Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What killed me is the growth of the Blue Line compared to the Brown Line - even after they just spent some 600,000,000 on upgrading the platforms (I still say they could run those trains more frequently).
Quit being a drama queen. The Blue Line dramatically trails the Brown Line in growth since 2000 - the Brown Line has grown 75% more than the Blue Line has. Comparing a single year where the Brown Line grew 0.1% less than the Blue Line and declaring the Brown Line growth a relative travesty is ridiculous. It's not as if the Blue Line has done nothing in that time, too, they had a massive slow-zone elimination project, which has helped increase ridership on that line. So you're not even comparing do-nothing Blue Line to $600 million Brown Line investment, you're comparing the approximately $100 million slow-zone project against the $600 million expansion project. And remember, slow-zone elimination has a finite lifetime and requires continued investment. Station expansion is, comparatively, a near-permanent investment with minimal ongoing expense.
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%
Quote:
... Totally in agreement about the Belmont logjam, that of course raises the obvious question, which is why they didn't start with that before they worried about the Brown line project.
Because the ridership growth on the Brown Line was enormous - it increased nearly 80% between 1979 and the early 2000s.
The Red Line north main didn't grow as much. I don't have 1979 numbers, but here's growth for dates I do have:
2000 32,070,998
2011 40,856,785
Increase 2000-2011 27.4%
More than the Blue Line, but less than the Brown Line. Also, a flyover was considered but got rejected by the Feds and I think the CTA felt it was too soon after that rejection to include it in the station extension project. With continued ridership, and having done what they can to improve capacity without the flyover, the CTA probably figures they can take a run at it again now.
Quit being a drama queen. The Blue Line dramatically trails the Brown Line in growth since 2000 - the Brown Line has grown 75% more than the Blue Line has. Comparing a single year where the Brown Line grew 0.1% less than the Blue Line and declaring the Brown Line growth a relative travesty is ridiculous. It's not as if the Blue Line has done nothing in that time, too, they had a massive slow-zone elimination project, which has helped increase ridership on that line. So you're not even comparing do-nothing Blue Line to $600 million Brown Line investment, you're comparing the approximately $100 million slow-zone project against the $600 million expansion project. And remember, slow-zone elimination has a finite lifetime and requires continued investment. Station expansion is, comparatively, a near-permanent investment with minimal ongoing expense.
I was going from the article we're discussing, not sure why you are getting your undies in a bunch:
The Blue Line led the increase with an 8 percent gain.
The difference between the Blue Line and the Brown Line growth in your time period is Brown Line growth (and Red Line) can be directly correlated with gentrification and the associated rampant upzoning/added population all over the North Side where it runs.
This will be coming to the Blue Line as well, mark my words. Every few years the packed-to-capacity stop marches one stop northward.
As for your bizarre touting of the Brown Line project, I don't have the time to research how massively over-budget that project went, but my recollection is it was originally a 250m project. That was no "minor" increase, that's institutional incompetence and/or corruption. And what do we have right now? Prettied up stations and clogged trains.
My general point is the City has a longstanding problem with not having holistic planning for these issues. You want to increase our tax base and add thousands of people to a neighborhood, have the infrastructure planning in place AHEAD OF TIME.
I've been riding the Red, Brown and Blue lines since the late 70s. You can sell your snake oil somewhere else, what we have now blows compared to the past.
Last edited by Chi-town Native; 03-15-2012 at 09:53 AM..
and by the way, you can expect CTA demand to keep growing and growing, as more and more people gravitate to Chicago's infrastructure, which even mismanaged is still excellent:
Here's some mid-term growth statistics for the CTA 'L' lines, expanding on my previous post:
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.
2000-2011 by Side
North 26.6%
West 50.2%
South 2.9%
Central 23.8%
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%
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
The Robert Taylor homes alone had something like 27,000 people living in them before they were demolished in the 2000s. They have probably built replacement housing for maybe 1000 people at that site to date.
I'm not sure there is much to learn from 18 comments from 12 posters on a chat board.
I do agree that ridership will keep rising as it's up 4.4% this year already.
I hope ridership continues to increase, but ONLY if we meet the need by improving the infrastructure. We cannibalized the red line to add service for suburban folks (I note Metra doesn't exactly offer great coverage in the City). I'm all for improving mass transit for the suburbs, but not at our expense.
As for the complaints, that's just the tip of the iceberg, believe me. You get out there in January at Belmont (much less Fullerton or further south) and watch a train or two go by that you physically can't get on during rush hour, that's insane. This isn't Manhattan.
But the comment that resonated is why in the hell did we spend 500m (I read it later went to 600m, but what's 100m between friends) for such a trivial improvement, when there are such massive swaths of the city that are totally underserved by rail service altogether.
I am of course referring to the dire need for a Circle Line, although the CTA keeps dumbing down the circle's circumference.
We have a completely outdated transit design, the whole city doesn't work in the Loop.
So emathias can post stats all day, it has nothing to do with my point, which is holistic planning, and holistic coverage.
Just wait until the next housing boom and when the developers start going crazy on Milwaukee to profit from the taxpayer-subsidized transit infrastructure.
I hope ridership continues to increase, but ONLY if we meet the need by improving the infrastructure. We cannibalized the red line to add service for suburban folks (I note Metra doesn't exactly offer great coverage in the City). I'm all for improving mass transit for the suburbs, but not at our expense.
As for the complaints, that's just the tip of the iceberg, believe me. You get out there in January at Belmont (much less Fullerton or further south) and watch a train or two go by that you physically can't get on during rush hour, that's insane. This isn't Manhattan.
But the comment that resonated is why in the hell did we spend 500m (I read it later went to 600m, but what's 100m between friends) for such a trivial improvement, when there are such massive swaths of the city that are totally underserved by rail service altogether.
I am of course referring to the dire need for a Circle Line, although the CTA keeps dumbing down the circle's circumference.
We have a completely outdated transit design, the whole city doesn't work in the Loop.
So emathias can post stats all day, it has nothing to do with my point, which is holistic planning, and holistic coverage.
Just wait until the next housing boom and when the developers start going crazy on Milwaukee to profit from the taxpayer-subsidized transit infrastructure.
We ain't seen nothing yet.
I have no idea what is even being argued, I think we all agree we would like an upgraded CTA with long term planning.
I think employment is becoming more concentrated downtown, not less though. Here's an interesting post by a Fed Economist on this.
emathias is just being a punk because I apparently do not worship at the altar of stats out of context.
good link, but it's missing a definition of "city center," and it's also missing a related stat, which is where do those workers actually live. my now-wife was one of the thousands of reverse commuters for some time in the 90s, and I guarantee you that the economy is completely different than when these rail lines were built - they pre-date most of the suburbs, for starters.
but there's also less and less manufacturing jobs in neighborhoods like Cragin and the huge parts of the city on the NW and SW sides between the existing rail lines.
keep your eye on the prize is all I'm saying.
no other major city I've been to with public trans has such a problem with coverage.
go to London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, NYC, and you see a blanket coverage approach, not all main lines converging in a single point.
this gets back to what apparently irked emathias, pointing out we made a costly choice to expand platforms instead of either fixing the real problem (how the train lines have to merge/compete for limited tracks), or by adding a brand new Circle Line, which would have actually help spread out the development instead of shoehorning it.
truth is we have a lot of pressing infrastructure concerns/delayed depreciation. that Blue Line slow zone was a goddamned disaster. I watched dozens of tourists to Chicago get booted off the train at Damen one summer Saturday after we had been waiting for 20 minutes. that kind of bs is toxic for Chicago.
also, what did we get for our Block 37 troubles (and tax dollars) again?
Here's some mid-term growth statistics for the CTA 'L' lines, expanding on my previous post:
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.
2000-2011 by Side
North 26.6%
West 50.2%
South 2.9%
Central 23.8%
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%
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%
Pink Line is particularly impressive. And the land is available to expand it all the way out to Harlem, and beyond.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
