I drove a 3-axle lift-truck delivering Copier Systems the size of a Mini-van on the North Side (especially on Ashland Ave. - Edgewater and Bethany Methodist Hospitals) for over ten years; is anyone aware of another way to deliver equipment that large door-to-door?

No left turns for most of the street will create a 3 right-turn situation through residential areas; until they STOP that, then my Dispatcher will sadly inform you: "Sorry, we don't/can't deliver to your address, please contact your Alderman; your business is not worth 5 to 10 tickets a week for our Company or our Drivers - again Sorry"

I would REFUSE to service Ashland Ave. myself, go ahead and Fire me -- those tickets go on MY Drivers License, Frack Them.

Exactly what are Delivery Drivers supposed to do?? (the current plans seem to include "TO Effin' BAD FOR THEM").

I am afraid sir, that you may have taken my post out of context by not having read through the page. I was not illustrating the problem of delivery trucks blocking bus lanes, but rather addressing Mr. Downtown's concern for this by showing the ease with which a bus can simply drive around a truck stopped for delivery - as one has in the photo from Berlin above.

Not to beat a dead horse but in Berlin they allow all buses, paratransit vehicles and taxis to use the dedicated lanes and those lanes still move much faster than normal traffic lanes. Bus stop loading and unloading is also quicker because a bus doesn't have to wait for auto traffic to clear the area in front of the bus shelter or stop before pulling in. Bus stops are also after an intersection not before it - keeping right turn traffic flowing and keeping it from blocking the bus stop.

When done right, bus lanes work.

Maybe so, but in the US, curbside lanes will always be inferior to median lanes. For one, we have narrower sidewalks than European cities, so bus stop facilities will occupy a lot of sidewalk space and crowd out pedestrians, trees, furniture, etc.

Also, delivery trucks, cabs, standing cars, and right-turning cars will seriously hobble the efficiency of a curbside lane. Remember the bus lane on Jackson? Even without a left-turn ban, a median lane is still superior.

I remember the Jackson lanes. But I think the problem is easy to remedy. Having stops after intersections would reduce the right turning cars issue and I still don't see why buses can't just drive around parked/stopped vehicles. The bus stops also would then need way less width for standing passengers because they could be longer and skinny.

But ultimately if this is a substitute for expanding rapid transit it may be a waste of money. We don't need to spend millions rebuilding the medians on Ashland and creating overly wide, brightly painted bus lanes with giant warning signs about $200 violation fines etc. And really what I fear is coming will be just that - another way over budget transit fiasco.

Just take streets that it would work well on and designate some transit (Bus) lanes. You could allow right of way for necessary vehicles. This would go a long way to speeding up bus mass transit.

The solution is so easy but then again, that would be too easy to make any money off of - right?

I think moving the bus stops to the other side of the intersections is a good idea, also , get rid of parking on Ashland, (not a cheap or easy task i know) Have the buses stop a little less frequently , maybe ad another block between stops at least. These steps along should speed it up. But may still be expensive, no idea how much this would cost to buy out all those parking meters, thanks to that wonderfully thought out parking meter deal.

Real BRT is a package of improvements, not just dedicated lanes. Enclosed shelters, prepaid boarding, level boarding, rear-door boarding, high average speeds. All of those serve to make the bus experience more comfortable.

BRT has been an acceptable substitute for rapid transit in many Latin American cities, and while many of those are installed on Stony Island-esque speedways, some are quite similar to Ashland. It sucks major balls that we don't have the political will to pay for proper subway systems like European and Asian cities, but that's the situation.

^ Does the BRT plan involve completely occupying 3 lanes' worth of space (counting the planted median as a lane) in Ashland? How much of a speed/time sacrifice would result if you collapsed all the BRT real estate (northbound buses, southbound buses, and stations) into fewer lanes -- e.g. by having all buses run mostly in 1 lane with only occasional 2-lane passing areas? Cameras and other technology common in rail systems would help avert head on collisions.

The single-track rail systems you're referring to operate on hourly or half-hourly headways and run on a tight schedule. This works because rail lines are pretty insulated from sources of interference like traffic jams and pedestrians.

It does occur to me that every major intersection could still have at least one turn lane for either northbound or southbound traffic, opposite of the station. CTA could do surveys of the busiest left-turn movements to identify which ones to keep.

Ok. I see where you are on this. But will BRT be enough to lure people out of their cars and reduce city traffic and increase public transit use? It works well in South American cities with large working populations that are made up of people who don't have cars anyways - these are the folks taking these buses in Bogota - not middle class Chicagoans. And many of the buses there are for longer commutes from outlying areas into the city centers. European cities build more subways, elevated trains and street cars because the well off European city dweller demands it - not because they don't own cars - some do and still use public transit. The 2nd street subway in NYC - that is a real transit project. New light rail in LA even qualifies. But this in Chicago...

It sounds like this is just another idea floated that has found wings precisely because we won't be getting any real money for major transit innovation for a long time.

The 2nd Ave Subway is an effort closing in on 90 years old with only 1 of 4 phases is funded and under construction (and with the ESA hemorrhaging cash don't expect to seed it finished in my lifetime). I'd prefer not to use that as an example of successful transit planning.

A multitude of heavy rail transit expansions planned in this city over the recent decades have gone nowhere for either lack of money, political will, or both. Another dead end proposal isn't what the city needs. The city has a lot of transit bones between CTA rail and Metra already...connecting them in a useful fashion (with decent BRT) and zoning for real TOD lets the city leverage what it already has at realistic costs.

The Second Avenue Subway is a perfect example of why we can't really build more rail in Chicago. 90 years of planning, a constant and unceasing battle for funding, insane cost overruns, etc. Yet nobody denies it's a worthy project - the ridership on 2nd Ave will be comparable with the world's busiest subway lines.*

For everyone saying we should build a subway down Western instead, I agree - but I live in the real world. The only way a subway line is ever happening is if we tax all of Chicagoland to pay for it, in line with what LA did on Measure R, but pigs aren't flying yet so I don't hold out much hope.

The BRT proposal is realistic and achievable, and it will cause significant ridership gains while improving the usefulness of the rest of CTA's system. For the first time, I am pretty optimistic about the direction Chicago's taking with regards to TOD as well. The City Council and Mayor are now familiar with the concept, baby legislative steps have been taken, and even regular Chicagoans are starting to understand why density is important near L stations.



*= I suspect that many of these problems are inter-related - the lack of political will (nationally and on a state level) makes it difficult to find funding, while the relative scarcity of transit construction raises costs.

i agree with you so wholely on both points.

what bothers me, too, is that cities like the smaller san fran, and little ol' dc are kicking our darn butts. . .

here's a link sent to me by ardecila from another thread which is worth a review. it's a complilation of plans that never came to fruition, as well as reviewing transit in other cities:
http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20090416.php

what gives?

In those other Cities the idea and goal is to provide expansive, inclusive, and efficient Public Transportation.

In Chicago the idea and goal is [ P O L I T I C S ] to STUFF as much MONEY as you can into your Campaign Contributors Back Pockets.

But OF COURSE they have to make it SEEM like the Public is getting something for THEIR (the TAXPAYER'S) Money - like our Popular and Profitable Block 37 SuperStation.
Or the new CTA Green Line Cermak/McCormick Place Station, just West of the White Castle at Cermak & Wabash -- FOUR whole Blocks from the Great Hall: http://goo.gl/maps/jo2PS

I'm cautiously optimistic that the new Cermak station will be a success between the arena/hotels going in and the resurgence in residential construction.

and like less than 3 blocks from red line chinatown station. . .
what is the benefit compared to that expense?

Change of subject.

Could Chicago possibly implement something like the UP Express they're now building in Toronto? I just read about this project for the first time and it seems like an ideal model for how airport express trains could be implemented in the US. High points:

1. Ties into the commuter rail network
2. Involves a newly built but pretty short (3km) spur from an existing rail line to the airport
3. Uses DMUs
4. Station is directly adjacent to one of the terminals, and a people mover can be used to access the others
5. Trains run every 15 minutes
6. Excellent station facilities including platform screen doors

What are the main technical issues that would have to be overcome? Track capacity on the MD-W/NCS lines? Platform capacity at Union Station? Would nobody even use it since the Blue Line already exists and would no doubt be a cheaper ride?

Been riding the train lately... What are these new blue cars??? And how long have they been in service? I hated them at first, but they've grown on me, and now I kind of love them!

Could. Something similar was studied when the Daley administration was working on the airport express proposals. As I understand it, the engineers who ran the simulations discovered that service via the Blue Line would work almost as well.

I think there's certainly capacity available on the Milw-W. I personally think it might work better to extend a line from Bensenville yard north into O'Hare rather than use the CN (NCS) track, which CN would much rather use for freight trains. However, that would require tunneling under all those new east-west runways. Would the FAA require the entire line to be in tunnel?

In my opinion, the bigger challenge is at the downtown end. Union Station isn't convenient to CTA rail, to the office core, or to hotels. The beauty of the Block 37 scheme was that it reinforced the importance of the central Loop.

The first 5000s arrived in 2009 and went into service in 2010. Sometime last year they began arriving with blue plastic interiors. Of course, the change order I'm really waiting for is to go back to two-and-one transverse seating.

And of course Politics I G N O R E S the Metra Electric/Gray Line Station DIRECTLY ATTACHED to the Great Hall (like the Merchandise Mart Station).

This is the best point I think I've seen you make in favor of your Gray Line proposal. I think the Green Line Cermak Station will work well, but now that you mention it, would rather see that money go towards creating a new line on the south side that provides better service to major destinations like U of C and McCormick Place.

My one question about your proposal is how do you maximize the service radius of the hypothetical gray line? My one problem with the idea is that 50% of the radius is wasted on the park and lake. It is typically more efficient for a line to run a few blocks inland from the lake so you get as many people as possible within a 5-10 minute walk of the new line.

^ Between 26th and 47th Street, it's actually worse than that - you have to cross a fairly lengthy rail/undeveloped zone before you even get to any houses or stores. I think you just suck it up and decide that it's most useful for people who live further south, in Hyde Park, South Shore, South Chicago, and so on. I mean, it's actually not even that great for the University of Chicago - the main part of the campus is centered three-quarters of a mile away - but if the neighborhood continues to build up around 53rd and Lake Park, it could still be useful.

I don't think McCormick Place is really a major destination for transit. Trade show attendees are often transit-averse, don't need to have their trips subsidized, and seem to be pretty well served by the door-to-door hotel service that uses the busway.

You have a point that many shows are mainly out of towners and fewer of them tend to use transit. But at the same time, plenty of tourists in Chicago seem to have no problem using the Blue Line or Orange Line to get to their hotel which seems to be a function of the direct access from the airports to the L. So I think the same would apply to going from hotels downtown to McCormick Place, but only if it had direct access. I don't see many tourists walking from the hotel to the train then the train to McCormick Place if it isn't a direct connection.

Also, there are plenty of shows at McCormick Place that draw mainly a local audience. For example, the Auto Show alone would probably draw tens of thousands of rides a day when it is running.

You must remember that I am talking about using existing facilities (Not a new construction) -- so that die is already cast. South of Hyde Park the MED leaves the Lakefront for inland areas.

Again, nobody seems to think of providing Transit for all the 1,000's of people that WORK there (Hotel staff, Maintainence, Vendors, Tradesman, Security, Food Service, Set up and Tear down, etc., etc., etc....)

I used to service Typewriters and Copiers at McCormick Place for many years -- and I NEVER took Public Transit (who wants to wait an hour and 10 minutes for a CTA Bus).

Even though parking was/is an EXPENSIVE NIGHTMARE there, it was WAY better than standing and waiting for a Bus that NEVER comes (you finally get sick of waiting and end up calling a Taxi).

do you have any info on usage of the mccormick place station today? personally, when i lived in the s.chgo community yrs ago i had never, nor did anyone i know, ever consider commuting to downtown on metra. the station was not that far off, but taking a bus to nearest cta sta. was always the way.

i support the gray line theory, but politics aside, could some marketing and scheduling frequency boost the metra electric ridership without a full transition to a gray line?

McCormick Place station had 137 boardings per day in the 2006 count. About 4300 jobs are located within a half mile.

CTA operates special express bus service from the Metra terminals for the Auto Show, and ridership must run into the dozens.

Again, because getting there is so miserable on transit. Who is going to take a Metra from Millennium Station to McCormick Place when trains are operating at 15 minute headways at best and usually more like 20-25 min headways? Hell, I could walk to McCormick Place faster than most Metra Trains could get me there...

Same goes with special express bus service, of course no one uses a service that only exists a few days a year. Part of the benefit of heavy rail stations is permanence. If you always know you can get frequent, fast, reliable service on transit to a location, then you are exponentially more likely to use transit to go to that location. The services you describe are literally the opposite, slow, infrequent, and, in the case of the buses, completely fleeting in their existence. How can you expect high ridership on transit that is a complete mess. I am willing to bet the Cermak Green Station will quickly move into the top 20% or so of L stations immediately upon opening simply because it offers a reasonable option to get to McCormick Place without guessing whether or not the magic express bus will show up or having to try to find out where the temporary station is. However, I am willing to bet a Gray Line CTA station at McCormick Place would rank in the top 10-15 busiest stations with ease.

Hmmm. If we're placing bets, I will predict that, in its third year of operation, Cermak Green Line will be right around 120th of CTA's 166 stations in number of boardings.

As for McCormick Place service, when was the last time you or one of your friends actually went there? Just because there are a lot of people inside the building on certain days doesn't mean it's a big destination for public transit. The vast majority of the visitors are from out of town or the suburbs, traveling on expense accounts. You could run a shuttle every 10 minutes from Millennium and they still wouldn't find it more convenient or attractive than driving or being shuttled in special buses directly from their hotels.

McCormick Place/DePaul Arena would be ONE stop along the entire 25 mile 40 station line -- the entire Red Line operation is not based on ridership to Addison for Wrigley Field -- is it?

Again, you do all realize that there are THOUSANDS of people WORKING at McCormick Place year round, even when there are NO events happening at the time. Do they count at all?? Because right now N O B O D Y seems to be considering THEM at all -- and that is a BIG PART of why I am so O B S E S S E D with this thing.

Just like N O B O D Y is considering Delivery Truck Drivers in that Ashland Ave. BRT Project: "That's just too effin' bad about you getting all those traffic tickets dude!
But in all actuality - You D O N ' T count AT ALL anyway - Sorry Pawn."

OR am I misinterpreting something about that Project??

I think this is a narrow view of the goal of putting a station there. There will be an arena being installed in the area and more hotels, a transit stop would benefit that type of development and an arena is likely to spur ridership.

oh...I see this was covered already

on the metra electric, my thought is that maybe upgrade of stations, the integration of ventra pre-paid boarding, extending cta busses to all those lakefront stations, and maybe a distance-based type fares system would increase ridership within the city limits. or, am i just re-defining the gray line proposal?

Oh jeeze. Really dude? The BRT lanes are going to be in the middle of the road, the trucks won't be blocking that. Also, if you are a delivery truck driver and you can't be bothered to pull onto the nearest side street to stop and unload then you are not doing your job. You make it seem like there are no other examples of two traffic lane arterial streets in Chicago where delivery truck drivers don't just get wantonly ticketed.

Hint, there are far more commercial corridors in this city with two traffic lanes than commercial corridors with four traffic lanes and the delivery drivers do just damn fine on those streets. I live off one of those two lane commercial corridors and the truck drivers have absolutely no qualms about driving down my side street with a full sized liquor semi and blocking half my street while they unload. I am sure they will have no problem doing the same to unload along Ashland.

Traffic rules change and everyone should be expected to abide by them. If delivery drivers get ticketed on Ashland it is because they are obstinate assholes who refuse to adapt their behavior to follow the new rules. Just as the idiot delivery drivers who block the Clark St bike lanes should get the shit ticketed out of them.

Lol, I am going to enjoy rubbing it in your face later when you are completely wrong. You can't seriously believe the Cermak Green Line station will only have 1,500-2,000 boardings a day and rank with the likes of Jarvis Red Line and Austin Green Line...

The Cermak station will easily be in the top third of all stations and probably in the top 20%.

Probably true for the 3rd year in operation. But clearly this investment is being made with future population growth in mind. In the next 20 years, I bet this station will see some of the highest growth rates in ridership in the city

Agreed. Cermak is on the vanguard of South Loop growth and new additions like the arena and the Motor Row entertainment district will bring more than just conventioneers. Remember that the Cermak station came out of a CTA study on responding to South Loop residential growth.

Also, the Green Line generally has a positive outlook because of office and residential development at Near South/Near West stations.

Which has been a real disaster.

Until this country is able to manage the costs (and construction time frame) associated to rail mass transit we will be forced to experiment with BRT, bus management, lane management, and bicycle system upgrades. Urban heavy rail at $200million/mile (Spanish subway construction) is a good investment... at $1.5billion/mile (2nd Ave, 7 extension) it is a fiscal nightmare.

The entire 25 mile 40 station Gray Line system would cost between $200-$250million TOTAL CAPITAL COST! (the Gray Line trains are operating RIGHT NOW -- every day).

That is $5million/mile (The problem is that there are NO B I L L I O N S OF DOLLARS involved to shove into Campaign Contributors Pockets -- and so it is N O T a viable option).

Please read Pages 13 through 20 -- Then you can come back and say that the Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality Commission, and the Center for Neighborhood Technology (AND their recommendations) are M E A N I N G L E S S : https://app.box.com/CTA-Gray-Line

Are you saying run existing Metra trains with more frequency or install a third rail and run CTA trains?

Keep in mind, according to CTA Gray Line, this $200 million (low-end estimate) is to benefit the approximately 100 people who transfer from the Metra Electric to the Red Line. This project will save them the $4.50 a day it costs to transfer systems.

The Gray Line would utilize the new Nippon-Sanyo Highliner II's -- modified for Rapid Transit services: http://www.grayline.20m.com/photo3.html -- NOT CTA 'L' cars.

Operate the in-city MED services at the same frequency as the Red, Blue, Green, Orange, etc., 'L' lines. Install new Ventra TVM's and Turnstyles at the in-city MED stations
(NO on-board fare collection).

FLAT FARE same as other CTA 'L' lines (NOT distance based). No need now for Metra to be paid to operate the service, as the Ventra equipment could now distribute the funds collected from riders directly to the Operator (CTA or Metra). Pass usage could be calculated to distribute funds evenly.

Everyone understands "Branding", try calling your restaurant "McBill's"! Kool cigarettes, and Target are Brands. People move next to the "Red Line", or the "Brown Line"

The "Gray Line" would be part of the CTA 'L' system just like any other 'L' line (but operated with different type equipment - like in many cities). The in-city MED routes do NOTHING at present for the in-city South Side communities that they pass through: http://www.grayline.20m.com/cgi-bin/...ns_med_map.jpg

What in the World are you talking about?? Explain this in detail, and post a link to where you got it from: (link)

It's difficult to search because of your strange typing, but one of the threads starts here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=7616

This isn't my harebrained idea, it's yours. You can't show that it would improve the lives of the small number of people who don't mind paying a transfer fee from one system to another. When Metra adopts Ventra, it won't even require two payment systems.

I don't oppose the idea, I think the $200 million (low end) cost would be better used improving bus service, or building infill stations.

I don't know how you missed my website, but what does Providing CTA 'L' service TO and BETWEEN the University of Chicago, Chicago State University, the Ford Plant on Torrence, Altgeld Gardens, the Museum of Science & Industry, Downtown Blue Island, the South Shore Cultural Center, and the new Pullman National Park (all way out on the South Side), have to do with people transfering downtown?

That was a description of O N E example -- from one location, of the difficulties working with the present system -- and only from that one location (where I used to live) -- Not the entire 25 mile system.


btw: Thanks so much for your Shitty "harebrained" crack.

Metra already provides that service. You just want to change the name and increase the amount of trains.

How can you install turnstiles and Ventra card readers on the Metra Electric when it shares track and platforms with the South Shore from Hyde Park north to downtown?

Also, I think that increased service (and a renovated platform) at the 18th street station would be more beneficial than increased service at McCormick Place. As is, I think 18th is a flag stop but some trains wont even stop at all. Users are closer to more possible attractions vs. McCormick Place.

^ South Shore trains only stop at a handful of stations on the MED main line. Keep South Shore trains on the outer tracks with suburban-bound Metra service and reserve the inner tracks for CTA service.

It doesn't matter that they call at the same stations; it's possible to design a ticketing system using either proof-of-payment or turnstiles that accommodates three kinds of service. The fare structure would need to reflect this as well, so a rider could take any type of train from 57th to Millennium and still only pay $2.25.

Metra provides infrequently scheduled, distanced-based fare, suburban commuter-type service to those locations. Nothing even vaugely like CTA 'L' service.

And with no fare coordination with CTA, it runs empty trains to empty stations except in rush houre; it also provides NO economic benefits of any type to the communities it passes through: http://www.grayline.20m.com/cgi-bin/...ns_med_map.jpg

Boston's 'T' runs third-rail trains on it's Orange and Red Lines (different RT rolling stock on each: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO5xY4thMdg ), dual third-rail and overhead trains on their Blue Line (a third RT stock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7hRpago1-8 ), and trolleys on their light-rail Green Line system -- All a part of the 'T'.
Why can't we have a part of the 'L' with a different type rolling stock -- the Green Line trolleys are certainly incompatable with 'T' Orange, Red, and Blue Line trains.

I just found this from the past on the net, and I guess it is part of what me made me imagine this might work: http://www.hydepark.org/transit/sharedpath2030.htm http://www.hydepark.org/transit/graylinetext.htm

About the track usage, you are exactly correct. But I have a way of SS and MED UP trains never using the same plarforms as Gray Line trains; I will post more soon - as I am at work now and must tend to my duties.