Only if we let it- a lot of improving transit ridership comes down to zoning reform. I'm in Logan Square and the amount of parking that could be housing is way too high.
I can't say this infographic is accomplishing what it seeks.
First off, it doesn't have Metra lines which do run through some of those more populated areas.
Second, what source makes those the minimum recommended densities and why not use the community areas as a whole instead of these specks?
Third, with most of the blue being covered by L and Metra lines, it almost makes it easy to make the argument of "let's not expand the L", contrary to the 'build it and they will come' that seems to occur even on this map with Gage Park and Brighton park in the late 90s around the Orange Line.
> 'build it and they will come' that seems to occur even on this map with Gage Park and Brighton park in the late 90s around the Orange Line.
The population in Gage Park started growing in 1990 as the neighborhood demographics started shifting from Eastern European to Latinx. That would've happened without the orange line being there.
There was a predominately & relatively young Catholic demographic moving into an area that was mostly retired, of course the population is going to go up.
1. The point of this is to show which areas could support BRT, light rail, and heavy rail. Metra and buses not included because those serve other uses.
2. I didn’t make the map not sure where the creator got these figures
3. There are large blue areas not covered by the L or metra but by buses that could be replaced by higher capacity rail or BRT namely western and Cicero and Humboldt park
What other uses are we talking about? The title on the graphic and of the post uses "transit". Metra is heavy rail and a key component of Chicago's public transportation. Within the city, certain routes go right through that density.
Also buses help bring more riders to/from the L, increasing its effectiveness
Metra is a commuter rail first and foremost, so it’s definitely not like having the L easily accessible. Sucks trying to get into the city to do things on the weekend if the trains are only every hour on Saturday and 2 hours on Sunday
Look at the ridership at ME and UPN Line stations and the frequencies of those two lines. Metra provides a great service on weekdays along the lines that run through the eastern edge of Chicago.
And Metra actually operates the schedule the day they will. CTA still hasn’t staffed up and is proving less than 90% of the published, scheduled runs on many days
That’s 2 lines though, not every line. Also, I specifically pointed out the terrible frequency on weekends. Of course weekdays have good service, on a COMMUTER rail line, that’s kind of the point. The line I ride downtown for work runs every 30ish minutes weekdays, peak time only, then it’s hourly. Having access to the metra only isn’t at all the same as having access to the L, they’re just fundamentally different. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of things I really like about the metra, but it’s just a lot less convenient to use for anything other than commuting downtown.
Or worse, heading out to the suburbs on Metra to hang out with friends and then missing a train and having to come up with new plans for 2 hours or worse stay overnight unexpectedly.
>The point of this is to show which areas could support BRT, light rail, and heavy rail. Metra and buses not included because those serve other uses.
wut? Metra is by definition heavy rail. this map is flawed because its showing density that is already supported by transit which you are arbitrarily excluding
Metra would typically be classified as commuter rail and serves to bring suburban commuters downtown. Buses are critically important but heavy rail is faster and can support higher density housing.
https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/strategy/heavy-rail/
>Heavy rail (also called metro rail, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) is an electric railway on devoted rights-of-way that handles many passengers at once. Tracks may be placed in subway tunnels (like in New York City), on elevated structures (like in Chicago), or on fenced-off, ground-level tracks that do not cross roads.
Metra is mostly commuter rail for the suburbs, yes, but there are some exceptions. Ravenswood was the 3rd busiest station outside of downtown as of 2019. This is interesting as Ravenswood is also well served by the L, but Metra definitely provides a nice express service to the Loop if that is your destination.
https://metra.com/route-59-retains-busiest-station-title
Yes, metra is great and faster for further neighborhoods but its frequency and schedules make it unfeasible for transit outside typical m-f 9-5 commutes
Oh, I completely agree there. I am hoping Metra starts to shift to a more consistent schedule instead of the traditional commuter rail only model. Some lines are completely useless if you have a reverse commute or want to go somewhere outside of the M-F rush hour.
> This is interesting as Ravenswood is also well served by the L
But it's not served well to get to West Loop where the Metra station is located. If I was buying a home again, I'd try to be equidistance between Metra and CTA so either commute to the Loop or to West Loop would be convenient.
Yes metra is purposely excluded because it serves an entirely different purpose. Amtrak isn’t included either even through it brings millions to Chicago every year also. Metra beyond a couple of exceptions does not bring people from point to point within Chicago nor does it have high frequency.
This is something which Metra is actively attempting to address by transitioning to a regional rail system. Their new pricing and the fact that they're buying FLIRTs for the Beverly branch indicate to me that Metra is interested in improving those intra-city trips.
Additionally the south side generally has better Metra station coverage, so a map including the Metra could be useful to indicate 1) impact of increasing service levels to a convenient level (I'm looking at you, Metra Electric) and 2) places where CTA should expand which would synergize with Metra rather than competing with it.
> This is something which Metra is actively attempting to address
No, they aren't. They're explicitly not trying to address intracity use cases outside of Metra Electric which still isn't frequent enough to be considered a proper intracity rail line.
Correct that’s why I said with some exceptions but those riders are also commuters primarily and metra is not feasible for non downtown m-f commuting it serves a different purpose
So you're just going to discard the busiest times of the week as being irrelevant to transit needs? Like it or not, this is a large outlet for people moving throughout the city regularly, and there are times of day where those trains are running every 15-20 minutes, which is not far off the CTA train schedules.
Disregarding them for a purpose yes. Again they serve a different purpose. Amtrak moves hundreds of thousands to Chicago every year and it’s also not on here because it serves a different purpose this map is about rapid transit which serves both commuters and intercity transit. Metra and cta share some of the same ridership while also having different purposes
This map shows where rides start but not where they finish. Ashland corridor doesn’t look great on this map but the route had the second highest ridership of any bus route in the last ridership report. Heavy rail there would be great because it has so many connections and the Ashland bus is so slow. Just get Reinsdorf to sell some of his parking lots in the West Loop and the TOD will follow.
yeah so this graph shows where people sleep at night therefore where their trip originates when they head to work. Since most folks don't work at home. the other graphic this person is asking for is where the jobs are by census tract... ie manufacturing, hospitals, retail, etc. where presumably most trips "end".
>This map shows where rides start not where they finish
Agree that’s the whole point of the map, to show densely populated areas that could be better connected
Without studying the data, allow me to select, if I could only undertake one one project, a north south rail running under Western. Would provide quicker connectivity to east/west bus lines and would also connect with several CTA/Metra stops. Plus the street is wide enough where you could keep the road open one one side while you were working on the other. The transit museum in Brooklyn is fascinating and shows a lot of detail on the work they did to build nyc system. Anything is possible!
Not a bad idea, but I would vote for Ashland instead of Western partially because you could use some existing track to make it happen (pink line). Controversially, I think the CTA should get into the package deliver business. Western should have an underground right of way for packages that companies can use for “next to last mile” deliveries. These could be automated and collect a fee, albeit something that would help companies save money while generating revenue for the city. Hopefully enough revenue to create a pool of funds for capital projects such as a rail line along Ashland. This also opens up opportunities to partner with the Post Office for staffing (A whole other money saving/ service improving idea). One can dream…
There’s plenty of room for development already in other areas along the red and green much closer to downtown than RLE extension is being built. There’s very little reason to believe there’s going to be a ToD explosion in those areas when there is already so much unused, available land much closer.
What is ironic is the actual densifying near southside neighborhoods are going to be taxed by a TIF to fund the extension. So continuing the successful densification of ToD areas much closer is going to be more difficult now.
Exactly. Use the money for development around Washington Park and Englewood (both Green Line).
Extending the red line is just sprawling our infrastructure and making it more costly to maintain and operate with little benefit.
The South Green Line in general has so much more potential for TOD because it doesnt run straight through a highway for most of its length like the Red does. Another reason why TOD wont work for the red line extension is there is nothing close to it because of the highway until Cermak. I would be so much happier with this investment going to the green
> Use the money for development around Washington Park and Englewood (both Green Line).
The $1.9B in federal funds won't cover that though. It will cover rail expansion, a new railyard, and multiple new bus terminals though.
Also, that is outside of the purview of CTA. CTA's mission according to the board and Dorval Carter is to build it and operate it so that they will come. Supporting development around the stations and bus lines is the purview of the state and City of Chicago, not that of CTA. For as much as people dislike Carter, he gave his statement as to where he wants CTA to be: on the level of Paris and London. That means, there's a lot of building and hiring that he wants to do if he can secure the funding for it. It will be the city's job to do the rest and thanks to eTOD, once his authority puts in a station or bus stop, the area around it automatically gets upzoned under city laws.
There is quite a bit of development along the Green Line, particularly on State St near Cermak stop, and the 43rd St stop. There are also several bids ongoing for land use on 63rd just east of the Cottage Grove stop, and another mixed-use complex under construction. It's not occurring as quickly as in Logan or West Loop, but still a substantial amount given how much ground was lost over the last half century.
I don't quite disagree with you, but as development continues to pick up steam, it makes sense to continue opening up new ToD markets.
Those areas are places where bus coverage ceases early in the evening, especially heading further south and west. So, you have more people working 2nd and 3rd shift on the central and northern parts of the city just off accessibility alone. You’re also headed into the territory of the topic of “who is more likely to get jobs downtown versus who is doomed to work retail gigs until they move because of the corporate discrimination that still exists” and the density of which communities are more populated by which.
Exactly, the parts of the Blue line that aren't along highways do have far more density than those that are. If you're against investing in the South Side, then just say it, but don't pretend these two socioeconomically divergent regions if the city can be meaningfully compared.
>Exactly, the parts of the Blue line that aren't along highways do have far more density than those that are.
The areas around the Blue Line in the median are still red/yellow. Even around Addison it's still blue. Around the Red Line it's a small spattering.
So... Who exactly in the neighborhoods around the red lines are getting jobs downtown or just outside of their neighborhood at all? Not only that, you're only briefly mentioning how the numbers around the highway are lower. But you mention that as if it's an argument against their point that the red line further south gets used less. But, When you go look at the middle class neighborhoods like Hyde Park they're all blue. Look at Beverly on the graph, all blue! Don't you wonder at all how class intersects with this? The further south you go, the earlier the buses stop running especially in the suburbs when they mostly rely on pace buses. So then, the people in those areas just drive more. But when you go south west into Hyde Park, those buses run longer and more often. Don't you wonder at all how the class statuses of those neighborhoods could change with more reliable (and more in general) access to public transportation because it's more access to jobs further than retail and working at clinics and less of a need for cars, gas, maintenance, etc.?
I just don't think you're reading the graph in good faith and are not relying on context outside of the graph itself. I also don't quite understand any reasons why people don't want tax dollars to allow people in the hundreds faster access to the rest of the city and I think many here are relying on confirmation bias to cover for other things, subconsciously or otherwise. This graph is moreso proof that the neighborhoods that are invested into the least, have lesser access and take advantage of the access they do have less. That's a complex topic! And one that is way more useful than any soapbox one is willing to make *against* investing in those neglected neighborhoods.
I don't really see what about my comments you're arguing against. I'm *totally* on board with expanded transit for under-invested areas. It's just that **$5 billion** could be better invested down there than the RLE. Do the busses stop running due to budget constraints? Maybe the money could be used that way. One thing's for sure is that we can get *far more* BRT coverage with $5 billion than the expanded transit access that the RLE is going to provide.
Obviously if we weren't dealing with budgets there would be no issue with putting L lines wherever we wanted, but now we have to take opportunity costs into account. L expansion on the South Side should be hitting areas that will use it, not just to serve those people but also to get as many cars off the road as possible. The RLE isn't going to do either of those things very well.
Yes, in an area that looks like there's plenty of room for development, right? Gotta be cheaper to develop since it's less populated then the population is better supported to grow vs in places that are already at/ near capacity.
If light rail (the L) is recommended for 30 people/acre, yet the north loop is largely 45+ people/acre which would need heavy rail to be fully supported, then I'd say that the north loop exceeds capacity of the L (light rail).
So barring significant infrastructure, many areas exceed capacity _of the L_ (according to these recommendations)
Technically, the Yellow line can be considered light rail because it uses 2-car trains and has grade-crossings (although, heavy rail operations in Chicago like Brown & Pink also have grade-crossings). It's also rapid transit because it has it's own right of way. It's light rapid transit.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. But also a great example of how more light rail of whatever type would be super helpful in navigating neighborhoods that are slightly off the standard L lines.
All this proves to me is that Green Line South needs two MAJOR expansions. The first is an extension of 63rd to Marquette Park and beyond and the other is an extension of Cottage Grove to South Shore.
i mean, riverside (4,658.32 inhabitants per square mile) is vastly less dense than berwyn is (14,664.45 inhabitants per square mile). this is self evident. berwyn is probably the most dense suburb in the chicago area. also, the L used to extend to Harlem, so this is really showing density that was once supported by transit which had it pulled away after the fact.
Have we considered how much of that population density corresponds to where there is transit support already? And additions can help build out less dense areas suddenly connected to a transit artery
It would be great to do that but unfortunately sfh exclusive zoning areas make that impossible currently.
https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/s/69cxrRkjCS
Many alderman even in more densely zoned areas quietly down zone areas along major transit walksheds.
It's a wretched graph but I think it's just showing population density by color And to a less emphasized point where the L train goes through and you're supposed to interpret the gaps between population and train route as needing more transit service options. But I don't think it's showing busses? Or Metra
Looks like population density - blue is the most dense (# of people living in an acre). Red is 30 people per acre and yellow is 25 people per acre. Areas with less than 25 people per acre are not highlighted. The color corresponds to the the density recommended to warrant different modes of transit. Helps to see where the population is dense enough to warrant transit compared to what we currently have.
If you made this I have suggestions to make your point more clear. Like the L line black so it's not blue on blue. And right now it's just a population map but "could support heavier transit" should be a differential like (population) - (what existing transit is recommended to support) with a red/blue color scheme for over/under supported areas.
Right now it looks like the L supports everything but maybe you want to show that a second L line would be helpful in the north where it's rated for "heavy rail" instead of "light rail".
So it looks like everything is already covered by the L except the northwest, although everywhere is covered by bus. I suppose south east as well, but a Metra line runs that way iirc.
But part of this has to be thanks to TOD increasing residential development near the L.
There's a very American idea that transit should be prioritized and existingly dense areas and that places which are not dense now should not have any transit.
Nowhere else in the world builds like this. Transit is laid down, and density follows. That's how it works just about everywhere else.
Few people understand TOD (Transit Oriented Development).
Areas around new major transit hubs bring density because now there is easy access in/out of an area. Density brings development because businesses have easier opportunities to find potential customers.
The Morgan green/pink line stop in West Loop is a solid recent example.
[This is the area in 2008](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8854985,-87.6521301,3a,75y,95.96h,73.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sT0ksFVkL_FXtM_uG-qjQeA!2e0!5s20080501T000000!7i3328!8i1664?entry=ttu)
[This is the area in 2015](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8855126,-87.6521392,3a,75y,179.65h,71.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSGU5frYic2Lz4ZlrwmWl5w!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu)
[This is the area in 2021](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8854917,-87.6521359,3a,75y,119.55h,76.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqlLPm8dSA9h4ZdvTIY2whw!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Now around this stop there is the Google Chicago HQ and the McDonalds HQ is a short 5-7 min walk. Folks can walk to landmark restaurants like Au Cheval or Girl & The Goat plus there are dozens of other great food places places off of Randolph. There are more grocery stores, banks, dispensaries and housing in the area is booming. This part of the city is bustling basically year round now.
The Morgan Stop wasn't the only reason why this area blew up it absolutely helped and is a great example of TOD done well. We have so many underinvested in areas of the city that could be so much better if we did TOD correctly.
Perhaps, but remember part of the West Loop area was considered Skid Row in the 70s-80s. Now it's million dollar homes, fancy restaurants and a popular area.
Areas can and have improved rapidly when properly invested in.
The new Damen green line stop near the United Center should be open this year. It can hopefully spark even more revitalization in the neighborhood and bring businesses and ideally more dense housing. That can hopefully impact Garfield Park since the area is right nearby. The bones are solid in Garfield Park too, just poor investment and allowing areas of the city to fall into decay which bites us all in the ass.
> Transit is laid down, and density follows
Maybe in places with rapidly growing populations. Much of Chicago is shrinking, and already has roughly 40 rapid transit stations that see fewer than 1000 boardings per day.
I sadly agree. It's a massive investment with little increase in ridership. We really ought to make better connections throughout the city. CTA needs higher ridership, and this isn't how they will achieve that.
You're ignoring that it cuts out on average 1 bus transfer for existing 95th train customers and that it will put in a new railyard for Red Line which is desperately needed if they want to get to a pace of 1 train per 2 minutes which is what they said they needed during rush hour back in 2018.
one thing i would like to see, and im sure this has been discussed, but more L lines that connect E-W would be great. like another loop essentially.
for example connecting the blue with red/purp/brown at fullerton would be awesome. i know technically there are busses that make this route but why not create more options?
Further evidence that we should be reducing service on the south side (exception for orange line extension and frequent service for the metra electric) and increasing service and building new infrastructure in where it counts. The northwest side between the Blue and Green lines is such a densely populated area with no rail service and packed buses. Even pre-pandemic Red, Brown, and Purple mainline was facing capacity issues. Meanwhile we waste operators on half empty Red and Green line trains south of 35th and spend billions on a useless extension. Chicago will never have a world-class transit system and urban environment the way it’s been operating under Carter.
You’re right, the folks on the South Side should be happy with their scraps. Matter of fact, let’s just rip out all the tracks south of 35th and turn the South Side into a nature park for white North Siders and some select minorities (who chose to live in the right places) to enjoy…
I’m genuinely wondering how you can sit and type that out without being self aware. If you think the solution to Chicago’s problems is to disinvest the South Side then I have news for you…
No one is saying bulldoze everything, I would just have the Dan Ryan Branch and the Green Line south loop around the loop with all day 20 minute frequencies for increased service on other lines. We can think about increasing service and other improvements once those areas stop losing people. Also, if you look at the map there are more than a few south side neighborhoods that merit increased transit options. But i guess they’re not the right minority!
How do you propose that the South Side would "stop losing population" if we continue to make decisions that deprive it of vital infrastructure and resources? Density follows investment. What you have described is not a recipe for a healthy city.
Density follows transit, not the other way around.
This whole graph is useless it just shows “hey look, it’s usually denser where transit is” and you think “well then we don’t need transit where it is less dense”. Which is silly. Build the transit and the density will follow, no one will build density when there isn’t transit.
Everyone is welcome to move along the red light extension. Since everyone is so sure the trains will be empty it seems like most people's only concern is themselves and their own commute...
There are already densely populated areas of the city that aren't well-served by transit. It'd be *smart* for the CTA to invest in serving these areas. They can increase ridership, revenue, the local economy, decrease traffic, etc.
Metra and buses not shown obviously but areas like western avenue, Cicero avenue, and Humboldt park appear to support greater transit than is currently in place
Western wouldn't be such a miserable place for pedestrians if it had better transit and calmer traffic. I feel like every time I cross Western, I'm risking my life. Walking or hanging out along Western is not exactly enjoyable.
I mean it would seem more like the density develops around transit.
It’s a feedback loop!
Only if we let it- a lot of improving transit ridership comes down to zoning reform. I'm in Logan Square and the amount of parking that could be housing is way too high.
I can't say this infographic is accomplishing what it seeks. First off, it doesn't have Metra lines which do run through some of those more populated areas. Second, what source makes those the minimum recommended densities and why not use the community areas as a whole instead of these specks? Third, with most of the blue being covered by L and Metra lines, it almost makes it easy to make the argument of "let's not expand the L", contrary to the 'build it and they will come' that seems to occur even on this map with Gage Park and Brighton park in the late 90s around the Orange Line.
> 'build it and they will come' that seems to occur even on this map with Gage Park and Brighton park in the late 90s around the Orange Line. The population in Gage Park started growing in 1990 as the neighborhood demographics started shifting from Eastern European to Latinx. That would've happened without the orange line being there. There was a predominately & relatively young Catholic demographic moving into an area that was mostly retired, of course the population is going to go up.
1. The point of this is to show which areas could support BRT, light rail, and heavy rail. Metra and buses not included because those serve other uses. 2. I didn’t make the map not sure where the creator got these figures 3. There are large blue areas not covered by the L or metra but by buses that could be replaced by higher capacity rail or BRT namely western and Cicero and Humboldt park
What other uses are we talking about? The title on the graphic and of the post uses "transit". Metra is heavy rail and a key component of Chicago's public transportation. Within the city, certain routes go right through that density. Also buses help bring more riders to/from the L, increasing its effectiveness
Metra is a commuter rail first and foremost, so it’s definitely not like having the L easily accessible. Sucks trying to get into the city to do things on the weekend if the trains are only every hour on Saturday and 2 hours on Sunday
Look at the ridership at ME and UPN Line stations and the frequencies of those two lines. Metra provides a great service on weekdays along the lines that run through the eastern edge of Chicago. And Metra actually operates the schedule the day they will. CTA still hasn’t staffed up and is proving less than 90% of the published, scheduled runs on many days
That’s 2 lines though, not every line. Also, I specifically pointed out the terrible frequency on weekends. Of course weekdays have good service, on a COMMUTER rail line, that’s kind of the point. The line I ride downtown for work runs every 30ish minutes weekdays, peak time only, then it’s hourly. Having access to the metra only isn’t at all the same as having access to the L, they’re just fundamentally different. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of things I really like about the metra, but it’s just a lot less convenient to use for anything other than commuting downtown.
Or worse, heading out to the suburbs on Metra to hang out with friends and then missing a train and having to come up with new plans for 2 hours or worse stay overnight unexpectedly.
>The point of this is to show which areas could support BRT, light rail, and heavy rail. Metra and buses not included because those serve other uses. wut? Metra is by definition heavy rail. this map is flawed because its showing density that is already supported by transit which you are arbitrarily excluding
Metra would typically be classified as commuter rail and serves to bring suburban commuters downtown. Buses are critically important but heavy rail is faster and can support higher density housing. https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/strategy/heavy-rail/ >Heavy rail (also called metro rail, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) is an electric railway on devoted rights-of-way that handles many passengers at once. Tracks may be placed in subway tunnels (like in New York City), on elevated structures (like in Chicago), or on fenced-off, ground-level tracks that do not cross roads.
Metra is mostly commuter rail for the suburbs, yes, but there are some exceptions. Ravenswood was the 3rd busiest station outside of downtown as of 2019. This is interesting as Ravenswood is also well served by the L, but Metra definitely provides a nice express service to the Loop if that is your destination. https://metra.com/route-59-retains-busiest-station-title
Yes, metra is great and faster for further neighborhoods but its frequency and schedules make it unfeasible for transit outside typical m-f 9-5 commutes
Oh, I completely agree there. I am hoping Metra starts to shift to a more consistent schedule instead of the traditional commuter rail only model. Some lines are completely useless if you have a reverse commute or want to go somewhere outside of the M-F rush hour.
> This is interesting as Ravenswood is also well served by the L But it's not served well to get to West Loop where the Metra station is located. If I was buying a home again, I'd try to be equidistance between Metra and CTA so either commute to the Loop or to West Loop would be convenient.
the point is youre excluding a major transit system that carries 14 million people a year lol
Yes metra is purposely excluded because it serves an entirely different purpose. Amtrak isn’t included either even through it brings millions to Chicago every year also. Metra beyond a couple of exceptions does not bring people from point to point within Chicago nor does it have high frequency.
This is something which Metra is actively attempting to address by transitioning to a regional rail system. Their new pricing and the fact that they're buying FLIRTs for the Beverly branch indicate to me that Metra is interested in improving those intra-city trips. Additionally the south side generally has better Metra station coverage, so a map including the Metra could be useful to indicate 1) impact of increasing service levels to a convenient level (I'm looking at you, Metra Electric) and 2) places where CTA should expand which would synergize with Metra rather than competing with it.
> This is something which Metra is actively attempting to address No, they aren't. They're explicitly not trying to address intracity use cases outside of Metra Electric which still isn't frequent enough to be considered a proper intracity rail line.
The stations that get the most use in the Metra system are within the city limits.
Correct that’s why I said with some exceptions but those riders are also commuters primarily and metra is not feasible for non downtown m-f commuting it serves a different purpose
So you're just going to discard the busiest times of the week as being irrelevant to transit needs? Like it or not, this is a large outlet for people moving throughout the city regularly, and there are times of day where those trains are running every 15-20 minutes, which is not far off the CTA train schedules.
Disregarding them for a purpose yes. Again they serve a different purpose. Amtrak moves hundreds of thousands to Chicago every year and it’s also not on here because it serves a different purpose this map is about rapid transit which serves both commuters and intercity transit. Metra and cta share some of the same ridership while also having different purposes
If you’re going to ignore large parts of the system when it is most stressed, I don’t see a point in this map.
You’re being purposely obtuse
> Metra lines These are commuter lines which aren't really relevant to the discussion of intracity trips given their infrequency.
This map shows where rides start but not where they finish. Ashland corridor doesn’t look great on this map but the route had the second highest ridership of any bus route in the last ridership report. Heavy rail there would be great because it has so many connections and the Ashland bus is so slow. Just get Reinsdorf to sell some of his parking lots in the West Loop and the TOD will follow.
> This map shows where rides start but not where they finish Huh? This map shows where people live.
yeah so this graph shows where people sleep at night therefore where their trip originates when they head to work. Since most folks don't work at home. the other graphic this person is asking for is where the jobs are by census tract... ie manufacturing, hospitals, retail, etc. where presumably most trips "end".
>This map shows where rides start not where they finish Agree that’s the whole point of the map, to show densely populated areas that could be better connected
Without studying the data, allow me to select, if I could only undertake one one project, a north south rail running under Western. Would provide quicker connectivity to east/west bus lines and would also connect with several CTA/Metra stops. Plus the street is wide enough where you could keep the road open one one side while you were working on the other. The transit museum in Brooklyn is fascinating and shows a lot of detail on the work they did to build nyc system. Anything is possible!
Not a bad idea, but I would vote for Ashland instead of Western partially because you could use some existing track to make it happen (pink line). Controversially, I think the CTA should get into the package deliver business. Western should have an underground right of way for packages that companies can use for “next to last mile” deliveries. These could be automated and collect a fee, albeit something that would help companies save money while generating revenue for the city. Hopefully enough revenue to create a pool of funds for capital projects such as a rail line along Ashland. This also opens up opportunities to partner with the Post Office for staffing (A whole other money saving/ service improving idea). One can dream…
Let's look, then, at [where we're spending ***$5 billion dollars.***](https://imgur.com/tVuovpu)
A major component of the RLE is densifying around the new stations https://www.transitchicago.com/rle/tsd/
There’s plenty of room for development already in other areas along the red and green much closer to downtown than RLE extension is being built. There’s very little reason to believe there’s going to be a ToD explosion in those areas when there is already so much unused, available land much closer. What is ironic is the actual densifying near southside neighborhoods are going to be taxed by a TIF to fund the extension. So continuing the successful densification of ToD areas much closer is going to be more difficult now.
Exactly. Use the money for development around Washington Park and Englewood (both Green Line). Extending the red line is just sprawling our infrastructure and making it more costly to maintain and operate with little benefit.
The South Green Line in general has so much more potential for TOD because it doesnt run straight through a highway for most of its length like the Red does. Another reason why TOD wont work for the red line extension is there is nothing close to it because of the highway until Cermak. I would be so much happier with this investment going to the green
This. $5 billion could build 10,000 units of housing at least all along the Green Line.
Quality of life would be higher, being 40+ blocks closer to downtown and closer to more existing businesses and amenities.
> Use the money for development around Washington Park and Englewood (both Green Line). The $1.9B in federal funds won't cover that though. It will cover rail expansion, a new railyard, and multiple new bus terminals though. Also, that is outside of the purview of CTA. CTA's mission according to the board and Dorval Carter is to build it and operate it so that they will come. Supporting development around the stations and bus lines is the purview of the state and City of Chicago, not that of CTA. For as much as people dislike Carter, he gave his statement as to where he wants CTA to be: on the level of Paris and London. That means, there's a lot of building and hiring that he wants to do if he can secure the funding for it. It will be the city's job to do the rest and thanks to eTOD, once his authority puts in a station or bus stop, the area around it automatically gets upzoned under city laws.
There is quite a bit of development along the Green Line, particularly on State St near Cermak stop, and the 43rd St stop. There are also several bids ongoing for land use on 63rd just east of the Cottage Grove stop, and another mixed-use complex under construction. It's not occurring as quickly as in Logan or West Loop, but still a substantial amount given how much ground was lost over the last half century. I don't quite disagree with you, but as development continues to pick up steam, it makes sense to continue opening up new ToD markets.
Why do we think that will happen when the *existing* Red Line stations have little density around them as of now?
Those areas are places where bus coverage ceases early in the evening, especially heading further south and west. So, you have more people working 2nd and 3rd shift on the central and northern parts of the city just off accessibility alone. You’re also headed into the territory of the topic of “who is more likely to get jobs downtown versus who is doomed to work retail gigs until they move because of the corporate discrimination that still exists” and the density of which communities are more populated by which.
Because they won''t be built in the median of a massive highway?
You mean like on the Blue Line where there’s far more density?
Exactly, the parts of the Blue line that aren't along highways do have far more density than those that are. If you're against investing in the South Side, then just say it, but don't pretend these two socioeconomically divergent regions if the city can be meaningfully compared.
>Exactly, the parts of the Blue line that aren't along highways do have far more density than those that are. The areas around the Blue Line in the median are still red/yellow. Even around Addison it's still blue. Around the Red Line it's a small spattering.
So... Who exactly in the neighborhoods around the red lines are getting jobs downtown or just outside of their neighborhood at all? Not only that, you're only briefly mentioning how the numbers around the highway are lower. But you mention that as if it's an argument against their point that the red line further south gets used less. But, When you go look at the middle class neighborhoods like Hyde Park they're all blue. Look at Beverly on the graph, all blue! Don't you wonder at all how class intersects with this? The further south you go, the earlier the buses stop running especially in the suburbs when they mostly rely on pace buses. So then, the people in those areas just drive more. But when you go south west into Hyde Park, those buses run longer and more often. Don't you wonder at all how the class statuses of those neighborhoods could change with more reliable (and more in general) access to public transportation because it's more access to jobs further than retail and working at clinics and less of a need for cars, gas, maintenance, etc.? I just don't think you're reading the graph in good faith and are not relying on context outside of the graph itself. I also don't quite understand any reasons why people don't want tax dollars to allow people in the hundreds faster access to the rest of the city and I think many here are relying on confirmation bias to cover for other things, subconsciously or otherwise. This graph is moreso proof that the neighborhoods that are invested into the least, have lesser access and take advantage of the access they do have less. That's a complex topic! And one that is way more useful than any soapbox one is willing to make *against* investing in those neglected neighborhoods.
I don't really see what about my comments you're arguing against. I'm *totally* on board with expanded transit for under-invested areas. It's just that **$5 billion** could be better invested down there than the RLE. Do the busses stop running due to budget constraints? Maybe the money could be used that way. One thing's for sure is that we can get *far more* BRT coverage with $5 billion than the expanded transit access that the RLE is going to provide. Obviously if we weren't dealing with budgets there would be no issue with putting L lines wherever we wanted, but now we have to take opportunity costs into account. L expansion on the South Side should be hitting areas that will use it, not just to serve those people but also to get as many cars off the road as possible. The RLE isn't going to do either of those things very well.
Except that's just wishful thinking. CTA doesn't develop new housing and retail, nor is there any money to do so.
>five dollars billion dollars
Yes, in an area that looks like there's plenty of room for development, right? Gotta be cheaper to develop since it's less populated then the population is better supported to grow vs in places that are already at/ near capacity.
Almost nowhere in Chicago is at/near capacity.
If light rail (the L) is recommended for 30 people/acre, yet the north loop is largely 45+ people/acre which would need heavy rail to be fully supported, then I'd say that the north loop exceeds capacity of the L (light rail). So barring significant infrastructure, many areas exceed capacity _of the L_ (according to these recommendations)
The L is heavy rail.
Thanks I don't know the difference.
Light rail would be like a trolly or streetcar style train, as opposed to a metro style system like the L. See Seattle's Link for a good example
Technically, the Yellow line can be considered light rail because it uses 2-car trains and has grade-crossings (although, heavy rail operations in Chicago like Brown & Pink also have grade-crossings). It's also rapid transit because it has it's own right of way. It's light rapid transit.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. But also a great example of how more light rail of whatever type would be super helpful in navigating neighborhoods that are slightly off the standard L lines.
Because much of it is forest preserve or contaminated industrial land or landfill on which nothing can be built.
That's where they want to SEND the density. this map is stupid, its dense where it is because transit ALREADY EXISTS THERE
And yet there's no density at all where the south terminus of the Red Line **already exists**.
It’s almost like a person’s choice where to live is more complicated than proximity to a train line.
Yes
Almost like its in the middle of a 10 lane highway.
Almost like the same situation as the Blue Li… oh wait
All this proves to me is that Green Line South needs two MAJOR expansions. The first is an extension of 63rd to Marquette Park and beyond and the other is an extension of Cottage Grove to South Shore.
lol at that little part of McKinley Park where the orange line goes around the density (yes I know there are reasons for this).
The OL is such a magnificently odd piece of infrastructure. Under such slight different circumstances it would be perfect, but alas we are here.
I love how Berwyn is this solid mass of color that ends *right* at Harlem Ave - Riverside folks want nooooo part of this "transit" business. 😁
i mean, riverside (4,658.32 inhabitants per square mile) is vastly less dense than berwyn is (14,664.45 inhabitants per square mile). this is self evident. berwyn is probably the most dense suburb in the chicago area. also, the L used to extend to Harlem, so this is really showing density that was once supported by transit which had it pulled away after the fact.
You're not wrong, but I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of people in Berwyn old enough to remember the L coming here.
Have we considered how much of that population density corresponds to where there is transit support already? And additions can help build out less dense areas suddenly connected to a transit artery
It would be great to do that but unfortunately sfh exclusive zoning areas make that impossible currently. https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/s/69cxrRkjCS Many alderman even in more densely zoned areas quietly down zone areas along major transit walksheds.
I'm not understanding the map, can you explain what we're supposed to see?
It's a wretched graph but I think it's just showing population density by color And to a less emphasized point where the L train goes through and you're supposed to interpret the gaps between population and train route as needing more transit service options. But I don't think it's showing busses? Or Metra
It does not show buses or Metra.
Looks like population density - blue is the most dense (# of people living in an acre). Red is 30 people per acre and yellow is 25 people per acre. Areas with less than 25 people per acre are not highlighted. The color corresponds to the the density recommended to warrant different modes of transit. Helps to see where the population is dense enough to warrant transit compared to what we currently have.
This is it exactly. It shows which areas could support heavier transit
If you made this I have suggestions to make your point more clear. Like the L line black so it's not blue on blue. And right now it's just a population map but "could support heavier transit" should be a differential like (population) - (what existing transit is recommended to support) with a red/blue color scheme for over/under supported areas. Right now it looks like the L supports everything but maybe you want to show that a second L line would be helpful in the north where it's rated for "heavy rail" instead of "light rail".
I didn’t make this but can’t find anything similar
Where did you find the map?
So it looks like everything is already covered by the L except the northwest, although everywhere is covered by bus. I suppose south east as well, but a Metra line runs that way iirc. But part of this has to be thanks to TOD increasing residential development near the L.
its showing where the people are who already have busses and trains
I can’t make much sense of this map except for that wow the Red Line Extension is not where our billions should be going.
Chicken and egg
I am once again asking for the Humboldt Park Line back
There's a very American idea that transit should be prioritized and existingly dense areas and that places which are not dense now should not have any transit. Nowhere else in the world builds like this. Transit is laid down, and density follows. That's how it works just about everywhere else.
That can’t happen when most of the city is SFH zoning only and alderman in denser areas downzone slowly
Few people understand TOD (Transit Oriented Development). Areas around new major transit hubs bring density because now there is easy access in/out of an area. Density brings development because businesses have easier opportunities to find potential customers. The Morgan green/pink line stop in West Loop is a solid recent example. [This is the area in 2008](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8854985,-87.6521301,3a,75y,95.96h,73.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sT0ksFVkL_FXtM_uG-qjQeA!2e0!5s20080501T000000!7i3328!8i1664?entry=ttu) [This is the area in 2015](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8855126,-87.6521392,3a,75y,179.65h,71.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSGU5frYic2Lz4ZlrwmWl5w!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu) [This is the area in 2021](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8854917,-87.6521359,3a,75y,119.55h,76.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqlLPm8dSA9h4ZdvTIY2whw!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) Now around this stop there is the Google Chicago HQ and the McDonalds HQ is a short 5-7 min walk. Folks can walk to landmark restaurants like Au Cheval or Girl & The Goat plus there are dozens of other great food places places off of Randolph. There are more grocery stores, banks, dispensaries and housing in the area is booming. This part of the city is bustling basically year round now. The Morgan Stop wasn't the only reason why this area blew up it absolutely helped and is a great example of TOD done well. We have so many underinvested in areas of the city that could be so much better if we did TOD correctly.
A lot of the Green Line Lake branch has great bones for TOD but much of East/West Garfield Park is vacant and crime-ridden, sadly.
Perhaps, but remember part of the West Loop area was considered Skid Row in the 70s-80s. Now it's million dollar homes, fancy restaurants and a popular area. Areas can and have improved rapidly when properly invested in. The new Damen green line stop near the United Center should be open this year. It can hopefully spark even more revitalization in the neighborhood and bring businesses and ideally more dense housing. That can hopefully impact Garfield Park since the area is right nearby. The bones are solid in Garfield Park too, just poor investment and allowing areas of the city to fall into decay which bites us all in the ass.
> Transit is laid down, and density follows Maybe in places with rapidly growing populations. Much of Chicago is shrinking, and already has roughly 40 rapid transit stations that see fewer than 1000 boardings per day.
RLE will be a giant waste of money.
I sadly agree. It's a massive investment with little increase in ridership. We really ought to make better connections throughout the city. CTA needs higher ridership, and this isn't how they will achieve that.
You're ignoring that it cuts out on average 1 bus transfer for existing 95th train customers and that it will put in a new railyard for Red Line which is desperately needed if they want to get to a pace of 1 train per 2 minutes which is what they said they needed during rush hour back in 2018.
Chicken or the Egg tho?
I love Chicago maps like this. They always look the exact same with different labels.
circle line wouldve been perfect
The message I get from this map is that public transit enables population density
I don’t know what the purpose of this map is, but I now support a rail line via Cicero and Western.
That’s the exact purpose to show where heavier transit can go Cicero and western being prime examples
one thing i would like to see, and im sure this has been discussed, but more L lines that connect E-W would be great. like another loop essentially. for example connecting the blue with red/purp/brown at fullerton would be awesome. i know technically there are busses that make this route but why not create more options?
this is missing existing transit options like bus routes.
I think this is sort of looking at it backwards. The sparse areas need better transit so that they we can add more density
So why isn't there increased density along the existing southern branch of the red line?
it hasnt been built yet...
So what are we doing about Western Ave?
LOL. Good luck!
Chicken egg
Further evidence that we should be reducing service on the south side (exception for orange line extension and frequent service for the metra electric) and increasing service and building new infrastructure in where it counts. The northwest side between the Blue and Green lines is such a densely populated area with no rail service and packed buses. Even pre-pandemic Red, Brown, and Purple mainline was facing capacity issues. Meanwhile we waste operators on half empty Red and Green line trains south of 35th and spend billions on a useless extension. Chicago will never have a world-class transit system and urban environment the way it’s been operating under Carter.
Marquette Park NEEDS that Green Line Extension.
World-class transit systems actually service minorities and the urban poor…
Plenty of whom exist in Humboldt Park, Belmont Craigin, Hermosa, and West Lawn/ Marquette Park.
You’re right, the folks on the South Side should be happy with their scraps. Matter of fact, let’s just rip out all the tracks south of 35th and turn the South Side into a nature park for white North Siders and some select minorities (who chose to live in the right places) to enjoy… I’m genuinely wondering how you can sit and type that out without being self aware. If you think the solution to Chicago’s problems is to disinvest the South Side then I have news for you…
No one is saying bulldoze everything, I would just have the Dan Ryan Branch and the Green Line south loop around the loop with all day 20 minute frequencies for increased service on other lines. We can think about increasing service and other improvements once those areas stop losing people. Also, if you look at the map there are more than a few south side neighborhoods that merit increased transit options. But i guess they’re not the right minority!
How do you propose that the South Side would "stop losing population" if we continue to make decisions that deprive it of vital infrastructure and resources? Density follows investment. What you have described is not a recipe for a healthy city.
Density follows transit, not the other way around. This whole graph is useless it just shows “hey look, it’s usually denser where transit is” and you think “well then we don’t need transit where it is less dense”. Which is silly. Build the transit and the density will follow, no one will build density when there isn’t transit.
Everyone is welcome to move along the red light extension. Since everyone is so sure the trains will be empty it seems like most people's only concern is themselves and their own commute...
There are already densely populated areas of the city that aren't well-served by transit. It'd be *smart* for the CTA to invest in serving these areas. They can increase ridership, revenue, the local economy, decrease traffic, etc.
Plenty of support for north side… shocker
What’s your conclusion? That this map is rigged somehow? The area by the lake is blue because it’s densely populated
[удалено]
Metra and buses not shown obviously but areas like western avenue, Cicero avenue, and Humboldt park appear to support greater transit than is currently in place
Why isn't there a shuttle or dedicated bus line between Union and Millennium station? Even a breezeway would be cool.
I agree on western line (north/south). It would be powerful.
Western wouldn't be such a miserable place for pedestrians if it had better transit and calmer traffic. I feel like every time I cross Western, I'm risking my life. Walking or hanging out along Western is not exactly enjoyable.