Yes, we all saw how tolerant the Brown Line rehabs were to Chicago's climate...

Giving a beautifully designed station to the CTA is like giving a Tiffany lamp to a toddler I'm afraid. It's only a matter of time before they do something to break it...

Apples and oranges. The Brown Line project went through numerous rounds of value-engineering to meet Federal cost-effectiveness guidelines. The wood platforms are part of a whole other issue that affects the use of wood in general; weatherproofing must be combined with fireproofing to meet current building codes, but no good chemicals exist to do this, especially for high-traffic environments like a station platform.

The Morgan station, since it was funded individually, had much less pressure to value-engineer, and no obligation to use delicate materials like wood or tile for historic appearance. Platforms are precast concrete and it looks like most exposed surfaces inside the station are simply white-painted steel, which can always be sanded and painted back to a good appearance even if it rusts.

The only problem is where the stationhouses meet the ground. Since the Green Line shuts down at night, and the stationhouses sit right out in the street, they present a prime opportunity for vandals.

Wow! Looking great! Is they will built new elevator or escalator? What about bridge? Will they go other side?

Man, stuff like this makes new station ribbon-cutting a destination event. (The way it should be.) How soon before the public can drink it in?

A rumor has begun to make the rounds saying that the CTA is planning for a 5 month shutdown of the Dan Ryan Red Line starting in the spring of 2013 for a complete track rebuild. Southbound Red Line trains from Roosevelt would be routed via the 13th street incline to the South Side Elevated where they would continue to Ashland/63rd, where shuttles would be stationed for travelers to further South Red Line stations.

From Chicagobus.org:


Again, just a rumor at this point, but a potentially huge system alteration. It is even briefly addressed in a recent CTA presentation http://chichapter.cmaanet.org/files/...esentation.pdf ...these specifics are not mentioned, but the rebuild is stated to occur over a single construction season and to have the largest customer impact in CTA history.

The Morgan Station looks excellent. I am critical though of the materials the CTA has been using in their stations.

Polycarbonate roofing panels? Collect dirt and not UV resistant, they will discolor and look grimy after awhile.

Steel mesh? Well, this would be ok except they tend to overlay them overtop of a solid material. Have fun cleaning all the debris out that gets caught behind. Don't know what I'm talking about? Check out the stairways at Belmont and Fullerton Stations.

More heavy duty aluminum. Steel will rust after awhile, and the CTA just can't afford expensive stainless components. The downside of aluminum is strength, and you usually need to beef up column posts, railings, mullions, etc to achieve similar rigidity and strength and steel. The plus side is it won't rust. Using a ton of steel wouldn't be an issue for the CTA if they paint at the first signs of rust showing through. But proactive maintenance shouldn't be expected.

Non scratch / graffiti resistant materials. It should go without saying that any and every material in the station should be able to clean up nice with water pressure only slightly greater than a garden hose. Going back to those metal perforated railings and walls.......You get permanent marker or spray paint on those, and they are done....unless you dismantle them and ship them out for cleaning and recoat.

^ Location matters too. When it comes to graffiti resistance, you're really only concerned about the materials that are accessible from public spaces. Presumably in a transit station, would-be vandals can't be climbing up to reach far-off surfaces, since there are too many people passing through. The biggest concern is at platform level and along the stairs/elevator, and it looks like the materials in those areas are pretty resilient.

I can't really tell from the photos how Ross Barney is detailing the Morgan station, so I'll reserve judgment on its durability for now. It does look beautiful, for the moment.

Hmm... this won't be popular. There are several big issues with this plan. First, the South Main has far more stations than the Dan Ryan Branch, and several tight curves. The Red Line (scheduled) can go from 35th to 95th in 20 minutes. The Green Line takes 18 minutes to only go as far south as 63rd.

Plus, most riders at the Dan Ryan stations are already transferring from a bus... density around stations is pretty low. So now CTA will require all these passengers to make a second transfer? That seems awfully onerous. I like Rahm's transit-first agenda but him and Claypool see this is simply the cheapest, fastest solution to a physical problem without thought of the impact on riders. Suffice it to say that this would never even be possible on the North Side.

There are things CTA could do to mitigate the damage, though. Take all the buses that currently terminate at 95th/79th and extend them, non-stop, up to temporary bus terminals at Halsted/63rd and King. Work with Metra to add more service to Gresham on the Rock Island.

That's a bit of hyperbole I think. Certainly shutting down the entire Green Line for two years counts as a bigger customer impact than shutting down the Dan Ryan branch for 5 months.

Also, if they're going to shut down the Dan Ryan branch for 5 months, seems like they should fast-track getting the Green Line Cermak station built.

In the PDF that was linked to, there was mention of work on the Kinzie/Hubbard curves - what sort of work is slated there - anyone know? Just track renewal or something bigger?

The Red and Blue lines parallel the Green Line for its entire length, though—there’d probably be another transfer involved from Red Line substitute buses running from the station locations to 63rd & Hasted via State, Wentworth, Wells and LaSalle, and I’d suspect a number of people would also switch to taking the Ashland, Halsted, State King and Cottage Grove buses to the Green Line. There are alternatives, but none of them great.

Also, I’m curious whether how well buses could substitute for the Red Line. Given the way the current Red Line stations are set up and the fact that the roads directly paralleling Dan Ryan are one-way, it would be pretty convoluted to have the substitute buses run stop at each station—I’d guess they’d go directly from the existing station (which would serve as a transfer point for crossing buses) directly to 63rd/Halsted, with people who use the Red Line for crosstown trips will just have to use the nearest crosstown regular-stop line.

Alternatively, they could just beef up the 29 and have some of them terminate at 63rd/Halsted.

No, I really think all locations need to be considered. I don't believe the stations are monitored as well as people think. I mean look at this:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6...27becd7f_z.jpg

Cleaning it off a sign on the platform is easy, but over tracks? Now they must retrieve a track maintenance vehicle and temporarily halt service to remove or clean the sign. Or they could use graffiti resistant glazed surfaces and take a hose to it from the platforms.

Theoretically, Chicago's a grid, which means there are always at least two paths for any diagonal trip. So somebody living at 79th/Western could take the Western bus to the Orange Line instead of the 79th bus to the Red Line. This strategy should work for anybody between 63rd/95th (if you live near Ashland or east, you just go north to the Green Line). North of 63rd, riders can continue to ride east/west to the Green Line.

South of 95th, most bus routes are designed to fan out from the 95th terminal. Extending these nonstop up to 63rd/Halsted or King solves this. You can supplement this with a temporary, local State/Lafayette shuttle that duplicates the lost Red Line service, for those few people with origins/destinations that are actually near the stations.

I'm a little steamed at the callousness and hypocrisy of this move, though. As I said, it would never fly up on the North Side, and it smacks of Rahm's skewed vision of the city. Here's hoping CTA at least puts out a thoughtful and well-designed ad campaign to get people to alter their habits and find new routes. Interestingly, this might even fix the ridership imbalance between the Green/Red Lines that has persisted since the Green Line's closure.

There is such a glazing? Incidentally I am in whole hearted agreement with you.

I thought they just re did all the tracks south on the redline a few years ago?

There's all kinds of finishes, but to keep it simple I'd spec a clear neoparies surface and put any signage behind it. It's also good in that it can withstand equipment ramming against it.

Dan Ryan branch ridership ...
as % of total Red Line: 20%
as % compared to North Side: 41%

% Dan Ryan ridership change 2010-2011: -0.0%
% North Side ridership change 2010-2011: 5.4%

Total North Side ridership Red/Brown: 47.2 million in 31 stations (includes Grand, Chicago, Division and North/Clybourn)

Total South Side ridership Red/Green: 25.5 million in in 24 stations (includes Roosevelt and Harrison)

South Side service length: 13.5 miles (length of Red from Harrison plus 63/Ashland to 63/Cottage Grove)

North Side service length: 14.5 (length of Red from Grand plus Brown from Belmont)

They're comparable in service area and number of stations. But the North Side has nearly twice as many riders. The North Red is growing. The South Red is barely holding steady despite the South Green growing.

The CTA wants to fix the problems that are causing stagnant ridership on the Red Line, and they can do it a lot faster if they just shut it down. I bet once they're done we see double-digit increases in year-over-year ridership the first two years after they're done. And I bet the Green Line keeps a good chunk of the ridership it gets from it.

And they're prioritizing this project, on a line with much lower ridership and no growth, ahead of the North modernization project, which has fast-growing ridership.

So don't spout off bullcrap that the CTA is somehow hypocritical for putting repairs on a lower-ridership, zero-growth, much more-recently constructed line ahead of a high-growth, high-ridership, much older line. If anything, prioritizing this Red Line project over the high-growth, older, more used North Red/Purple Modernization project is skewed and plainly politically motivated.

The reality is that in the end, as long as both happen, none of us have anything to complain about and the city will be better off. So there's no reason to sow discord and make petty whines about how the CTA plans to address the serious issues that have accumulated over the years.

Hear, Hear!! Well said. Cynicism is seemingly so endemic in today's discourse that the facts don't seem to matter. A reasonable decision cannot simply be that; a reasonable decision among alternative; no; there must be some ulterior pernicious motive. It is tiresome.

That was electrical systems, signals and stations.

The thing that’s causing declining ridership on the Red Line is declining population on the south side, and less employment concentration for south siders downtown. It’s also worth remembering that, in general, the south siders are more transit-dependent than north-siders, and for those who take long trips switching to all-bus commutes is going to be a major hassle.

The north side is getting some short-term improvements, and that the scale needed for the RPMP is <i>much</i> bigger (and much less funded) than this one. I would have accepted this argument when they were rehabbing the Douglas branch, but now it’s not quite comparable here.

And before we get two carried away, the shut-down’s just a rumor. I’d personally prefer a longer maintenance period if it means less disruption to commutes. I think that a shut-down should only be considered if the repairs are projected to slow (or impair capacity) on the Red Line to such a degree that switching to crosstowns becomes an attractive option for riders.

I don't think there's an "ulterior pernicious motive". Nobody's trying to keep the South Side down. I do think that such decisions are the product of a CTA management culture that sees the community as an obstacle to progress, instead of the very core of progress. I understand the frustration of mounting budgets and the unpleasant prospect of endless construction, but I would think long and hard before doing something that would so dramatically affect the daily lives of 50000 people.

We can't claim to promote a transit-oriented lifestyle while simultaneously making transit shittier for the city's most transit-oriented residents, the ones who can't afford other options.

No, there was some track renewal as well, north of 47th IIRC. I believe the real issue is the underground drainage system, which needs to be rebuilt along the entire length of the Dan Ryan segment.

Design must be on the agenda as Chicago embarks upon infrastructure improvement plan


March 07, 2012

By BLAIR KAMIN

Read More: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....ent-plan-.html




http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....f6b3970b-800wi




http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....3852970b-800wi




http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....714e970d-800wi

But the Jeffery BRT is on a two lane street and the BRT takes away a traffic lane leaving only one lane for automobiles. Who is going to patrol that rush hour only lane and ticket overtime parkers?? On the southside, all our police officers are needed to answer calls. We don't have cops hiding behind stop signs waiting for traffic violaters. How will autos making right hand turns impede BRT when pedestrians are crossing at crosswalks. Are bicycles permitted on Jeffery during BRT hours? Why not put BRT 1/2 mile west on Stony Island that has five and six lanes in each direction? Do you get the opinion that I think BRT on a narrow street like Jeffery stinks??

DH

Just as soon as they make an initial Public announcement about this, I will start handing out thousands of fliers promoting the Gray Line as an existing rail alternative during the Red Line reconstruction: http://grayline.20m.com/cgi-bin/i/im...lier_front.jpg http://grayline.20m.com/cgi-bin/i/im...flier_rear.jpg

Mike, I think your handout makes it seem that the CTA already has a Gray Line. There's not enough distinction that the Gray Line is a proposal, and not an actual CTA route already in existance. They are probably gonna ask for a cease and desist order. You might want to consisder clarifying the two spheres you're advocating.....ride MED, now, in place of the Red line construction and pressure the pols and transit agencies to adopt your Gray line proposal.

David Harrison

http://chichapter.cmaanet.org/files/...esentation.pdf

The photo here labeled "Hubbard Curve" is looking south on Wells St. at Van Buren.

I wish they would, think of the publicity!! Also at the bottom of each flier it clearly states "Not affiliated with CTA or Metra".

And as I said, I won't do anything until they make a public announcement - then "all bets are off".

This is somewhat of a random question. I have recently noticed that traffic lights around my house have what I perceived to be a longer time when all four ways have red lights and pedestrians have white lights prior to switching over to parallel green/white lights. I can now often times walk half way into the intersection before the red changes to green.

Now I am perfectly willing to concede that I may be going crazy and this is how it always was but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this or if this was a new policy?

^^^ You're not imagining things. These are called leading pedestrian intervals, and they're put in place to increase pedestrian safety at intersections. Since the walk signal is given to peds before the green light is given to cars, the thought is that people will be in the intersection before a car tries a quick turn.

This was one of the things Gabe Klein mentioned as a priority when he arrived in Chicago (see here), so I'm glad to see them going in. Like you, I feel like I see more and more of them each week. Would be interesting to know how many intersections have received this treatment at this point.

On the south side of Fort Dearborn Station post office, in Grand Avenue just opposite an Indian restaurant, there is a pothole revealing (easily to any driver at 30mph) transit rail underneath. I think I remember seeing the same in Grand Avenue several years back before a full resurfacing. How long ago was there rail service there, and I wonder why those are still in there?

This may not be the best thread for this question, but the transit nerd quotient is higher here...

Grand AV was converted to trolley bus on Monday, Dec. 16, 1951 from Nordica to Navy Pier according to my copy of "Chronological Order of Service Changes" published by the CTA. In times of steel shortages, the streetcar tracks might have been pulled up for salvage. but otherwise they were just paved over, except beneath viaducts.

David Harrison

Those are probably the streetcar tracks for the Grand Avenue line (#65). Apparently it was switched to trolleybuses in 1951 and then de-electrified in 1973.

The Grand Avenue line was a neat one... it used to enter the terminal buildings at Navy Pier and run out to the ballroom on a trestle.

Generally, many streets still have the tracks remaining beneath the asphalt. If the original cobblestone paving was in good condition, it was far easier and cheaper to use that as a substrate for asphalt rather than ripping out the cobbles and the rails to put in crushed limestone.

In the trolleybus era:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3331/3...346fa8f8_z.jpg
source

I've seen tracks under Wells, Madison, Irving Park, Grand, just about any street that had streetcar service and has had serious reconstruction. Not only that, but the cobblestone under the asphalt would likely be far more durable. I wonder how much money has been wasted putting asphalt over cobblestone.

Looking for ideas
 

I'm taking a class emphasizing visualization of data, and for one of the projects I want to do some work with the CTA's per-station ridership data from about 2000-2011. The instructors want the visualization to include a number of interactive features. I could add additional data to the visualization to make it more interesting, but I'm wondering if any of you could suggest things you'd like to be able to do with an application that can manipulate ridership (or other, and if other, what) data in real time to display it in some sort of visual form.

So far, I'm thinking of makings 'L' lines different thicknesses based on date ranges, and stations different dot sizes based on ridership in a given date range.

Anyone else have ideas on how they might like to see ridership data displayed in a way that can be adjusted in real time beyond just date ranges?

I'll post the result there at the end of the semester (early May), especially if I get good ideas from any of you. Post here or even PM me if you don't want to post publicly for some reason.

The CTA's tricky to map because of the geography of the system, which is extremely sparse at the outer edges of the city and extremely dense at the core.

Before you do anything, it makes sense to consider the question of whether it makes sense to start from a geographical map or a topological one (distorted and not to scale, but shows relationships within the system). Chicago's maps are mostly geographical, while DC's are topological.

The problems with a geographical map could be numerous. For example, if you put a huge dot at Belmont to denote its high ridership, you can't put a correspondingly large dot at Clark/Lake because the dot would obstruct other lines and stations. Traditionally, CTA's solved this by doing an inset at a larger scale to show downtown, but I think this is clumsy for the kind of diagramming you want to do. On the other hand, if station spacing is information you want to include in the diagram, then the map needs to have at least some geographical aspects.

Thank you for the input. I plan to address those by making the map big enough that I can keep the size scales from interfereing with each other, and probably making it zoomable.

Did you perhaps have any suggestions on data relationships that might be interesting to see? It could even require the incusion of additional data sets, so don't feel limited by only ridership data.

Well, I've always wanted to map employment density against CTA service, but the data sets are limited. We have a state dataset called Where Workers Work that's by ZIP code, and there's the census transportation package, which is by tract but can be (I hear) hard to work with.

We think transit ridership varies directly with employment, but it would be interesting to see how closely the two trend lines match over a 30-year period.

FWIW, I'm the designer of the CTA map, both the big folded system map and the diagrammatic rail map that CTA uses with a Loop inset. I have a version that I use for other clients where it's all one diagram (no inset) but it's very tight in the center.

It would be nice to have the chronological record of surface system service changes mentioned above by David, but that's a huge GIS data input exercise rather than a data viz project. Slightly easier would be the rapid transit lines only, as in this map I did for the Encyclopedia of Chicago.

I simplified the Grand AV change. It actually went from streetcar to bus to trolley bus. I guess they used buses while they made changes to the overhead trolley wires. Plus there was a bus substitution on weekends, with streetcars on weekdays.

Under "streetcar abandonment"
Dec. 04, 1949 Buses on weekends
Apr 01, 1951 Streetcars discontinued

The trolley bus conversion was in anther section...."chronological...."

It would be quite complicated to map out. An "L" comparison would be trying to map out the equipment changes on a particular "L" line including when the line went from wood/steel cars to all metal and then to high performance cars.

Mr. Downtown...excellent map by the way.

David Harrison

Thanks for the history guys.

Mr Downtown, that Encyclopedia map could use some refreshing (Paulina Connector partial revivification, etc.); I guess you just have to wait until they call upon you for updating? Or is the Encyclopedia is not intended to be updated until the print edition is?

Yeah, that map gives the impression that the segment between Lake and Milwaukee is still intact. If only it were...

Unfortunately, that's a very good question. Jim Grossman, who led the project at the Newberry Library, is now in Washington, and the woman who had charge of the electronic edition was laid off by CHS three years ago. So someone new will probably have to apply for some grant money and go through a whole process that may or may not end up hiring me. I've offered to change most of the maps to color, and update a few, for a couple hundred dollars, but nothing came of it. Obviously they also need to update the web viewer now that some people use monitors bigger than 640 x 480.

Here's a shot of Milwaukee Avenue's old pavement & streetcar rails:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paytonc/2076881564/
To pre-emptively answer the inevitable question, you can tell that the old streetcar rails are in awful shape and would be nearly impossible to excavate.

As much as we might complain about asphalt, it's much smoother than stones. You can blame us cyclists for encouraging the switch.

Metra adds ticket vending machines at downtown Chicago stations
 

http://www.progressiverailroading.co...ations--30259#

Metra recently installed credit card ticket vending machines at three downtown Chicago terminals.

Three machines were installed at Union Station, two at the Ogilvie Transportation Center and two at LaSalle Street Station. The commuter-rail agency already employs 31 credit card vending machines at the busiest stations on the Metra Electric Line, including that line’s two downtown stations, Millennium and Van Buren.

This spring, Metra plans to install additional machines at the McCormick Place and Route 59 stations. The agency has purchased 43 machines, which cost about $2 million.

Passengers can use the machines to purchase one-way, 10-ride and monthly tickets.

^ $2million/43 = over $46,000 per machine.

Damn, taxpayers! Whodathunk I was in the wrong line of work? A friggin vending machine costs more than a BMW!

Even if that includes installation with electrical work and pulling in networking, that seems awfully high.

A casino-quality slot machine costs about $10,000 - why would a machine with fewer moving parts need to cost 4.5 times as much?

^ Because taxpayers are paying.

Clearly there is somebody who is well-connected getting this contract. Illinois is disgusting

It doesn't seem too far off, especially if installation costs are included. Comparable prices for full service transit vending machines that handle cash can hit upwards of $100k even before installation. This pricing is not unique to Illinois or Chicago.

e.g. 15 seconds of googling finds this story of approx $60k/machine in 1999 for MetroCard machines in NYC.
http://www.voy.com/125692/6/1124.html

I don't have a link handy but I believe Vancouver Translink paid well above $100k/machine to outfit the Canada Line.

A slot machine sits in an insanely well-supervised area where any troublemakers are escorted out. They also perform only one function.

A transit-card vending machine has numerous functions, a touch screen, internal computer, cashbox, and it all has to withstand the onslaught of teenage vandals and still work after 20 years.

I don't know if that all adds up to $43k, but it seems like a TVM has far more worth to a transit agency than a singular slot machine does to a casino, and the prices reflect this.

I just hope the machines do in fact live up to the cost. Gotta love getting on at Clark and Division when not a single fare machine is working.

In the past, I've used the TAZ data for these types of comparisons...yes...it's definitely quite the exercise. Now that I'm in the A&E Industry it's behind me, lol.

I don't know if this is appropriate, it was done in 2001/2002 by then NIPC:

http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!B6!...oymentCenters/

CTA 'L' Trends
 

Here's some mid-term growth statistics for the CTA 'L' lines.

Total System Ridership Numbers calculated from branch numbers (instead of taking the CTA's official system-wide numbers). The CTA's earlier years' numbers seem to have either zero or far fewer cross-platform numbers in the official system-wide totals. Indeed, in 2011, cross-platform transfers inflate the ridership numbers by 17.5% as compared to station entrance figures. Adding up by line gives a better comparison across years.

System Total
2000: 147,194,341
2010: 173,561,960
2011: 182,212,627 (up 5.0% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 23.8%

Some on this forum have posited that the City couldn't have lost as many people as the Census said we did because ridership is up so much. However, the majority of the losses were on the South Side, and if you look at the numbers for closely, it certainly seems plausible that the South Side did, unfortunately, lose as many people as the Census claims.
North Side

Blue Line O'Hare Branch **
2000: 19,336,087
2010: 21,892,551
2011: 23,577,843 (up 7.7% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 21.9%

Brown Line
2000: 12,875,518
2010: 16,294,400
2011: 17,529,237 (up 7.6% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 36.1%

Red Line North Main
2000: 32,070,998
2010: 38,772,384
2011: 40,856,785 (up 5.4% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 27.4%

Purple Line Evanston
2000: 2,959,272
2010: 3,155,103
2011: 3,236,061 (up 2.6% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 9.4%

Yellow Line
2000: 664,634
2010: 780,454
2011: 787,208 (up 0.9% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 18.4%

TOTAL NORTH SIDE
2000: 67,906,509
2010: 80,894,892
2011: 85,987,134 (up 6.3% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 26.6%

West Side

Green Line Lake
2000: 5,659,662
2010: 7,992,036
2011: 8,160,292 (up 2.1% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 44.2%

Blue Line Forest Park
2000: 6,624,052 (Congress Branch)
2010: 8,468,092
2011: 9,196,945 (up 8.6% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 38.8%

Pink Line
2000: 2,483,418 (Douglas Branch, Blue Line)
2010: 4,560,865
2011: 4,823,666 (up 5.8% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 94.2%

TOTAL WEST SIDE
2000: 14,767,132
2010: 21,020,993
2011: 22,180,903 (up 5.5% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 50.2%

South Side

Green Line South (including both branches)
2000: 3,351,374
2010: 3,689,060
2011: 3,837,669 (up 4.0% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 14.5%

Red Line Dan Ryan
2000: 16,512,340
2010: 16,705,352
2011: 16,700,120 (down -0.0% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 1.1%

Orange Line
2000: 8,080,569
2010: 7,851,925
2011: 8,222,990 (up 4.7% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 1.8%

TOTAL SOUTH SIDE
2000: 27,944,283
2010: 28,246,337
2011: 28,760,779 (up 1.8% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 2.9%

Central Area ***

Red Line subway
2000: 12,970,398
2010: 16,413,998
2011: 16,839,383 (up 2.6% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 29.8%

Blue Line subway
2000: 6,782,031
2010: 6,995,366
2011: 7,547,816 (up 7.9% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 11.3%

Loop
2000: 16,823,988
2010: 19,990,374
2011: 20,896,612 (up 4.5% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 24.2%

TOTAL CENTRAL AREA
2000: 36,576,417
2010: 43,399,738
2011: 45,283,811 (up 4.3% vs 2010)
Increase 2000-2011 23.8%

** I'm including the O'Hare branch in the North Side instead of the West Side because it, for the most part, is ridden by people who fit the demographics of the North Side than the rest of the West Side. Even if it were included in the West Side instead of the North Side numbers, though, the North Side would still have far more total ridership than any other side.

*** Using the name "Central Area" is a little misleading. A more rigorous accounting would account for the ridership for all stations within the Central Area, for example moving the Chicago Brown Line numbers from the North Side to the Central Area, and moving the Division Blue Line numbers from the Central Area to the O'Hare Branch. However as shorthand I've just incldued all subway numbers and Loop numbers as Central Area and all other numbers as part of the line they're on. If anyone else wants to make those adjustments, feel free.

Fascinating. Can you break the West Side lines down by station and pinpoint where the ridership growth is occurring?

For example - is the Pink Line growth due to an increase in frequency (ridership gains would be consistent across the line) or due to localized population growth? Frequency improvements make the most sense to me, but those wouldn't explain the growth on the Green Line. I suppose the creation of the Pink Line modestly improved frequency on the Forest Park branch, but not by much.