Rail tends to be quicker and more comfortable than bus, but people will take a bus over a train if its faster and/or more comfortable (for example the big spikes on the 146/147 last year while the Red Line was riddled with slow zones and construction).

I find buses actually more comfortable but they just seem to take a lot longer.

Other way around:

Operating costs

BUS                $60/1000 place miles        $3.80/revenue vehicle mile

LIGHT RAIL         $96/1000 place miles        $9.30/revenue vehicle mile

RAPID RAIL         $50/1000 place miles        $6.50/revenue vehicle mile

a "place mile" is a passenger place (seated or standing) carried one mile


These statistics on operating costs come from "Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems," a Federal Transit Administration report from 1992:
I would certainly like to cite more recent statistics, but can't until FTA funds a new study.

Characteristics of Urban Transit Systems?

Sounds like someone in Bush I's administration was having some fun.

On a more serious note, why is light rail so expensive? The lighter vehicles require far less energy to operate. Is it just that the catenary systems on light rail lines require intensive maintenance?

^There's catenary, track, substations, ticket machines, and signals to be maintained. The vehicles require more expensive maintenance. They deadhead more than buses.


As for energy usage, here are some numbers from the Transportation Energy Data Book, 28th Edition, U.S. Energy Dept.

BTU of Energy Used per Passenger-Mile of Travel

7605   light rail average all systems

4800   light rail serious urban systems*

4315   transit buses

3700   heavy rail

3514   autos

1853   motorcycles

*estimated from Figure 2.2 after excluding North Little Rock, Memphis, Kenosha, and Galveston tourist lines.

The transit bus numbers are for all lines and systems nationwide; Chicago's heavily used system would have lower energy use per passenger. Conversely, the heavy rail numbers will be dominated by New York and Washington; Chicago's modestly used system will have somewhat higher energy use per passenger.

On Chicago-L.org, it says "overhaul of the Clark/Division station is now planned for 2010." This was as of 2007. Does anyone know if Clark/Division is still scheduled to be updated next year? And if it does begin next year, will it take years & years like Grand?

I believe they've used up most of the money that they were going to spend rehabbing Clark/Division on Grand instead. I think you can expect Clark/Division to retain its crypt like glory for a while longer.

While I think these numbers are important and instructive, I have an issue with measuring transit performance and efficiency with "passenger-miles" as it basically begs the land use question that impacts average trip lengths. Energy usage per trip would be a better measure, I'd argue, and well-utilized transit systems would start to look much better given that (rapid rail and bus) transit trips are shorter than auto trips on average. Cars are indeed more efficient than transit for long trips, but that misses the point of an integrated transportation and land use strategic planning policy. The assumption that a single passenger-mile by car is equivalent to single passenger-mile by transit from the perspective of the rider and society introduces substantial bias to the metric that isn't clearly identified by the inclusion of comparable per-trip metrics.

Put another, more blunt way, passenger-mile stats tend to be the default tool of choice for the various anti-transit advocates, so I think it's necessary to point out these issues whenever they're brought up. Unfortunately, funding in this country tends to be largely apportioned to agencies based on the passenger-miles they provide, rather than trips, which is one component - in addition to local politics of course - of why CTA provides 80% of Chicagoland transit trips but receives around 55% of Chicagoland transit funding, and why CTA and it's short average trip lengths (relative to lower-density 'sunbelt' cities) is under constant budgetary pressure to maintain such high fare recovery ratios in support of a large highly utilized network.

If publicly-supported mass transit exists as a supplement and charity service filling in the gaps of a fixed development pattern and auto-oriented transportation network, then passenger-miles is a fine unit for performance measurement. But if transit is ever to be viewed as an essential public utility in coordinated support of a regional economy, the US will have to move to measuring based on total trips provided.

^ re: Clark/Division, there's also ongoing talk of building a new entrance at LaSalle/Division as well, which obviously would make it a much more expensive project than otherwise. Not sure of the status. I suspect you won't hear much of anything about it until both (a) Illinois actually enacts a capital plan to match the funds from (b) the next major Federal transportation reauthorization. The vast majority of major CDOT projects are from state and federal capital money, which also explains why Chicago's roads have gotten so bad over the last 2 years as the state money disappeared around 2005 and road maintenance has consisted of pothole patching rather than reconstruction.