You're wrong on this.

Increased use on the CTA absolutely increases costs. The incremental cost of adding 1 rider is negligible. The incremental cost of adding, say, 1 ride per week for every pass-holder in the system is millions of dollars per year. If half of all riders use a pass, that means about 270 million rides a year are with a pass. Using conservative numbers and rounding, that's about 5 million rides per week. If the average rider with a pass takes 2 rides per day, that leaves us with about 357,000 unique pass riders in the system in any given week. If each of them took an extra trip every other week, that translates into 9 million extra rides per year. And I've tried to keep that as a conservative number.

In their Crowding Reduction Plan, the CTA estimates that to meet the demand created by 22 million extra riders they are adding $16 million worth of bus and train service. In order to pay for that plan, they're reducing service in areas that haven't had growth. With passes, the extra use is probably more randomly distributed. So $16 million to serve 22 million riders - that puts a large-scale incremental cost of additional rides at about $0.73 (72.7 cents).

So, while the incremental cost of one user can be considered to be "free" or negligible, with a large system you can't look at it that way or you end up screwed. Using the CTA's own numbers, the true incremental cost of increased ridership is about 73 cents.

I will admit that that is a lot lower than the $2.25 rail fee. But considering that their true average revenue per rider ranges from $0.98 to $1.01 most years in recent memory, it's not nearly as big of a drop, and some ride types have always made other ride types possible to maintain an overall viable *system* instead of just a collection of piecemeal segments.

Discounts are appropriate in a competitive marketplace with companies fighting for market share. CTA doesn't have any competition that's cheaper than it is, therefore it really doesn't need to grant discounts.

If they eliminated all discounts, they could - believe it or not - actually reduce the standard fares and continue to collect the same amount of revenues. That raising the standard fares to keep discounted fares around probably turns more customers away.

Granted service level does correlate with ridership but costs=service level, not costs=ridership. The extra runs on surviving routes are going to cost $16 million dollars regardless if they run 20% full or 100% full. It is fundamentally different from say a car where each extra car sold requires extra inputs.

Furthermore, I do not believe that you can accurately divide the costs between those 22 million riders. First, the CTA is already accommodating those extra riders so it is not necessary to spend that money. Second, the increased service cannot be parceled out to each individual new rider. Take for instance the Brown line. There will be 2 extra peak am run, and 0 extra peak pm, with dozens of off peak extra runs where the Brown line already runs 4 car trains. Is the increase in passengers on the Brown solely in off peak? If they run only 4 car trains, why do we need so many extra runs? So you cannot just divide the new riders by the new service and say that is how much those new riders cost.

Then we get into what electricron is talking about. Once service levels are set, how do you maximize revenue. CTA has plenty of competition and plenty of cheaper competition. You can bike, walk, a car pool is probably cheaper, and if you go to and from work Metra is cheaper. Driving alone is faster but not cheaper. So CTA competes both on time and money but competition alone isn't the only reason to give discounts. My own feeling is that you make discretionary trips as cheap as possible. Those are the trips that riders are more likely to use an alternative. For instance, every once in awhile I go to Whole Foods. I can either walk or take the train. If I had to pay for each trip to Whole Foods, I would be more likely to walk. Cta would then provide the same level of service, get less revenue, and have fewer trips.

I do not think we have enough data to suggest one way or the other what the effect of eliminating all discounts will have on revenues. Electricron's statement that revenues will rise has about as much credence as my statement that if pass discounts are eliminated, standard fares would need to be raised to collect the same amount of revenues because riders will be less likely to make enough trips to cover the pass fare. We just don't know the price sensitivity of riders.

Upper and Lower Wacker Drive re-open today
 

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this.
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-73503657/

^ This part of Lower Wacker is lit much brighter than the E-W segment was. Maybe they were able to use LEDs or something, which would not have been available a decade ago. Especially in the middle, around maybe Monroe where there's a merge/intersection, there is extra lighting producing something like a night-baseball/football-stadium level of brightness. I think this is ideal for potentially dangerous intersections and would like to see it in more places for safety, especially with the continuing increase in bicyclists (though on Lower Wacker itself I think cycling is not permitted), but because of light pollution it may only be realistic in underground places like this.

Cycling on Lower Wacker is a rush. :tup: Sounds like I have a whole new course to check out.

The lit feeling of a space is psychological more than anything else. I'm guessing the new Lower Wacker includes an extensive new set of wall sconces that light up all the vertical surfaces. There's only so much that direct downlighting can do. Also, if they're using LEDs, the light may be in the blue-white spectrum which "feels" brighter to us because it's such a stark contrast from the yellowish nightlighting we're all used to.

First, the CTA is accomodating them and has determined that to continue to do so, they need additional money. That is not in dispute.

Second, of course it can be unless you believe that math and statistics are some sort of fairy magic. I do not believe that, but you're welcome to believe whatever you like.

Pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed to use the service drives on lower wacker. Not allowed in the inner traffic lanes, but they may cross them at intersections

Large transit agencies and a wide array of professional engineering consultants and academic institutions absolutely study these questions extensively and continuously.

What a bunch of patronizing bs. The CTA system is mostly fixed costs associated with service levels. You said that "true" cost of each individual new rider is $.73 but your math is not accurate. Are you actually saying that if my cousin comes to town, it costs the CTA $.73 for him to ride compared to if he did not ride. Fixed costs=/=marginal cost. All I am saying is that the marginal cost of each new rider is ridiculously small, so the CTA should try and run with as many people on the trains as possible. It is like flying standby on airlines. Once the plane leaves the airport, its costs are set so you might as well get somebody in the seat, even if their fare is low.

Nor can you just divide $16 by 22 to get marginal costs. The increased service will be used by new riders, old riders, and will run empty sometime, it will not be solely attributable to new riders. You cannot say that those new riders add $.73 of costs per rider. That $16 million dollars is fixed. It will be spent whether ridership increases or decreases. It will be spent whether it is new riders or old riders. Average total cost was $2.05 per rider in 2011. It is my belief that average fixed costs per rider is much closer to $2.05 then it is to $1.32.

This is exactly my point. The CTA clearly has people working on this and feels that this redistribution plan is more efficient than previous service levels. They have worked quite a bit on it and I hope that they are correct, even though their conclusions are still just an educated guess. However, the CTA does not provide enough info to the public to allow electricron nor myself to adequately gauge what will happen to revenues once the pass price increases go into effect.

I am much more on the page that believes that this new strategy is a way to shed under-performing routes and shift costs to third parties without having to expend a lot of political capitol or get into a large fight with the unions over job cuts. I do not believe that it is about de-crowding as much or new riders per se. Until someone can explain to me how this plan is going to de-crowd the brown line when there is 0 increase in the pm peak and huge increases off peak when the line runs 4 cars, I will not believe that this change is necessitated by increased ridership.

Dearborn Two-Way Cycle Track
 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8206/8...a5cebcc4_o.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8064/8...ba6628ba_o.jpg

source

You either didn't read what I wrote or you're intentionally creating a straw man. I said very clearly - this is a direct quote - "The incremental cost of adding 1 rider is negligible."

I'm not really sure what that statement has to do with the discussion. Nobody's saying the CTA shouldn't get more people to ride, but when you have crush loading at times when a lot of people wish to ride, or increment between scheduled runs is long enough to discourage choice riders, then adding service to increase ridership makes sense.

If you actually read what I wrote, I never said that each rider, by himself, cost 73 cents. What I said was, "The incremental cost of adding, say, 1 ride per week for every pass-holder in the system is millions of dollars per year." That's obviously a statement about cumulative impact, and it's very disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

If you want an example, you're right, adding one stand-by passenger to an airplane costs the airline a few dozen dollars in fuel and other consumables. But if you have a million passengers every day, the airline is either going to have standby passengers who don't get to fly and will never even try to fly on that airline again, or they at least plan to start adding planes, which costs a lot more than a few dozen dollars per passenger. In other words, to repeat myself for the fourth (and last, even if you still don't get the concept): just because the incremental cost for 1 person is effectively zero doesn't mean that the incremental cost for a million people is still zero. It will be magnitudes higher, in nearly all cases. One extra visitor to NYTimes.com costs effectively zero. One million incremental monthly visitors to the NYTimes probably costs something on the order of an extra dime per user, allocated across all the new incremental users. That's just the way these things work.

Obviously none of us really know, but increased frequency makes choice riders more likely to ride because their total trip time cost (on average) goes down.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw them painting this. It was like an early Christmas present.

This will save lives. Dearborn is a major bicycle commute route home Since Michigan, State, Wabash, LaSalle, Clark, and Wells are not designed to safely accommodate cyclists in the northward direction, this will get a large amount of bicycle traffic.

That bike road is awesome!!! They'll just have to be careful of pedestrians standing on the edge of the curb during rush hour. Those people are dangerous.

Yes. This will easily become the busiest bike route in Chicago, surpassing Milwaukee and Kinzie. Once it is successful, I can easily see it getting further upgrades, maybe even a physical barrier (planters/curb). It would be awesome if they created a bike storage facility at Daley Plaza, as well, where the eternal flame currently sits.

Taxi hails might be a problem, too. However, with such a prominent bike lane, the mayor might finally lean on CPD to do some enforcement.

I agree getting a cab might be a problem, but it was technically a problem for everyone. The cabs would block the old school bike lanes further north AND vehicular traffic in the left lane. So multiple motorists and bicyclists were held up by one person.

That's why I like taxi stands. But with this messed up parking ownership, the city can't create more valet or taxi zones unless they pay for it. Pedestrians occasionally walk in the cycle tracks, but they've 99% of the time stepped out of the way for approaching cyclists and those buffer zones look wide. That hash-out at the end also looks appropriately sized for standing armored trucks or UPS/FedEx vans.

That's great; the more segregated lanes the better, and this makes bike connections across the Loop really fast. It would be cool if there could be a subterranean bikeway built under Monroe, since it seems provisioned for it, without having to wait for a more-complicated, full-fledged busway project. It could go as far east as possible, though the Grant Park Garage and IC trench might be an impenetrable barrier preventing linkage as far as Columbus.

The Dearborn striping is rather revolutionary for the Loop. Did people also notice -- Desplaines has been striped with a cycle track and a detached parking lane, too. The cycle track looks to be only one-way, though. Desplaines has always had lots of underutilized capacity, so maybe something protected and two-way will evolve here. Although Fifield's and other upcoming towers may change the complexion of Desplaines yet again.

Supposedly there are marked loading zones, separate from the parking. I'm not sure if that refers to the hatched areas or something else.

I agree that underground stuff is cool, but I really don't see a need for it here. The upcoming Central Loop BRT will include a one-way couplet of cycle tracks on Washington and Randolph (although the westbound bus lane will be on Madison).

Part of the need for building underground is because the surface is too congested, but instead we can choose to re-allocate surface space and intentionally reduce capacity for drivers. Carrot and stick. If we can deal with the political ramifications of reallocating roadspace (and so far Rahm has dealt with it easily) then many problems can be solved at low cost, and our need for building underground is only to speed up crosstown and regional trips, with projects like the Clinton subway or the Metra subway. Even this is reduced, though - projected crosstown travel times on the Western BRT are not much longer than on the Red Line.

Looks like Metra is confirming that the Union Pacific North line will be getting a new stop at Peterson/Ravenswood. That's great news for the Edgewater residents in this area. Transit options are somewhat limited here and as a result, development is more autocentric than it needs to be (the White Castle comes to mind).

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20121...north-railroad

Whoo! One small step towards decent regional rail. I hope the city responds by upzoning this area. The TOD ordinance would apply here but it's only valid in certain zoning categories.

IIRC this station is being designed in conjunction with the new Auburn Park station at 79th on the Rock Island. The recycled design saves money. Hopefully the design isn't crappy... Metra has a mixed record with urban stations, to say the least.

Petersen Station
 

I still say it's the wrong place to put it - - especially for possible future TOD. Devon or between Devon and Granville just makes more sense. Very disappointed. But as Ardecila indicates, it is overall a step in the right direction.

Great news indeed, but doesn't 18 months seem like a terribly long time for a EIS on a simple commuter rail platform build? Is that really necessary?

Ha! Keep dreaming. Chicago is not that responsive... or progressive.

True, but the die's already been cast for midrises in this area. Several already exist, although they have shitty anti-urban site plans and there's very little retail. Doesn't seem like it would be a challenge to build something dense here, especially if the TOD ordinance allows you to nix the on-site parking.

Yea, I think one at Peterson would spur more new development and new taxes$$$, than one at Devon. Lots of dumpy 60's 1 story retail on Peterson that could be replaced with midrises. Already a precedent for larger buildings as mentioned above. Devon might be better for the existing people there but I don't think it would spur large developments since it already well built out.

Now all they need is one at Belmont.

True, there are a few midrises in the immediate area that offer precedent, but they also happen to occupy the majority of the sites that would fall within the 250 foot TOD ordinance. I also dont think the population of West Edgewater and West Ridge would be vocal about a proper transit oriented, dense development.

And then just to drive it all home... are there ANY non loop Metra stops within the city that have dense, adjacent development? I dont think there are and this would seem like an odd place to start.

The best candidates IMO would be Ravenswood (now a missed opportunity), Clybourn (if the entire area gets rezoned, BRT hookup), Western MD (improving neighborhood, BRT hookup), Halsted BNSF (university village/pilsen/halsted art scene, huge adjacent vacant lots) and 35th on the Rock (Red Line, Green Line, IIT, Comiskey, huge adjacent vacant lots)

Yes. 53rd is very dense and it is getting a large new TOD (Harper Court/City Hyde Park). You say Ravenswood is a missed opportunity (the Mariano's development is, I admit) but it's surrounded by loft conversions that are quite dense.

I don't know why it's an odd place. People living here would have quick access into downtown and they are within walking distance of Andersonville and a Target. The site is also on two major driving routes (Ridge/Peterson).

I don't know why this is an odd place to start while you nominate stations in industrial or urban-renewal wastelands. The North Side is a proven desirable area and Metra already provides a high level of service to urban stations on the UP-N.

I think I'm having deja vu about this conversation but I think Addison might be better? It's just 100 feet from the brown line, a connection that does not exist today but could possibly be quite useful.

Admittedly Belmont has better bus service than Addison (especially with the #11 on the chopping block) and putting a stop at Addison wouldn't bring rail service to an area that has none, but I think the benefit of connecting with the brown line wins. It just seems silly to have the UP-N and the Brown Line running parallel for almost two miles with no opportunity for a transfer.

Perhaps better still would be to have a station at Irving Park AND Belmont, but that might make more sense if UP-N were electrified and/or had express service.

Addison would be crazy expensive, building on that long viaduct.

Does TOD really make a lot of sense around Metra stations? Metra is simply a commuter rail system, nothing on the order of a CTA 'L stop.

One cannot really live a carless life living next to a train that runs about 5 times in the morning, 3 times in the afternoon, and then 3 times at night.

Yes, it would be difficult to do so with 11 trains a day, but 58 trains per day (this is how many UP-N trains per day stop at Ravenswood on a weekday for example) approaches livability. Yes the schedule is clustered around rush hours but then again so are peoples' trips.

This is of course to say nothing about the possibility for future service improvements.

In the London Metropolitan region there is nothing as desirable as being with a 10 - 15 minute walk of a train station. Many property sale sites allow you to search a certain distance from stations.

It's true the most popular are near bigger stations in bigger towns with many trains an hour to London, but many trade down to smaller station with just half hourly service because it is possible to live in house near a station rather than just a flat.

I suspect the effect is more pronounced in the UK as all these stations have an all day service with last trains from London late in the Evening, giving people true flexibility about travel times or the ability to use it for leisure in the city.

But I imagine a lot of people would like to buy an apartment a short walk from a train straight to downtown. Sure they would not live car free but at least there would be one less person driving to work, or trying to get on the crowded red line.

If enough were built you might get more service during the day as demand grew.

Rinse and repeat across the inner suburbs and in a decade or two you could remake Chicago. If the desire for walkable neighbourhoods grow then the market will end up pushing towards this anyway. It all depends if local nimbies let it happen.

Do it city wide and a 100,000 extra people could be trying to use the Metra system everyday, what would that do for its economics.

Which is why I've wondered why (or if) there hasn't been developers or city planners/zoning who have ever seriously pursued the idea of putting mid-rise office towers around the Western Ave. and Clyboourn Metra stations in particular where multiple lines converge.

I think think would be a nice selling point to potential employers and employees in that it would shave about ten minutes of commuter trips each way. That ends up on a per week and per year basis.

TOD isn't only about access to transit. It's about having a lifestyle such that transit connects you to the rest of the region and much of your daily needs are met without using any transportation other than your feet or, perhaps, bikes. Good TOD gives people their basic needs within walking distance and access to their less-frequent and commuting needs via transit. Metra+bus service can do that easily if the area near Metra is dense enough to support local necessities like a grocery store, a pharmacy, and a few other shops (restaurants, hardware store, etc), not all of which every TOD location needs, but all needs at least a few others. The idea with TOD is to really to give a town feel with big city access - which is exactly what UP-North can provide, especially accompanied by bus service.

If you figure people will walk 1/2 mile for a commute, that puts a square with .7 mile sides right over a station, with 1/2 of a square mile in area. 20,000 people in that area with tapered density would be 4-6 story buildings near the station tapering off to 2-flats and townhomes on the edge of the service area. If 12,000 people lived within the 1/4 square mile closest to the station, that would support at least one mid-sized grocery story oriented toward pedestrians, and the lower density areas along the edge could either be pedestrians willing to walk further to save money, or families with cars able to drive for groceries. I think it's a workable model. It's basically the model you see for the Red Line north of Belmont, which could actually support more density with more service than that if the CTA worked to enable more frequent service and/or longer trains and/or enhanced express service. If UP-N were run just a bit more frequently on the weekends and off-peak, it would totally be workable and support that sort of density and TOD living.

I excluded 53rd since its dense transit oriented nature is legacy based. That said, I do like how the area has recently revived itself and it pushing for more mid scale development. Everything between Harper and the IC should be utilized to its maximum potential.

Its odd because I dont believe the area has a prevailing culture of walkability or transit dependency. Most of the newer development in the area is autocentric, the nearby midrises each have private parking, Ashland BRT will not run this far North, 25% of the potential TOD 250' radius is a cemetery, while the other 75% would require acquisition and demolition. And even after that, who exactly would want to live without a car in that area? You said it yourself, Ridge and Peterson are two major driving routes... and with Metra you only have two options, downtown or North Shore... with terrible frequency outside of morning/evening rush. So why exactly would a developer be interested in going hog wild on TOD here?

I nominated Clybourn because it is serviced by two Metra lines, soon to have Ashland BRT, Elston PBL and is smack in between Lincoln Park and Bucktown. Lots of transit options and surrounded by highly desirable neighborhoods filled with white collar professionals.

As for the others, Im not sure how you think Halsted BNSF is industrial... Western MD, as I said, has a rapidly gentrifying population to the North of it (however being next to the rail yards is a definite downside) and while you might consider 35th an urban renewal wasteland, it is being redeveloped in a manner that at least attempts to create a dense walkable community. Instead of bemoaning the area's past I would rather see them choose a progressive path towards the future. Lots of transit dependent students already reside in the area, why not capitalize on it?

I think at one point an Addison transfer station was actually in the works. Then one day the land got sold off to a developer and we got this five floor building: http://goo.gl/maps/YXSf0

I don't know what you're trying to prove, then. Is there a completely new, ground-up TOD in Chicago around a Metra station? No, not yet, because most of the remaining urban Metra stations are in depressed parts of the city, or they have legacy TOD.

Because you only want to go downtown during the rush periods. At other times, the neighborhood itself can satisfy your needs with good shopping and entertainment options. The CTA bus system gives you additional mobility to reach other neighborhoods.

Clybourn is sandwiched between a massive expressway viaduct and a PMD. Where would you build residential? Western MD is feasible, but Western BNSF would require some pretty strong gentrification of west Pilsen.

Clark and LaSalle Red Line excavation for new station mezzanine.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8...0c8a5492_h.jpg

There is already a Rogers Park stop at Lunt/Ravenswood (just north of Pratt), so it wouldn't really make sense to put one any farther north. Peterson does have that giant cemetery near by, but there is plenty of room for additional density to the east of the stop.

I can only speak for the UP-N. The Rogers Park stop is quite dense and near commercial activity along Clark St. From what I recall, that area has one of the highest residential densities in the city. The Ravenswood stop is getting a new supermarket/gym development right across the street and has dense 1920s residential near by. The Clybourn stop is alongside the Kennedy so it's completely anti-urban in appearance, but there is decent development just west of there if one can manage to get passed the highway.

It depends on the line. I work with several Metra commuters that don't own a car. The UP-N runs once an hour during off peak hours, but as frequently as 5 or 6 times an hour during peak hours. Also, all of the UP-N stops in the city are within walking distance of the red/brown lines, so when people aren't commuting to work, they're using the cta, walking, or biking, and not Metra.

Nice update shot Hayward. I'm very confused at how this project is being done. Are the going to completely rebuild the tunnel as well?

I’m not sure if it was actually in the worst, but there was a study a few years ago (somewhere on RTAMS—I can’t remember the title) that looked into potential CTA-Metra transfer sites and Addison was one of the few—maybe even the only—that actually scored well enough to justify construction of a new station. Even then I don’t recall being impressed with the overall projected ridership.

That said, Addison’s not as important a street as Belmont—if we’re to take a long-term view of things (and assume a cultural change at Metra), I’d lean towards reinstalling the third track and building two stations at Belmont and one at Irving Park (which would also offer decent connectivity with the Brown Line), both of which are more important streets than Addison and would do a better job of providing an express alternative of the Brown Line.

One of my coworkers commutes our office (Madison and Canal) via that station, and he's not the only one. It's not ideal, and I don't think it'd be popular as anything other than a commuting stop, but if it were converted to something more like a S-bahn with regular semi-frequent service, I could see people willing to live in larger buildings along Cortland and Ashland and Armitage. There's all that industrial property along the river there, but if the city wanted to make that more scenic they certainly could turn it into a really popular area for residential stuff. Small, quirky streets, current access to retail along Cyborn, walkable to Armitage historic district, walkabout to parts of Bucktown, easy access to the highway. Add in S-bahn level access from the Metra station, and residents would have that and a 10-minute walk to the Brown Line. That's certainly not an overnight sort of plan, but it's the kind of thing that could add a lot of value and connect two of the hottest neighborhoods in the city (Lincoln Park and Bucktown) with continuous residential and commercial strips. Properly done, that whole area could the hotter than (insert your expletive of choice) in a couple decades.

They're building a new entrance at Lasalle. Unfortuantely (I'm sure for cost reasons) it will be only on the east side of Lasalle, forcing people to wait for a light to enter the station from the west, but it will let them avoid walking the block between Lasalle and Clark which will be nice in the winter.

Once the Lasalle entrance is ready to open, they will temporarily close the Clark entrance and work on that while everyone uses the new Lasalle entrance.

The photo appears to show excavation for the mezzanine level at Lasalle.

They're not rebuilding the tunnel, but they will bore a shaft down from the mezzanine for escalators down to the platform.

Thanks guys! That sounds like some crazy engineering that goes into these subway renovation projects.

It's really disappointing they aren't tunneling walkways under LaSalle. That's a very dangerous intersection. I've witnessed two very bad car accidents since I moved to Chicago over 3 years ago. While they didn't involve pedestrians, they easily could have.

Yeah. Supposedly by closing Division for the project they saved tens of millions of dollars. Too bad they couldn't have directed some of that savings into Lasalle ped tunnels.

American Airlines will be presenting a new livery for the fleet, along with a complete rebrand of the company to give a fresh appearance post-bankruptcy. Their first flagship 777-300ER was delievered this week and will likely carry the new livery. Oddly, it wasn't painted prior to delivery, as is normal, and remains gray. Obviously they are keeping things under wraps pending the announcement, which should be soon, as I doubt a new $300 million airplane will be left sitting idle for too long.

Felt this was somewhat relevant for this topic since AA is hubbed in Chicago. You'll soon be seeing a fresh looking American livery and branding.

Lower Wacker Drive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3W0-4RfbE&sns=em

So what's gonna be the next big CDOT project now that Wacker is done? There are a couple smaller projects - Damen/Fullerton, Division bridges, Chicago bridge, Wells bridge, etc. I guess the BRT proposals might count.

I hadn't heard anything about the Chicago bridge - any info on that?