CHICAGO | General Developments

[harryc]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The main advantage to a peak hour price increase is not increased profit. It would be in encouraging thrifty riders to leave earlier or later and spread the peaks out.

The CTA has hit the wall on how many cars they can run during each peak hour, but there are oodles of capacity lying fallow just on either side of those times.

I think the overcrowding is already a very strong incentive - stronger than an extra quarter.

Not sure they are running at max - but I don't take the blue line.

[harryc]

July 2

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by 10023

I mean, if they implemented the whole Ventra and contactless payment system without software capable of doing this, then the CTA is being run by idiots. This sort of flexibility is the whole point of that kind of (probably very expensive) systems upgrade.


As for train capacity... is there still opportunity for them to run longer trains? I know that there are probably some shorter platforms that couldn’t be expanded, but over here there are just stops where that’s the case and not all of the doors open. There’s an automated announcement to say that “the front (or back) doors won’t open at the next station”, because the train extends beyond the platform. Works fine.

Even if they did implement it at a software level, they'd still need to spend money on further testing. They'd be idiots if they skipped that step too even if they did initial testing. Actual software development lifecycle is a lot more nuanced in the real world for these types of things. Never assume that someone implemented something just because you think they should have. Especially if it was not part of their MVP and they had an actual budget with not a ton of time. This type of thing could easily be sitting on their backlog.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by harryc

I think the overcrowding is already a very strong incentive - stronger than an extra quarter.

You'd think that, but they never seem to get past the learning curve

Besides, I'd charge 'em a extra buck. That way, it's both the carrot and the stick

Originally Posted by harryc

Not sure they are running at max - but I don't take the blue line.

20 an hour 7-9 5-7, your not gonna get many more. If the demand just spread out to the half hour before and after, you could pick up capacity for another 5k daily boardings by bringing those periods up from 16 trains an hour.

[harryc]

July 2

[harryc]

July 2



Anyone know what these are for ?

[bnk]

gosh dang harryc


What would I do without your photo updates. Much appreciated to you all guys who post pics from every angle including helicopters. Kudos goes out to Solar too.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by JK47

I think the issue is a fair bit more complicated than the simplest maxim of economics which is, itself, not entirely accurate.

For one, from a historical standpoint, fares haven't covered agency expenses. Mass transit is a subsidized mode of transit precisely because it efficiently delivers large quantities of passengers to heavily trafficked portions of the city using a compact footprint obviating expensive, difficult (technically, financially, politically), and frankly anti-urban upgrades to the roadway infrastructure. However, and most importantly, the transit budget is a very visible way in which to measure the cost of mass transit both in terms of what is born by users directly and what is contributed by both users and non-users indirectly. The same cannot be said for the cost of maintaining roadways and highways which is, with few exceptions, supported by subsidies indirectly by users and non-users alike. So your contention that it's time to raise fares simply because the transit system isn't self supporting fails immediately from a policy standpoint since roadways also aren't self-supporting.

And the last time I looked, the CTA's farebox recovery ratio (portion of expenses met by fares) was actually fairly high relative to most systems.

[SolarWind]

July 5, 2018

[PittsburghPA]

The new antenna light show on Sears is awesome. I'm not sure how to post a video or I'd try to capture it.

[Fvn]

Originally Posted by harryc

Anyone know what these are for ?

Those are micro piles

[PittsburghPA]

random question:

Are there any plans to do anything about the river facing wall of River Point's park? The exhaust fans for the trains are quite the eye sore on an otherwise beautiful scene.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JK47

I think the issue is a fair bit more complicated than the simplest maxim of economics which is, itself, not entirely accurate.

For one, from a historical standpoint, fares haven't covered agency expenses. Mass transit is a subsidized mode of transit precisely because it efficiently delivers large quantities of passengers to heavily trafficked portions of the city using a compact footprint obviating expensive, difficult (technically, financially, politically), and frankly anti-urban upgrades to the roadway infrastructure. However, and most importantly, the transit budget is a very visible way in which to measure the cost of mass transit both in terms of what is born by users directly and what is contributed by both users and non-users indirectly. The same cannot be said for the cost of maintaining roadways and highways which is, with few exceptions, supported by subsidies indirectly by users and non-users alike. So your contention that it's time to raise fares simply because the transit system isn't self supporting fails immediately from a policy standpoint since roadways also aren't self-supporting.

Additionally, if you want to take this to Economics 102 we would need to talk about demand elasticity or in the case of mass transit, the lack thereof. Our built environment is centered on the current transit in terms of where living and work areas are located (or concentrated) and the connections between. You can make large adjustments to fares and people will, for the most part, be hard pressed to find alternatives simply because those alternatives are significantly more expensive, more difficult or less direct, or just less efficient.

However by moving the price of transit drastically you will greatly burden people who need to use mass transit the most. In which case you're going to be forcing people to make choices between going to work/school, paying rent, seeing the doctor or not (recently a woman injured by a T train in Boston implored witnesses to not call an ambulance because she can't afford the transport fee) buying lousy food instead of fresh food, etc. Particularly because you seem to think that the only people riding the train during arbitrary "peak" hours are white collar workers. There are huge numbers of people in the service sector that would be captured in that peak hours net.
I'm honestly not sure who you're shielding by this aspect of your proposal.
Your zonal model will also fail since poor residents aren't concentrated and there are significant numbers of vulnerable residents mixed into wealthier neighborhoods which is likely to be an increasing trend given the growing desire to require developers to build affordable housing either on-site or in close proximity.

Yes I understand that fares don’t cover operating costs alone. But the contribution from the state is limited and doesn’t seem to be going up, and so fares do need to cover the difference.

And I do understand that demand elasticity is limited because we’re dealing with fixed infrastructure. But people do have some choice as to when they use that infrastructure. I’ve already suggested peak pricing according to time in lieu of fare zones for the reason you mentioned. The only people who need to travel at peak times are working, and can afford an extra $1 a day.

But at the same time, this isn’t charity, and you can’t compromise the system just to avoid placing a “burden” on the poor. The fare is $2.50 now, why not $2 or $1.50? Why not free? If the demand is there, then you need to start from what the system needs to bring in, not some arbitrary view of what fares “should” be.

There are poor people here as well, but the system uses both fare zones and peak/off-peak pricing (with peak defined as 6.30-9.30am M-F), and it works. It results in a vastly better funded, cleaner, more efficient, more reliable service.

[10023]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

July 5, 2018

What’s going on here? New lobby wrapping? It looks slightly incongruous.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by 10023

What’s going on here? New lobby wrapping? It looks slightly incongruous.

the Chicago Architecture Foundation's new home.

[i_am_hydrogen]

^Smith+Gill did the redesign.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 10023

What’s going on here? New lobby wrapping? It looks slightly incongruous.

There used to be a pretty stark granite podium under this building that cut off the lobby from the street (there was a Houlihan's restaurant inside the podium). At the upper level was a plaza and arcade space that virtually nobody used.

Now the arcade has been enclosed with glass and the podium demolished so the building can meet the street in proper fashion rather than turning its back on the heavy pedestrian intersection of Wacker/Michigan.

Seems like a pretty big improvement overall. Creates a lot more sidewalk space including a little plaza at street level on the right-hand side where the entrance to the pedway mall is.

2009 Street View of previous configuration

[jimjoe45]

Walking around my neighborhood this morning snapped a couple quick pics of ongoing/recently completed projects:

945 W Belmont | 87 FT | 6 FLOORS
Former site of a vacant lot and a three story retail building, which was also vacant. Just started work on the 5th floor, so a bit more to go. Will contain 33 apartments, ground floor retail (Devil Dogs & Stone Creek Coffee) and ZERO parking.



3200 N Clark | 96 FT | 8 FLOORS
I know it was completed over a year ago but the impact it had on this intersection can't be under sold. Former site of one and two story retail plus a parking lot. 90 apartments, ground floor retail (Target) and second floor retail (for lease), 39 parking spaces.



3223-3228 N Clark | 84 FT | 7 FLOORS
Former site of The Alley shop. Topped out. They preserved and will be restoring the original terra cotta facade. 24 apartments, ground floor retail and only 6 parking spaces.



3300 N Clark | 91 FT | 7.5 FLOORS
Former site of one story Lakeview Learning Center. Recently approved and site prep is underway. 140 apartments, ground floor retail, and 20 parking spaces.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Okay, so from an infrastructure it's okay. From a software perspective, it would require changes, testing, etc. Not as expensive, but not a walk in the park either. And yeah It could work with non monthly passes, but again it's more of a software change than anything.

A software change is still vastly cheaper and less disruptive to riders than installing new turnstiles or tap pylons across the whole system. Once the software is developed and tested, the switchover can be immediate.

Originally Posted by 10023

As for train capacity... is there still opportunity for them to run longer trains? I know that there are probably some shorter platforms that couldn’t be expanded, but over here there are just stops where that’s the case and not all of the doors open. There’s an automated announcement to say that “the front (or back) doors won’t open at the next station”, because the train extends beyond the platform. Works fine.

I'm not sure that meets ADA guidelines, since the passage between train cars is not accessible. Disabled passengers would be stuck in the car that doesn't open. It also creates problems in case of emergency, because you can't evacuate riders onto a platform that doesn't fit the entire train. Right now many stations are still not accessible, so you could argue it's a moot point... but if certain cars don't open at certain stations, that's a step backwards for accessibility. I doubt they could get such a scheme past city, state or Federal regulators, not to mention disabled-rights advocates.

Right now the big capacity squeeze on the Blue Line concerns the power supply. There's not enough juice to run additional trains OR longer trains. CTA is working now to improve the power situation that will allow a few more trains per hour at the AM/PM peak. As ridership continues to increase, CTA may need to start planning for platform extensions, signal changes, even more power, maybe even partial or full automation that would allow for 10-car trains, but such a project could run into the billions.

Beyond the power upgrades that are currently in the works, there is also another bit of relief coming once CTA starts receiving the new 7000-series rail cars. That's working through some Trump tariff issues right now, but eventually the new 7000s will allow the previous generation of 5000-series cars to move to the Blue Line. The 5000s offer MUCH more standing room which will allow CTA to pack more people onto each train.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I bet adding a bus lane on North Michigan / LSD would alleviate a lot of Red Line crowding issues (since many would choose to take the bus instead, and the buses could make more trips during rush hour). Maybe an express bus lane on the Kennedy could be implemented as well to lighten the load on the blue line. At least until suburbanites agree to pony up more for Blue Line improvements.

Suburbanites have not mounted any opposition to Blue Line improvements. Actually many of the suburbs within CTA's service area are served by the Blue Line directly or indirectly, so they have every incentive to support upgrades (Oak Park, Forest Park, Rosemont, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Norridge, Harwood, Niles etc).

Originally Posted by PKDickman

You'd think that, but they never seem to get past the learning curve

Besides, I'd charge 'em a extra buck. That way, it's both the carrot and the stick

20 an hour 7-9 5-7, your not gonna get many more. If the demand just spread out to the half hour before and after, you could pick up capacity for another 5k daily boardings by bringing those periods up from 16 trains an hour.

Some rail systems (Paris RER, Moscow Metro, various Tokyo lines) manage to achieve 90-second headways, or 40 trains per hour. This is about the limit of what is possible, and relies on cultural factors as much as expensive signaling systems. In the US, we place a value on rider comfort, on accommodating disabled or elderly passengers, on friendly operators who hold the doors open a few seconds longer than they should so stragglers can board. All those things work against expedient, predictable train operation.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

A software change is still vastly cheaper and less disruptive to riders than installing new turnstiles or tap pylons across the whole system. Once the software is developed and tested, the switchover can be immediate.

Of course it's cheaper. I never said otherwise. It still takes time and money to do these changes. Even if they developed it 2 years ago and can be switched on at anytime, it would be idiotic to switch over right away without testing if you aren't running nightly regression suites in the first place especially. Also, migration varies with software. I've witnessed complete switch over of functionality to millions of people before at once, but usually it's not something that's best practice. Usually these things are done in waves. Then again, the software that I manage the development of its much, much larger in scope and user base than a transit system.

Just because you built and tested something once doesn't mean the work is done, but I do agree th has it's much cheaper than replacing everything. I never said otherwise. I'm just saying it's still going to cost money, and when you're dealing with bigger consulting firms (I.e. Accenture was behind Ventra, I think) then it's going to cost way more than most people ever realize.