^ Not building transit because it's not justified NOW is not a reason not to build it. To the contrary, our country builds expensive highways to nowhere without a second thought.

Many of New York's rail/subway extensions were to undeveloped areas which subsequently exploded with growth as a result of rail access to employment centers in Manhattan (ie the Bronx).

Point is, with proper planning and without blockades to development (Aldermanic stupidity, manufacturing districts as in the case w the Orange Line), a new rail line project should not be shelved just because current population densities do not necessarily support it.

I always seem to be seeing news stories from various cities about new rail service vastly exceeding ridership projections. Does anyone know if this a general trend, or do projections get it more or less right most of the time, and I only see the stories because higher ridership is the exception?

On the specific case of a Western subway or Circle Line, it seems especially complicated to figure out how many riders the service will attract because they would be used so heavily for transferring between lines--they would create a lot of possible rail routes. The increased ridership on all the connecting lines would have to be taken into account in addition to the ridership on the new line.

TUP, some of Chicago's rail lines were built speculatively as well. The most speculative line of all: http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/...stchester.html

It's important to remember that all of these studies were done a few years ago, in a very different funding environment but after we realized that over $5 billion was needed by the CTA for maintenance alone. Being conservative on what they could expect for federal funding was a pretty reasonable approach at that time.

In terms of best service remember that this is all part of the Circle line, the main purpose of which is to connect Metra, the Red Line, Blue Line, and Orange Line to create an outer Loop - not run a single line all the way up to Howard. I have to commute from Logan Square to Andersonville every day and would benefit greatly from a line running that far North, but from my experiences riding both the Ashland and Western buses if I miss the train (Metra from Clybourn to Ravenswood) the ridership on both lines isn't huge at rush hour, and seems to mostly consist of short trips. And anyways, this does not look at any service running north of Armitage.

I think part of why the Ashland corridor is preferred is that it is giving service to an area that is already an established commercial and residential area. Running it on Western (which I prefer) presumes that development will follow the line, as opposed to the lines following development. I can see the merit of both sides of that argument.

I've never understood the point of an Ashland alignment to tie together the radial routes; it's only about eight minutes out from the center. Unless you have (unrealistic) five minute headways, I think a simple spreadsheet calculation will show that a single downtown transfer from one radial route to another will on average be faster than two transfers so you can ride the Ashland subway. In fact, I thought CTA had done a study showing exactly that.

A Cicero corridor alignment starts to make more sense in terms of tying the lines together, but is probably best done with BRT along the Belt Railway.

At any rate, I wouldn't start picking out a color for the Circle Line. The only three guys at CTA who thought it was a good idea have all left the building.

I knew this was poking the hornet's nest when I wrote it... in hindsight, seems like a bad idea.

Admittedly, my analysis was extremely simplistic. I tried to convey that sense. My purpose was to explain why an alternatives analysis is necessary. In a world of super-cheap construction, say in Shanghai, we could afford to build an entire extensive subway network for the city. But in a country where funds for transit are limited, transit agencies must work to get the most bang for the buck. Hence, they choose the most cost-effective solutions to transit problems.

I'm not too sure the Circle Line is dead. The project is definitely on the backburner, though. CTA has on their website that Stage 3 Alternatives Analysis will begin this spring. Something will come out of it, I'm sure, even if it's only money for Ashland or Western BRT, which would be a valuable addition to the CTA system. Since an Ogden alignment was also under consideration, we may end up with a BRT line along Ogden (which would necessarily include a replacement of the long-lost Ogden bridge, perhaps bus-only).

^ The Circle Line Alternative Analysis study area was extended all the way to Cicero to include the Mid-City corridor, so the "study corridor" now, amusingly, basically encompasses the entire city.

FWIW, I think that acquiring funding for some sort of BRT along Cicero, Western, or Ashland is by far the most likely outcome unless either 1) someone with serious clout in DC pushes for a very specific project/alignment, or 2) the FTA cost-effectiveness evaluation guidelines are changed such that the heavy rail option doesn't (almost) always lose, as has been the case for many years.

The relevant example is the WMATA extension to Dulles. Under the FTA guidelines there was no way it was getting built, until many congressmen, senators, and so forth pulled strings to make it happen.

The purpose and need statement and the alternatives analysis are what the EIS is all about. Transit supporters did themselves in. By requiring extensive environmental work for roads and other public works, they did themselves in too.

I for one am glad we have environmental laws, though I'd say that the process is way too cumbersome, lengthy, and costly. Every major project probably doubles in cost from concept to implementation thanks to inflation alone.

BTW: In Europe, they also have strict environmental laws.

doesn't bus service become more expensive then rail ridership at some point? what was it? 20k?

obviously, creating the infrastructure to run trains isn't compared in this analysis but at some point, there is savings.

Theoretically, putting a train line on Chicago Avenue could pull in huge ridership numbers. Much larger then what you see now, although you'd also kill bus ridership along that and nearby bus routes (between grand and division).

Is it the construction or the operation that makes BRT more cost-effective than heavy rail for a line along the Belt Railway? To an uneducated schlub like me, it doesn't seem like it should be that huge a deal (comparatively) to put in new tracks on an existing railroad embankment. Stations are expensive, but a BRT line would have to have them too, unless there were onramps and offramps at every station, which sounds even worse.

It's both. First, it's not clear that there's room or that FRA would permit new tracks alongside the Belt Railway. A rail line has to be signaled and have a power distribution system. It's doubtful that even a single grade crossing would be allowed. Somehow engineering and construction costs for rail projects have gotten way out of hand. The stations have become enormously expensive ($14 million to build ground-level platforms in Skokie). The equipment costs are even worse, now roughly eight times as much for a rail vehicle as an articulated bus. Yes, the rail vehicle lasts twice as long, but the cost of the midlife rebuild is more than buying an entirely new bus.

The biggest advantage of BRT over rail is that it doesn't have to just shuttle back and forth on a segregated guideway, forcing people to transfer to and from it. Buses can circulate through neighborhoods at either end, then run along the busway to various destinations at the other end. That means that there's a possibility for residents of West Lawn to have a one-seat ride to a Lincolnwood factory, or for Austin teenagers to have a one-seat ride to jobs at Ford City. Even someone going from Cicero to a job in Rosemont could have a two-seat ride rather than three.

FRA has very recently started loosening rules for what they will allow in rail corridors. In Raleigh, we had a transit line planned (died in 2004, about 3 months from getting FFGA status due to tightened restrictions on cost effectiveness.) The line was to be in a railroad corridor, and the FRA refused to allow anything that was not FRA-compliant in the corridor without an unrealistic amount of separation, so the line was planned to use FRA-compliant DMUs. However, the transit line has recently been revived, but this time FRA is willing to accept LRV's. I see no reason why this recent change of heart should not also apply to Chicago.

BRT does allow circulation through neighborhood, but it's also not as good at focusing development. That is, if the neighborhoods will allow it. It's a trade-off. You do make a good point about the obscene construction costs of transit infrastructure, but I can imagine that pretty much the same thing applies to busways too, though maybe not to the same degree.

"Focusing development" as you call it, requires the cooperation of the city with regards to zoning. So far, we've gotten no indication that the city is willing to upzone land around even the existing train stations. The aldermen have a great deal of control over the zoning patterns in their own wards and nobody wants denser development in their wards.

Currently, anybody wishing to build a dense development near a rail station will have to submit their projects as a "planned development", which means that it will be considered individually by the City Council. This adds a good deal of cost in terms of time and money spent.

Well things are different from country to country. But the UK is a sort of halfway house between the US and Mainland Europe. We never abandoned the railways as a means of moving passengers, the way you did in the US, but we are a very crowded Island, and we abandoned most of our plans to slice new roads through our cities.

The problem in the UK is that in the last few decades we don't seem to spend a lot on our Railways or our Roads. Planning for transport schemes seems to go on for decades. Most of the proposed new Tube routes in the London have been knocking round in one shape or another since the Second World War.

Often a scheme will be mooted and everyone agrees its a very good idea, but a bit expensive. It needs to be evaluated properly. So a study will be launched looking at the total transport planning needs for an area, then all the possible options will be looked at. What's the best route, technology, cheapest to build, easiest to get through planning without too much protest etc. Each stage of course takes many months, and will often have it's own public consultation round.

Then decisions will bounce around government departments, with the Treasury putting strong pressure to cancel anything that might cost money.

If your lucky it might only take 10 years from first thinking about it to it actually opening. Often though a new political whim or change of government will require everything to be re-examined, or budgetary crises elsewhere means that the funding has disappeared. Often the department of Transport own civil servants are the biggest enemy as they have their own departmental prejudices. (bloody buses are cheaper!)

After many years, when they can delay it no longer and existing routes are bursting at the seams a new line, or road is opened. By the time this has happened it has often been valued engineered down. So the stations are smaller with fewer escalators, the route has jumped about to satisfy changing redevelopment priorities. Within a few days it is rammed and the whole process starts again to relieve the overcrowded network.

To give you an idea of some of the documents available to look at I have a couple of a couple of big projects linked that are about to start.

Crossrail is the big one potentially with a potentially £15 billion price tag. Utillity relocation has started and a some properties are being vacated I won't believe this one is safe until the tunnels are being bored.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/

Thameslink is £5.5 billion scheme that is split into two stages, to avoid the Olympics.

http://www.tl2000inquiry.org.uk/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/thameslinkreport/

London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

Unless there is a dusting of snow, then they don't carry anyone ;)

I wonder if there's any city in the world where that's not the case.

That's true of most cities, but not London.

London is different from most other UK cities in that Public transport plays such an important role in getting people to work.

For example in 2006, the percentages for the main mode of travel to work broke down as this.

Across the city as whole 37% of people travelled to work in a car or truck, 14% by Bus, 19% by commuter train and 16% by underground or tram and 6% walk (the remainder is covered by bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes).

For jobs in Central London, that share brakes down to 11% for Cars, 12% Bus, 40% Commuter train, 28% underground and 4% Walk.

For Jobs in the Suburban outer boroughs, that share breaks down to 63% car 14% Bus 5% Commuter train 5% Underground 10% Walk.


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abou...ions/1482.aspx

Washington, DC?

Good news!
 

This news makes one somewhat happy... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/adult/jackoff.gif

Quinn sets April deadline for capital bill
By: Paul Merrion Feb. 03, 2009
(Crain’s) — In office less than a week, Gov. Patrick Quinn is setting April 3 as his goal to enact a long-delayed capital bill to fund Illinois road projects and other improvements.
“It will give us a target to shoot at and keep an urgent approach,” he said after a 50-minute meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with members of Congress from Illinois.

Is April 3 too late to get federal matching funds? And how much does IL have to put up in order to get the $6 billion in federal funds? Anyone know the specifics of all of this? Thanks.