Making the “L” more SustainableHow the CTA can increase “L” ridership and
reduce the number of cars driven
Study conducted by: Chirag SabunaniAdvisors: Dr. Kalyan Raman
Dr. Aaron GellmanFunding Organizations: ISEN
Transportation Center at Northwestern University
Index
Motivation
Executive Summary
Hypothesis & Methodology
Regression Results
Recommendations
Potential Impact
Motivation Scenario: Despite its inherent
benefits, people often prefer alternatives to the CTA
Objective: To identify and recommend
potential solutions to factors pushing people away from the “L”
To measure potential sustainability impact of recommended changes www.visitingdc.com/images/cta-train.jpg
Executive Summary Original hypothesis relating station
performance to rider satisfaction proven false
Station performance not statistically significant in predicting rider satisfaction
Typical response of “L” rider:Riders want it [the “L”] to be reasonably clean, safe, and to be on time, higher frequency, and not break down every other day
Lower travel times are the only meaningful statistically significant variable in improving rider satisfaction
railfanning.org/graphics/chicago_3851.jpg
Hypothesis & Methodology Hypothesis
Rider satisfaction is related to station performance. Profitable real estate investments can thus increase rider satisfaction and lead people to choose the “L”
Methodology
Target audience: People who travel to Chicago by car or METRA
A survey was conduced to collect data on consumer preferences. Regression analysis was used to analyze results
Images from Wikipedia
Regression Results
Regression Results Station performance is not
statistically significant in predicting rider satisfaction
Riders have accepted CTA’s dire financial position and seek a basic, clean, well-functioning system
In the words of a survey participant:
Riders want it [the “L”] to be reasonably clean, safe, and to be on time, higher frequency, and not break down every other day
http://blogs.suntimes.com/transportation/2008/03/what_cta_stations_really_need.html
Regression Results cont.Travel-times
Longer travel time is the only meaningful statistically significant variable affecting (lowering) rider satisfaction
‘Not getting what I am paying for’ & ‘Other’ are also statistically significant variables but they provide no basis for recommendations. They are therefore excluded from analysis
Need
To lower travel time on the “L” CTA Limitations
The limitation of two-tracks over most of the “L” prevents train-passing and express services
northatlantamedical.com/index-3.html
Recommendations
Reducing Travel times Merge Purple & Red Lines
Close minor “L” stations
Develop joint METRA and “L” services
Build the Circle Line
Remove Slow Zones from tracks
Wikipedia Commons
Merge Purple & Red Lines
Current Scenario: Red Line stops at Howard Purple Line runs from Howard to Linden (Purple Line Express service includes downtown)
Disadvantages: 2 trains needed to provide service from downtown to Linden Transfers at Howard take time (10 min. going North, 2 min. going South)
Key Insights: “L” has 4 tracks from Howard to Fullerton for Purple Line Express service Brown Line & Purple Line Express follow the same path starting Belmont
Fullerton
http://www.rususa.com/city/trainmap.asp-region-chicago
Merge Purple & Red Line cont.
Recommendation: Extend Red Line to Linden & close ‘Purple’ Line. Run a Red Line express from Howard to Fullerton simultaneously with normal Red Line service
Impact: Time saving from efficient service, reduced congestion at common
Brown and Purple Line stops Extra trains from closed ‘Purple’ Line can be added to Brown Line
and new Red Line
Lind
en
Cen
tral
Noy
es
Fos
ter
Dav
is
Dem
pste
r
Mai
n
Sou
th B
lvd
Ho
war
d
Jarv
is
Mor
se
Loyo
la
Gra
nvill
e
Tho
rnda
le
Bry
n M
awr
Ber
wyn
Arg
yle
Law
renc
e
Wils
on
She
ridan
Add
ison
Bel
mo
nt
Wel
lingt
on
Div
erse
y
Key Red Line
Brown LineYellow Line
Red Line ExpressMultiple Line station
Fu
ller
ton
Close minor stations & Compensate with bus-rerouting
Current Scenario: Due to track limitations, all “L” trains must stop at all stations (except Purple Line Express)
Disadvantages: Service slowed even for minor stations
Key Insights: Most buses operate on routes connecting minor and major stations
Close minor stations & Compensate with bus-rerouting cont.
Recommendation: Close low-traffic stations near one another and compensate by re-routing buses to transport riders to major stations
Impact: Quicker service for most “L” customers and cost savings from closing low-traffic stations
CLOSE Re-route Quicker Service
Wikipedia & http://www.Chicago-L.org/
Joint METRA & “L” Services
Current Scenario: Riders need separate tickets to ride METRA and CTA
Disadvantages: Separation of services, uncertainty due to no “L” schedules and additional cost discourages dual use of METRA and CTA for transit to/in Chicago
Key insights: Where there is abundant parking at METRA stops, driving to METRA station is encouraged. METRA is taken downtown and then using CTA within downtown – IF CTA buses & trains run abundantly from Ogilvie
METRA
www.ktransit.com
Joint METRA & “L” Services
Recommendation: Pursue a CTA and METRA collaboration that will allow bundling of CTA and METRA services (and even parking).Increase bus frequency from Ogilvie
Impact: This could reduce driving into downtown and increase ridership for both CTA and METRA
METRA
www.ktransit.com
Circle Line Current Scenario:
The Circle Line is being considered to connect CTA and METRA Lines, to provide transit shortcuts and more efficient linkages
Without the Circle Line, Ogilvie is 8 min. walking distance from nearest “L” station
Lack of CTA bus & “L” schedules presently discourages connections
Disadvantage: Delay and uncertainty of service discourages office-goers from using Metra-CTA combination.
Circle Line Recommendation:
Pursue the plan for the Circle Line and benchmark systems like the London Tube and Boston T for station design and operations
Ensure there is a stop at Ogilvie Transportation Center
Remove Slow Zones
Current Scenario: 9.2% of all CTA tack-miles fall under Slow Zones Slow Zones take 38% of track-miles in certain areas
Disadvantages: Slower service and potential damage to tracks
Key Insights: Funds from $56.6 million federal stimulus being applied to remove Slow Zones
Recommendation: Make improvement work highest priority
http://www.transitchicago.com/
Comparison of changesChange Relative
EffortTime
saving potential
Further work/testing
Cost/Profit
Merge Lines Minimal Significant Analysis & minor technical
Minimal. Cost Saving + Revenue generating.
Close minor Stations
Moderate Significant Analysis & significant testing
Minimal. Cost Saving + Revenue generating.
Joint METRA & “L” services
Significant administrative & strategy
Significant Analysis & significant testing
Minimal. Potentially Revenue generating.
Circle Line Significant and long term
Significant Long term strategy etc.
Significant and long-term
Slow zone removal
Moderate Moderate Under way Significant
Potential Impact
Drivers switching to “L” Present automobile worktrips1: 305K/day
2020 projected automobile worktrips: 332K-354K/day
CTA has a variety of options to lower travel times and attract drivers to ride the “L”
If drivers are attracted to the “L:”
Potential for daily Energy & CO2 saving & Revenue generation2
Criteria Current 2020 Low 2020 High
Energy (GWH) 16.8 18.3 19.5
CO2 (tons) 5555 6046 6446
Revenue ($ million) 1.51 1.64 1.75
1: Metro Transportation Group, Inc., ‘SUMMARY OF GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT TRENDS For THE CENTRAL AREA OF CHICAGO, ’ Prepared for The Parking Industry Labor Management Committee (PILMC), August 7, 2003 2: These numbers are based on following assumptions
$4.5 Collection per person/day 1.1 persons/current car driven
Average one-way driving distance = 25 milesAverage CO2 emission per mile per car =1.1 lb/mile Average energy use per mile per car =1KWH/mileIt is assumed that the energy and CO2 emissions from extra passengers on “L” is negligible compared to resultant savings
Summary Rider satisfaction on “L” is lowered by longer travel times
CTA has several options to choose from to lower travel time, which can induce people driving to Chicago to use the “L”
Current potential daily impact
Energy = 16.8 GWH
CO2 = 5555 Tons
Revenue = $1.51 million
The right systems can lead to behavioral change. Together we can make Chicago more sustainable
Special Thanks to
Prof. Kalyan RamanProf. Aaron Gellman
Prof. Benjamin ArmbrusterMs. Diana Marek
Ms. Donna Kwiatkowski