As I understand it, the two advantages of light rail are the ability to cross roads at grade/run in mixed traffic, and the benefits of having a lighter vehicle: easier acceleration using less energy, saving on operating costs. The greater acceleration/deceleration also allows for steeper grades and sharper curves along the alignment, so less earthmoving and land acquisition is required, even if you want full grade separation. I also believe the power (usually overhead wire) and the signaling systems are less complex and less costly.

I mentioned above that the operating costs of light rail were reduced vs. heavy rail. This is per train. In real life, the operating costs per passenger are usually higher than heavy rail, since light rail trains hold fewer passengers. But if the expected traffic isn't enough to fill up a heavy rail train, it's a moot point. Chicago's L trains also use the most energy per passenger of any North American heavy rail system. Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope speculates that this is because CTA's L cars are so short that they don't hold enough passengers to justify the weight they displace.

For an example of a light-rail system that has heavy-rail characteristics, look no further than downstate: St. Louis' Metrolink is a pretty high-level system. There are only 10 or 12 grade crossings on the Missouri side, with extremely wide-radius curves wherever possible.

kWh/passenger-mile, Chicago L: 0.373
kWh/passenger-mile, St. Louis Metrolink: 0.279

In other words, Chicago's system uses 34% more energy to move somebody one mile than St. Louis' system does. You'd need proper speed data to get a good picture, though, which I couldn't find.

Other examples of high-level light rail systems are the LA, Denver, and Seattle systems. The planned Honolulu line, in fact, will be totally grade-separated.

Here's a different link:
http://www.zshare.net/download/75605838dc87323c/ (it's a PDF)

LUMC isn't near the Ike. You'd still need to catch a shuttle or bus even if the Blue Line were extended to 1st Ave.

If the goal is to provide service to LUMC through a massive pie-in-the-sky rail project, you might as well extend the Pink Line instead. The ROW already exists between 54th/Cermak and Harlem; after that, you could run along the IC tracks. The Pink Line needs the ridership, anyway. Of course, LUMC is a big part of why the Cermak BRT is in planning stages. For such a low-cost and obvious transit project, I'm puzzled as to why nobody's built the damn thing yet. Hell, just get $10 million for bus bays, signal priority, and nice boarding stations.

Thanks for the link. OK, when I said that about LUMC, I was thinking of the entire Loyola/veterans hospital complex which stretches from Cermak to Roosevelt. If the blue line extended along the Ike (which is what I was thinking before seeing your render), that is only a half mile away, and Loyola already has shuttle services to their administrative center at the notheast corner of Roosevelt and 1st ave, which they could expand to the Ike 4 times an hour or something. Or the pink line expansion would maybe even be better (less traffic congestion than near the Ike). I don't think it's pie in the sky to take into consideration such a huge employer/service provider when considering where to put a line that is going to be extended somewhere wthin a mile anyway. It doesn't need to stop at the door, just within reasonable shuttle service distance. As for the proposed BRT service, I haven't been following that discussion at all, but that would work as well I guess. All I know is that the place definitely could benefit from more transit, as what was offered was already at capacity and pretty lousy (that was mid to late 90's though) As far as the extension, I envisioned it more following the 290/I88 route, as opposed to what you have drawn, but now I don't know. It would be beneficial to have a line run through the center of Hillside, Bellwood, and Maywood I guess.

A couple of notes about equipment performance: CTA rolling stock is frankly closer to light rail than it is to heavy rail. It's even capable of operating with frequent grade crossings. The old green-and-white 6000-series cars were in fact constructed with streetcar trucks, motors, and other components that CTA "traded in" from brand-new PCC streetcars that it sent back to St. Louis Car Company in the early 1950s.

A Dallas "light rail" car weighs 107,000 pounds and seats 76, while a pair of CTA 3200s only weighs 110,000 pounds and seats 78. For any electric MU car with so many motors, the acceleration is primarily limited by passenger comfort rather than the equipment itself.

I have some problems with Cecil's energy analysis, which I discussed with his earthly assistant before the Reader column was published. First, using passenger-miles rather than place-miles places inordinate emphasis on ridership, especially on outer route segments where you're racking up the miles with few passengers to put in the denominator of the fraction. I haven't looked closely at the St. Louis figures, but they may represent lots of suburbanites parking at the terminus and riding virtually the whole length of the line in to downtown. The other thing that concerned me was the data quality, which relies on self-reported figures sent to the National Transit Database. Newer systems such as St. Louis or Atlanta may carefully measure how much electricity goes to power trains. In Chicago, station lighting and heat may well get included in the figure. For all I know, there may simply be a negotiated dollar figure for unmetered traction power that CTA pays to ComEd, dating back to the days when they were both sister companies.

Haha... I figured you'd take issue with Cecil's energy analysis, which is why I didn't claim it as a fact.

Just a random question, but do you know if it would be possible to run longer rolling stock on the Red and Blue Lines? I'm fairly sure the North Main Line, O'Hare, Forest Park, and Dan Ryan lines could all handle the longer cars, so the only question is the subways, plus maybe Sheridan.

Personally, I doubt it; wider-radius curves than what was absolutely necessary would have added serious cost and complexity to the State and Dearborn subways' construction. I don't know for sure, though; they were built before the days of publicly accessible EIS documents.

If one was to run longer cars, the Blue Line would be the logical starting point; I believe all platforms fit 8 standard CTA cars, so they would perhaps fit 4-6 longer cars. The Blue Line is also pretty isolated from the rest of the system, connected only at Congress/Paulina. Hence, the Blue Line's car fleet tends to remain fairly static.

Another option would be to articulate the married pairs with a flexible connection...

I'd summarize my objection by just pointing out that running an empty railcar is inefficient irrespective of whether it's 48 feet long or 65 feet long. A systemwide, annualized energy efficiency rating will be much, much more a function of the system service levels and ridership therein, and the relationship between the two in different locations at different times of day, rather than the specifics of the technology or car format.

But the ridership would be the same regardless of the car length. If you're trying to use energy efficiency to compare two different kinds of cars, then I don't see why ridership is relevant.

Hypothetically, if I'm drafting a conceptual plan for a rapid transit line and trying to choose between 48 or 65-foot cars, it wouldn't matter how full the cars were, only the relative efficiency of each, since the line would presumably have about the same ridership either way.

Exactly. But you're the one who brought it up:
You compare the energy efficiency of vehicles based on place-miles, not passenger-miles. In passenger-miles, the denominator of the fraction is the existing ridership, not the theoretical capacity.

From Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems, a Federal Transit Administration report from 1992:

Energy Consumption in kWh per thousand place miles

Rail Rapid Transit   Average  60     Low 25     High 116

Light Rail Transit   Average 100     Low 22     High 377

As for your question about longer vehicles, the initial Chicago elevated routes and Loop "L" were built to accomodate what are now the dimensions of New York "A" division (IRT) cars. State, Dearborn, and Congress were built to dimensions of New York "B" division (BMT-IND) cars. Kennedy, Dan Ryan, State-Dan Ryan Subway, Orange Line were built to "A", assuming Chicago would never re-equip with wider rolling stock. So your problems on Red and Blue are not the State and Dearborn subways, but instead the HoDaR and Kimball subways.

Well put. CTA could immediately boost it's per-passenger-mile and per-trip energy efficiency by simply cutting service. The energy efficiency figures Cecil used could probably better be used to generalize among the transit systems' overall level of service relative to demand (lower energy efficiency representing a higher level of service on a per rider basis), rather than to make any distinctions on technological energy efficiency.

Wow, I just assumed the two newer subways were built with wide-radius curves and wider tunnels because they were newer and presumably would try to allow higher speeds.

Thanks for the info. I wonder if it would really matter in the highway-median alignments in the Kennedy and Dan Ryan... there aren't tunnel clearances to worry about, and all the curves are quite gentle.

^Yes, you may remember that close clearances in the Kimball subway required guards on the windows of the old 6000-series cars, to keep riders from sticking their arms out the window.

I was in town over the weekend and ended up riding in one of the new 5000 series cars from Howard down to Belmont. I snapped a few photos with my cell phone camera, so please excuse the blurriness of these photos.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/...e85810b4_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/...b6f7af59_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/...3189e9bb_o.jpg

It was interesting to watch the facial reactions of everyone that board that train car as my friend & I progressed southward from Howard. Everyone looked rather wide eyed as they stepped in, paused briefly to inspect the train, then when they'd figured out where to sit, they spent a good amount of time just looking around.

blah, the CTA shouldve gone balls out and gotten a fully LCD train map screen, ala the MTA in NYC:

http://infosthetics.com/archives/subway_led_screen.jpg
source: infosthetics.com via google search

if the CTA adds new stations/changes the colors of lines, like it has done in the past 5 years, instead of just a simple software upgrade, youd have to replace that entire panel. thats probably quite costly.

Whoa whoa whoa. Slow down my friend. We're just getting on the AC current bandwagon. Give it another decade or two and you'll have your fancy shmancy full LED map!

CTA awaits word on federal funds for faster bus system

$150 million from feds would help fund bus rapid transit

Jon Hilkevitch
Getting Around
5:17 p.m. CDT, May 2, 2010

Officials at the Chicago Transit Authority are hopeful that the Federal Transit Administration believes in second chances.

After winning, then losing, federal funding a couple of years ago, the CTA is again competing for a $150 million grant to introduce rapid-transit-style bus service in Chicago.

The system would begin operating on 50 miles of arterial streets and eventually expand citywide to connect with dozens of other bus routes as well as CTA and Metra rail lines.

The CTA and city transportation officials envision bus rapid transit as a tool to transform Chicago's transit grid and spark a long-term surge of new riders who enjoy the advantages of being whisked ahead of traffic on bus-only lanes.

Get more stories like this. Sign up for home delivery >>

In addition to the potential congestion-relief benefits in the nation's second most traffic-clogged city, air quality would be improved by luring many drivers out of their cars and onto buses, officials said. It all can be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of building new rail lines, and in much less time, they added.

The CTA applied for funding over the winter and the Federal Transit Administration plans to award money this spring to at least one bus rapid transit project that is ready to get under waysoon, FTA officials said last week.

CTA officials have set a launch date of early 2012, assuming their application for $150 million is approved.

The first four corridors of a planned 20-corridor bus rapid transit network are on 79th Street from Ford City to South Shore Drive; Chicago Avenue from Austin Boulevard to Navy Pier; Halsted Street from Waveland Avenue/Broadway to 79th Street; and Jeffery Boulevard from 103rd Street/Stony Island to Jefferson/Washington Streets.

The CTA effort comes after a first attempt that was successful in winning a $153 million federal grant in 2008 from the Bush administration. But the grant for the pilot project was rescinded when City Hall missed a deadline to raise downtown parking meter rates as part of a "congestion-pricing" strategy to discourage driving into the crowded central business district during peak hours.

Meter rates eventually soared, without the benefit of offering bus rapid transit as an alternative, under a still-controversial deal in which the Daley administration privatized street parking.

The new grant program does not include a congestion-pricing requirement. But it does mandate that applicants meet "livability principles" that include showing how the new bus service would impact areas of the city that are currently underserved by transit; major employment centers and high-density residential areas; as well as helping to reduce pollution.

This time around, a total of $193.4 million, including $43.6 million in state and local matches, is needed to acquire 131 accordion-style buses; establish dedicated bus-only lanes during rush periods; install traffic signals that give buses priority to proceed through intersections ahead of other vehicles; and construct special bus stations where passengers will prepay their fares, as they do on the CTA rail system.

"If funding is secured for bus rapid transit, it would allow us to speed travel for riders," said CTA President Richard Rodriguez.

Average bus speeds would increase by as much as 48 percent over buses operating in traffic on regular routes, according to the application Chicago submitted to the Federal Transit Administration.

Bus rapid-transit systems, which are operating in cities ranging from Cleveland to Curitiba, Brazil, go far beyond the service provided by existing CTA express bus routes.

The rapid-transit buses would make limited stops, at intervals of a half mile to a mile. Passengers board through the front and back doors of buses after paying their fares at bus rapid-transit kiosks at the stations.

Travel times would be slashed compared to normal bus routes. The 50.4-mile startup network would include 17.1 miles of dedicated lanes that would be open exclusively to buses during rush hours, then revert back to use by all vehicles in off-peak hours.

"Dedicated lanes for bus service during rush periods would help to move people faster through the system when it is most critical — mornings and evenings, when the largest number of people are headed either to or from work," Rodriguez said.

While federal officials have not tipped their hand about the CTA's chances of recapturing the lost grant, local urban planning officials are optimistic, saying the transit agency submitted a competitive bid.

"I think the CTA has a pretty good chance of receiving federal funding because bus rapid transit makes a lot of sense for the city and suburban areas," said Randy Blankenhorn, executive director of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

"People want to get from place to place as efficiently and conveniently as possible," he said, "and bus rapid transit fits the bill at a much lower cost than building fixed rail systems."

Is this a change from previous plans? I may very well be remembering incorrectly, but I don't remember anything about BRT from the Waveland Avenue/Broadway area of Halsted?

The photo in this morning's Trib shows Halsted buses trapped in the traffic through University Village, south of Roosevelt. This is an area, like Greektown and Boys Town, where the only way to have dedicated lanes would be to completely wipe out the street parking. That would make the area much less attractive to merchants and, more importantly, unpleasant for pedestrians.

no change: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets..._Sept_2008.pdf

Oh, now I know why I didn't recall the BRT service extending up through Lincoln Park and into Lakeview... the main core with actual dedicated lanes ends at North Avenue. North of there it's essentially BRT-lite. I'd be more exited with continued lane exclusivity and preferably traffic signal priority.