Meeting set for Monday on South Lakefront transit study

The second public meeting for the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study is set for 5 to 7 p.m. Monday at Apostolic Church of God Banquet Hall, 6347 South Kenwood Ave. The study aims to identify ways to improve public transportation in the area extending from 22nd Street to 95th Street east of the Dan Ryan Expressway.

A presentation will begin at 6 p.m. with opportunities to view the open house stations and speak with members of the study team at 5 p.m. and 6:30 p,m.


Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • The best way to improve public transportation in that are is to convert the parts of Metra electric within the city to rapid transit, with the same transfer priviledges as the other rapid transit lines.

  • In reply to CaptainVideo:

    Why do you continue to beat a dead horse?
    It's never going to happen.
    As supposedly said by Einstein, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting different results"

    The original plan in the 1960s was that after the Dan Ryan L was up & running, the South Side Mainline [Jackson Park/Englewood] was to be abandoned & moved east to the IC Mainline which had plenty of space as the IC no longer needed 10 tracks. The L would have run south to Kensington just as the Lake St. L runs along the C&NW tracks through Austin & Oak Park. The IC then would close most of its local stops.
    But when Richie Daley had the South Side L rebuilt as a sop to the South Side ministers to get their support, that killed any chance of the L running along side on the IC right of way.
    If someone wants to spend hours at the library going through microfilm, I'm sure they could find the articles detailing this.

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    I take it then, Scooter that you won't be attending, since I assume that the reason Mike Payne first posted the link to that effect was exactly for that purpose.

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    The original plan is interesting history but irrelevant to the current situation. The L does not have to run ALONG SIDE the IC mainline tracks. Under the current proposals, it would USE the Metra tracks. If enough people push hard enough for this it can indeed happen. You have this underused infrastructure available which can provide dramatic improvement to transportation to the south part of the city at much lower cost than building new infrastructure, such as bulding new elevated track to extend the red line. It is shortsighted not to take advantage of this opportunity.

  • In reply to CaptainVideo:

    1. The CTA can't use Metra tracks. You can't mix the very lightweight CTA L cars [27 tons] with medium weight Metra coaches [65 tons] & Amtrak trains with their 125 ton locomotives & several 55 ton coaches]. It's flat out insanity. The perfect example is the IC collision at 27th St. on October 30, 1972. Then an older heavyweight IC coach & a medium weight bilevel collided & the old single level telescoped into the bilevel & destroyed & killed 45 & injuring hundreds.
    2. This would add loads of unnecessary capacity to an are that's already over served, except for the are south of 63rd St. That can be taken care of by added bus service to the existing rail.
    3. The CTA put hundreds of millions into the Green Line reconstruction, mostly federal money & that federal money requires it to run for at least 75 years. If you use the Metra tracks, the Green Line will lose most of its riders & be an enormous drag on CTA finances.

    The original plan is not irrelevant, it's central to the mess Daley created when he bought the votes of the South Side ministers!

    You have no understanding of the differences between Class 1 rail & rapid transit rail.
    You have no understanding of Chicago politics. Chicago politicians are not giving up the money they can dole out in extending the Red Line to 130th St., the political contributions that will rain down on them from that & the votes from the additional CTA employees that will be added as to the money the suburban controlled Metra will hand out & the suburban Metra based employees.

    You continue to beat a dead horse & by Einstein's definition, you are insane!

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    You sure shouldn't be calling others names.

    If you read Mike Payne's site, it has nothing to do with running L cars on the IC, but just establishing transfer rights between the two carriers.

    I have said on other occasions why it won't happen, but that's for reasons such as CTA not having incentive to subsidize Metra and Mike wasting 5 years on his racial discrimination clause.

    However, what would Einstein say about you relying on a straw man?

  • In reply to jack:

    "but that's for reasons such as CTA not having incentive to subsidize Metra"

    There are arrangements that can get around this problem. FOR EXAMPLE, having it operated by a new agency jointly controlled by Metra and the CTA.

  • In reply to CaptainVideo:

    Creating a fifth bureaucracy isn't the core of the problem (although that wouldn't be good).

    The problem is that Mike's plan is centered on CTA entering into a purchase of service agreement in which it would pay Metra to run the service, or more correctly, accept CTA passengers using CTA transfers.

    CTA claims it doesn't have any money, and, in fact, Gump Claypool has resurrected the Kruesi line that "we provide 82% of the rides in the region, but get 48% of the subsidy.*" So, CTA is not going to pay Metra voluntarily. Mike seems to think that there would be savings to CTA, but the only way to get them would be to cancel the 14, 26, and X28 buses, and probably also the 6.

    Can you imagine the uproar that would cause in a certain community?

    You may also look at my post on, where I further elaborate.

    Money is the center of the problem.

    *No sense repeating my criticism of that argument here, but you can go to the CTA Tattler post of Aug. 1, 2011 for that.

  • In reply to jack:

    I have stated before that I would Not end any bus routes if the Gray Line entered service.

    Just like the Orange Line, I would wait 6 months - and see how the ridership panned out.

    Before the Orange Line there were Express and Limited buses on Archer, and on the Stevenson Expy.

    How many Express buses run from the Loop to the SW Side now?

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    "you are insane!"

    If you cannot defend a position with rational arguments, all is not lost. You can still call your opponent nasty names.

    "The CTA can't use Metra tracks."

    True but irrelevant. The rapid transit would be provided using Metra electric equipment. The equipment would simply operate on rapid transit schedules and provide the same transfer priviledges as the other rapid transit lines do.

    "This would add loads of unnecessary capacity to an are that's already over served, except for the are south of 63rd St."

    The underserved areas include the South Chicago branch and the Blue Island branch, which now only have infrequent (except during rush hours) service and no transfers. It also includes McCormic place to which there is no rapid transit service and Hyde Park, since people in Hyde Park are largely unwilling to use the Green Line due to the crime problem.

    "You have no understanding of Chicago politics."

    Responsibility for public transportation rests with the RTA, and it needs to assert its authority over the three systems and force them to integrate their services in order to reduce costs. If that requires additional changes in the law by the state legislature to strengthen the RTAs authority, this needs to be done.

    Finally, why does this proposal get you so very, very upset? You really seem to have emotional problems dealing with it.

  • In reply to ScooterLibbby:

    Scooter - I question if you READ about things before you comment.

    1. I have written a Million times that the Gray Line would not use CTA 'L' cars. The Gray Line would use modified new Class I Shoreliners (with the end doors for faster loading - and with the vacant restroom area used as a standee stage):

    2. How long have you lived on the South Side Scooter? I lived there for over 50yrs, "added bus service" would NOT solve the area's transit deficits.

    3. Chicago, City Hall, and the City Council spent about $300 Million on the Block 37 SuperStation - I consider most Politicians as flawed, and I certainly am not going to leave all the decisions up to them. What do you think of the SuperStation Scooter?? Talk about Dead Horse/White Elephant!

    You apparently cannot comprehend clearly written statements (or you choose to ignore them).

    Chicago Politicians have to get the (local matching) funding from Springfield for Capital Projects, and Operating Funds.

    Sen. Martin Sandoval and Rep. Cynthia Soto have been quite interested in my statements, and the information I have provided them since their recent Metra Hearing about waste in Operating and Capital requests from the Transit Operators.

    Here is something else you can ignore or misread Scooter (please read Pages 16 through 20 - what does it say?):

    My "dead horse" is included in CMAP's RTP (see "Metra Electric District Improvements" at the bottom of the Page):

    It is the only Major Capital Project accepted and included in the CATS/CMAP RTP - that was submitted a Private Citizen, rather than a Municipality or Transit Operator; how do you supposed that happened Scooter?

    WFLD-32 TV also ran a story about it:

    You are how ever Exactly Right about my being insane; I have Obsessive Compulsive Don Quixote Complex - and I can't help but tilting at windmills.

  • In reply to CaptainVideo:

    Within a couple of months I plan to incite the Good Townspeople of Woodlawn and Hyde Park into circling City Hall with Torches and Pitchforks.

  • In reply to mikep621:

    But, don't forget, Emanuel has the CFD and CPD.

    It would at least take Young Frankensteen's monster with an Abby Normal brain to get any attention.

    Of course, you still haven't answered the money problem I noted in my earlier post of today. Haven't for 10 years. That is, unless you can get a legislative set aside like paratransit has. Bring the wheelchairs too, and probably to Elaine Nekritz's office.

  • In reply to jack:

    One idea I have had, instead of someone paying Metra - install the CTA Fare TVM's and Turnstyles on the MED.

    But Metra collects the Fares from the machines on the MED, and they and CTA honor each others transfers (or compensate).

    RTA has No Administrative or Operational Authority over it's Service Boards - None At All (I've questioned them and the FTA at length about this).

    Attempting to persuade the Service Boards is useless, I'm trying their Funding Sources

  • In reply to mikep621:

    Again, this does not do away with the inherent problem that someone has to pay Metra for the "lost fares" if it accepts CTA transfers.* Also, for any additional off peak runs, per your proposal of every 20 minutes per branch as opposed to the current one hour.

    For instance, I don't know if UP and BNSF keep the fares and get a subsidy for the difference, or Metra pays the two railroads a fixed amount for running the service,** but one way or the other Metra pays, and a Metra ticket is good on both or any other Metra line (except certain passes to Hegewisch on the South Shore).

    *Your service board point does make sense, and in this context is exemplified by CTA not accepting Pace transfers unless someone used a CTA fare medium on Pace, and the stink over the 7 day pass. You seem to be agreeing with my paratransit point regarding the need to get the money off the top.

    **The Pace contracts in DuPage County say that all fares belong to Pace and the contractor gets a fixed amount, as bid.

  • Since Scooter brought up the South Side Main, one can note the irony that this meeting will be held at the Church of No-L.

  • In reply to jack:

    For that matter, I noted the irony of Mike's statement about "the Good Townspeople of Woodlawn ... with Torches."

    Someone sure used the torches on Woodlawn itself in the late 70s, resulting in broad swaths of vacant land, partially redeveloped by the Church of No-L in the late 90s, after the L came down. :-)

  • Ran out of reply buttons, but in reply to Mike:

    "I have stated before that I would Not end any bus routes if the Gray Line entered service."

    However, my point was that before CTA will have any financial incentive to enter into this, it would have to first. It sure couldn't afford to pay Metra and run the bus lines.

    I thought that ending the bus lines was your whole argument that subsidizing Metra would be financially efficient for CTA.

    I'm sure you don't have the clout of Bill Lipinski to keep dead bus lines open.

    However, in any event, I don't assume that the bus lines would be dead. It seems like the people in South Shore have already voted on what service they prefer, and I doubt that the prospect of an additional transfer at 71st St. appeals to them. I had suggested that trial to you before.

    Instead, we will get all the screaming similar to "the northsiders have their L and express bus routes, and we are being deprived," the same as when X3 and X4 were cancelled, even though the lines I listed on LSD were preserved.

  • One thing this shows is that the state government has to give the RTA firm control of the transit system in the entire metropolitan region so that it can force the three systems to coordinate and cooperate and end the unneccesary duplication.

    Extending the Red line south when there is existing underused electric rail infrastructure in that are is an especially notorious example of the resulting waste of taxpayer money.

  • In reply to CaptainVideo:

    I'm glad you figured that out, but that is the inherent problem with how the 2008 RTA bill was drafted, and I have continually said that while we got the tax increase, we certainly didn't get any reform.

    The Auditor General noted the lack of coordination, and as originally proposed, Section 2.12b said that "Upon the request of a Service Board, the Executive Director may intervene..." Somehow, that got amended in the legislature to insert the "affirmative vote of 9 of the then Directors of the Authority" condition. So, now you have two conditions, so designed to provide the chimera of reform, while making sure that service coordination will never happen. And it hasn't.

    We've discussed elsewhere in the CTA Tattler (including when some former RTA official posted here) that the only real response is to abolish the entire structure,and have one transit authority that could make decisions, including whether there should be fare coordination between the city buses and electric line within the city.

    However, it is obvious that not only does the legislature not understand that, some legislative clown intentionally sabotaged any movement in that direction.

    If you can figure out a way around that, more power to you.

Leave a comment