^ I was thinking the exact same thing :tup:

The South Shore issue is a total red herring... but I understand South Siders' frustration with the ridiculous complexity of the Metra Electric. Even without the Grey Line (i.e. a transfer to CTA) the ME could still use some infrastructure improvements to simplify operations.

North of Kensington, mainline tracks 1 and 2 should be for frequent (~15 min headways) South Chicago and Blue Island trains. 3 and 4 should be for South Shore and University Park trains, operated at typical Metra frequencies.

South Chicago and Blue Island trains would operate at ~15 minute headways on the mainline, alternating to each branch. You could probably set it up so that every third train goes to Blue Island and the other two would go to South Chicago, giving the Blue Island branch ~45 minute headways and the South Chicago branch ~20 minute headways. On the branches and mainline, they would be local, making ALL stops - or they could continue to use the flag stop system at less patronized stops, or eliminate the less-patronized ones altogether.

Then you'd build some infill stations - one at 119th for a Red Line transfer, one at Lake Park Crescent (41st) and one at Lake Meadows (35th).

University Park trains would stop at only a handful of city stops north of Riverdale, near major destinations - at 119th (Red Line), 103rd (Olive-Harvey), 95th (Chicago State), 56th (U of C/Hyde Park), and 35th (Lake Meadows) - all built as 2 or 3-platform transfer stations.

A possible track 5, if CN relinquishes it, could be used for South Shore trains to allow them to bypass University Park trains in the peak-travel direction during rush hours. They would continue to run express to Hegewisch as they do now.

Track 6 would continue to be used by CN for their (limited) freight operations.

Or split the difference and put ONE station at Oakwood Blvd.

Big development, on par with Central Station or Lakeshore East, is in the master plan for Lake Meadows. It should have a close and convenient station, at 35th or 31st - not the existing one at 27th, which no longer serves Michael Reese, and not one at Oakwood.

41st/Lake Park Crescent isn't high-density, so you could probably drop that one and replace it with one at 39th/Oakwood if you want. Either station would be a local station, but both make more sense than keeping 27th open. I just thought the "crescent" of Lake Park Crescent seems perfectly suited for a train station, like you find around a few Metra stations (eg Norwood Park). The #39 could go to either location pretty easily.

^The densest population of SOUL members.

Metra/RTA get sued

Riders to sue over minority transit 'disparities'
While I really dislike these kinds of suits in general, I'm torn about this one because I don't think the disparity is racially motivated but I do think Metra gets a disproportionate amount of funding. But I also think the last thing we need right now is another city/suburbs battle.

^ It's about time this issue is really tested at a higher (ie court) level, I guess, although I'll defer to some of the attorneys here to actually comment whether that's actually what will happen.

In the end, Metra and CTA both serve both the city and suburbs, with Metra being VERY important to downtown Chicago's economy. I think this is too complicated to easily tease it out as a city versus suburb thing.

On another less related note, what exactly does it do for some of the poorer African Americans and Latinos (obviously a generalization, since there are a lot of people in these ethnic groups who are highly educated and doing quite well) on the south and southwest sides to have better train service to downtown Chicago if the jobs downtown aren't even going to hire them? In other words, you can take a train to the Loop every day but if you don't have an MBA, a Law degree, or a degree in finance or computer programming what's the point? I can understand if the Loop was full of factories but....that's not the case. I think we need to focus less on blaming the CTA for our problems and instead focus on schools, lousy parenting, etc--the real roadblocks to upward mobility, Mr. Jackson & Guitierrez

^I'm thinking its more of an issue of principle.

^^^
I seriously doubt that this case will go anywhere. First of all, is there any precedent of class-action racial lawsuits based on demographics? What happens to the poor whites that live among the poor blacks on the South side? Are they SOL on this lawsuit because of the color of their skin?

I'm not saying that Metra/CTA don't discriminate, but they sure as hell don't do it based on race. It's based on neighborhoods and income.

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2002...garity_001.jpg

^ All 50 of them?

I think a case based on race can definitely be made.

Yes there is precedent. They're making a disparate impact claim. They don't need to show intent or exclusivity of harms, just that certain groups are disproportionately harmed. I doubt the suit will go anywhere, but it's by no means unprecedented.

Lovely. I hope they win and it solves all their problems.

I supposed Jackson and Guitierrez don't represent whites though.

It's based on a lot of different things. How about the fact that 2/3 of Chicago's population lives in the suburbs? Suburbanites are totally justified in arguing that, since they are numerically greater, they deserve the bigger piece of the pie, regardless of income. And since many inner-ring and south suburbs, and satellite cities, now have sizable impoverished minority populations, and the city now has more wealthy people than ever, you can no longer make some sort of simplified argument about rich white suburbs and poor black city. On the other hand, CTA continues to provide far more transit trips than Metra and Pace combined. Since the city is set up for transit, city-dwellers use it more often.

Metra is a completely different animal than CTA. For the most part, it is not subject to capricious and self-interested minority politicians, or Chicago politics in general, being managed largely by suburbanites and disconnected from the machine.

This means that service levels are set like a commuter railroad (which it is) instead of a urban metro system (which it's not). You won't get trains coming every 10 minutes except maybe during rush hour at busier stations.

They don't own most of their lines, so they have freight railroads picking up part of the tab for regular maintenance, which isn't too onerous anyway since Metra is a "dumb" railroad with no power supply systems and simple signaling.

The lack of a heavy maintenance expense means that Metra is free to sink money into, shall we say, 'cosmetic' improvements - keeping their cars shiny, spotless, and perennially new, as well as replacing and/or renovating older stations at a steady pace. Its stations are also controlled often by the municipalities they are in, so each town makes it a point of pride to have a nice Metra station, and uses their tax dollars for this purpose. In the city, CDOT is responsible for nearly every CTA station and has very limited funding that cannot possibly cover renovations of all the stations that need it, in a timely manner. (They're getting close, though - only the North Main needs to be modernized.)

Metra's advantages make it seem like it has better service, but when you actually look at things, it provides far more inconvenient service. Off-peak trains come hourly, if you're lucky enough to live on a busier line. Platforms are outdoors. There are no subsidized transfers to CTA or Pace buses. It only makes sense if you work downtown. For all other trips, it usually costs more than driving and provides little to no travel time improvement.

I can't be sure, but it always seems like Metra gets a better value for its capital money than CTA. Makes me wonder how much Chicago-style sweetheart deals are going on behind the scenes at CTA. (Wow, I sound like John Kass...)

^ While writing the above post, a thought occurred to me.

Any improvements on the North Main Line (i.e. the 'North Red/Purple Vision Study) won't provide any serious increase in capacity. The stations can already handle 8-car trains, so there's no rationale like there was for the Brown Line. I guess you could build side platforms at some stations to turn the Purple Line into a bonafide express service like New York's, but that seems unlikely.

So is it CTA's plan to eventually request New Starts money for the North Main rehab, and hope that the Obama-LaHood connection is enough to overcome the fact that the project would add no new service? I guess Chicago did the same thing for the Douglas and Green Line rehabs, neither of which increased capacity and in fact probably lowered it due to station closures. But it bothers me that Federal tax money might go to pay for Chicagoland's failure to maintain the stations and viaducts.

Any rehab will have to result in added service if for no other reason then to give politicians some talking points. I'm guessing the purple line will indeed become full time express.

Thats a good thing then.

I don't have a problem with the Feds paying for it. We pay taxes, things need to be replaced sometimes, and that includes even well-maintained viaducts.

That said, here are my hopes for the vision study:

• CTA gets serious about motivating the City to zone for TOD developments near their stations. Motivated by, but not limited to stations in the Vision Study area. This, more than any other single item, will boost CTA ridership over the long term. Stations that get improved express service (see next item) should get zoning around them close to downtown levels of density with low (in my dreams, even no) levels of required parking.
• Purple Line turns into a full-time express line every 10 minutes and, coupled with the Locally Preferred Alternative of the Circle Line, gets routed on the current Red Line tracks at Belmont and into the State Street subway, adding stops at Loyola and Wilson, maybe at Sheridan (if coupled with strong TOD zoning encouragement), but skipping Wellington and Diversey.
• Yellow Line takes over rush hour express service running on current Purple Line route into the Loop on the Brown Line tracks.
• Extension (or at least design) of rebuilt stations to support 10-car trains (tracks at Howard, Belmont and Fullerton were all already built to support easy extension to 10-car platforms in the future, and most, if not all, of the subway stations can support 10-car trains), coupled with extension to 10-car platforms of all stations, including the Dan Ryan ones, timed with the extension of the Dan Ryan line to 130th.
• Improved viaduct design that results in higher clearances under the tracks. Could be used in the future for double-decker buses, which are shown to improve ridership in other cities, and take up less space in traffic. How much better would Michigan Ave rush hours be with no articulated buses taking up so much extra length?

Is there really a significant constituency in favor of upzoning around CTA stations? The pessimistic side of me says no.

^ The CTA has already done this.

It was posted a page or two back.

We'll see how far it goes. As long as we have Aldermanic Prerogative, though, that throws a wrench in the situation