Diverging Approach

Diverging Approach: A Bridge Too Far, Part 2

Last week, this blog dove into Illinois’s forthcoming capital bill, with a skeptical look at extensions to Metra’s BNSF service into Kendall County. While the merits of the $440 million Kendall County extension price tag can be debated, the $3.8 billion elephant in the room is the megaproject at the other end of the BNSF line, the massive One Central project over the Metra Electric tracks at 18th Street. (Mayor Lightfoot is not pleased that the capital bill includes language that lets the state pursue a public-private partnership for the massive project without additional input from the city.)

One Central bills the transit center (which somehow will cost two-thirds more than the entire CTA Red Line South extension from 95th/Dan Ryan to 130th Street) as “the intersection of transit, civic and community interests at this iconic Lakefront destination” and “Chicago’s Opportunity to Integrate Transit”. To be fair, there’s no argument that (1) the site has lots of potential since it’s currently connected to Metra Electric trains and Amtrak Illini/Saluki/City of New Orleans trains passing through the site, and (2) the Museum Campus is woefully disconnected from downtown and the city as a whole. While this project can absolutely serve as a catalyst to maximize those opportunities, the execution as currently proposed deserves more than a little bit of skepticism, especially as a developer tries to get Illinois taxpayers at least partially on the hook for $3.8 billion of transit investment in a region with plenty of more pressing needs.

First and foremost: does Chicago need a brand-new centralized transit hub? The short answer is, we already have a pretty darn good one. It’s about 125 years old, and we named our central business district after it. With a few glaring accessibility needs for people with mobility issues, The Loop is incredibly effective as a centralized transit hub that links rapid transit lines from around the city as well as convenient (within a block or two) connections to commuter and regional rail. The Loop is brilliant because it distributes peak period traffic throughout the CBD, allows for both through-routing and terminal routes that end downtown, and keeps trains moving since there are no stub terminals (although historically each elevated railroad company did operate an auxiliary stub terminal adjacent to the Loop).

Then there’s Union Station, Amtrak’s primary non-East-Coast hub and where six of Metra’s 11 lines terminate. Chicago recently completed a very nice bus terminal directly connected to the lower-level rail concourses and there’s been some buzz I’ve heard about including a direct connection to the Clinton Blue Line station as part of larger-scale redevelopment of some Amtrak-owned land in the West Loop. While Union Station is plenty crowded and cramped, there’s no real reason to believe a new transit hub a mile and a half away as the crow flies down by Soldier Field will fix what ails Union Station (or the Loop, for that matter), especially not to the tune of nearly $4 billion. Even One Central’s proposed link with Amtrak is underwhelming, since there are only three Amtrak services that use that line, and all three offer transfers to the Metra Electric in Homewood already.

Second, let’s be honest: centralized transfer hubs without integrated fare policies will inevitably lead to underwhelming outcomes, since passengers are charged two full fares to complete a trip. It’s hard to see how One Central would encourage a Metra Electric rider to pay an extra $2.50 to get on an extended Orange Line to get into the Loop when they could just ride the ME the rest of the way to Van Buren or Millennium and hoof it for free, other than the pure convenience factor (in which case, proposed operations will have a much bigger impact on the effectiveness of the transit center — more on that later). This is a common theme on this blog and among other Chicago transit advocates, so I won’t dive too far into this at this moment, other than to point out how far even a fraction of $3.8 billion could go to get Metra’s fare structure more solidly integrated with the CTA and Pace.

Third: while it’s good to see that Mayor Lightfoot is jumping in to slow down the momentum on the process as a whole to get more public input on the project, it’s a bit of an indictment of our various planning agencies and the service boards that there’s enough of a vacuum around the Museum Campus that an out-of-state developer can just hop in with an expensive transportation plan that doesn’t seem to make all that much sense and we just go ahead and sneak part of it into an important statewide capital bill. There was some momentum back in 2014 when the Chicago Park District announced they were looking into a long-range plan for the Museum Campus and Mayor Emanuel announced a Museum Campus Transportation Task Force, but both proposals seemed to wither after plans for the Lucas Museum fell through. A comprehensive plan for downtown-area transit and transportation with some actual teeth to it would help guide investment with clear long-term expectations vetted by the public, rather than letting investment guide transportation plans based on what a developer finds most profitable in the current market.

And fourth, and maybe most important: $3.8 billion is a hell of an investment for transportation infrastructure, but with no operational plans or funds to go along with the capital improvements, there’s no guarantee any initiative would be a success. (In a case like One Central, it’s also an omission that offloads a negative externality — the cost to serve the development — onto the public sector without becoming a line item in the project’s own budget.) The balance, or lack thereof, between capital funds and operating funds is one of the largest fatal flaws in how we fund our transit networks. The two separate silos of money too often create competing priorities within a single region or even within a single agency. Toss in good old-fashioned politics — capital projects make for great ribbon-cuttings and press releases; operational improvements, not so much — and it’s a fundamentally flawed system. (Once again, kudos to Illinois legislators for including some ongoing recurring annual capital funding for transit in the recent capital bill.)

The transit operating plan to actually serve One Central is frustratingly vague, at least from what’s been in public documents so far. (The project team has reached out to Metra to discuss the preliminary plans; Metra sounds open-minded but non-committal to the development thus far.)

Source: Landmark Development Presentation

The crux of the transit center relies on the St. Charles Air Line, which cuts through the South Loop just north of 16th Street between the Metra Electric and Canadian National tracks to the east and the BNSF and Union Station south approach tracks via the St. Charles Air Line bridge over the Chicago River. Currently, Amtrak’s Illini, Saluki, and City of New Orleans trains use this connection to cross over the Chicago River and back into Union Station in a pretty annoying, time-consuming maneuver. The One Central site itself would sit atop existing Metra Electric tracks, yards, and the 18th Street station. The One Central proposal adds additional transit options by building a spur line off the Orange Line along the existing railroad tracks into a stub terminal at One Central, as well as routing Metra BNSF trains over the St. Charles Air Line into One Central. There’s also a “CHI-Line” transportation feature — Bus? Tram? Hyperloop? — that would link One Central and McCormick Place to the Museum Campus and Navy Pier via the McCormick Place Busway and/or Columbus Drive (the exhibits aren’t clear, and actually show two different alignments).

What appears pretty clear to me is that, at least in this preliminary stage, the developers are taking an all-of-the-above, throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach to transit at One Central: if it’s on the map, drag the line to the site and they’ll figure out the details later, regardless of what actually makes sense from a regional perspective. For one thing, CREATE will eventually move Amtrak trains off this section of track (lol oops); I’m also not confident that Metra would go along with splitting off some trains on their busiest line to serve One Central instead of Union Station, let alone sending all BNSF trains to One Central. Furthermore, with capacity issues during the peak period on the BNSF, any option that has two different terminals would need a transfer station to allow riders to change trains based on their desired terminal, and likewise that transfer station would need to be fully ADA-accessible to allow for full use of all platforms. (The nearest station that meets that criteria would be Cicero.)

The CTA Orange Line spur track also doesn’t make much sense. First off, a spur track along the existing freight tracks would require a new junction on the Orange/Green Line in a section that currently has four tracks with a full interlocking immediately south of the proposed junction at 16th Street, and there’s existing development in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the crossing that would likely need to be either demolished or significantly altered to build connecting tracks. (The exact directionality of the planned junction is unknown, since it’s conveniently hidden behind a building in the “Transit” exhibit above.) Either way, trains coming into One Central appear to enter into a stub terminal, which means the CTA operator would have to change ends before reversing the train back out onto the main line towards either Midway or the Loop, a significant operational inconvenience. My guess is that the developer is envisioning splitting off Loop-bound trains from Midway to create two Orange Line service patterns: Midway-One Central and Midway-Loop, with transfers between branches at Halsted. This would let the developer advertise single-seat trips from One Central to Midway, a pretty significant selling point for businesses and future residents but at the expense of other regional travelers with less service between the Loop and Midway.

Finally, the “CHI-Line” proposal seems to be the standard prerequisite to any transportation plan involving the Museum Campus: “something something utilize the McCormick Busway.” While the McCormick Busway is of course underutilized, currently only used to shuttle conventioneers between McCormick Place and the downtown hotels, the dirty little secret about the Busway is that it doesn’t actually go anywhere useful: the Busway is entirely grade-separated (or at least, separated from the neighborhood streets that get bridged over it) from 25th Street to Lower Randolph, bypassing the Loop but terminating in the bottom level of the multidimensional part of Chicago’s downtown street grid with no good way to get up to surface streets in the Loop. Connecting the McCormick Busway to the Loop Link or Lake Shore Drive or north Michigan Avenue would be great, but it’s surprisingly difficult given how the streets are laid out and interact with each other in three dimensions. The One Central concept also takes a few liberties with how the Busway is actually constructed, including some sort of grade separation over/under Lake Shore Drive at McFetridge Drive (which probably can get shoehorned in there somehow when you have $3.8 billion to play with). It’s also worth noting that the “Mobility” exhibit above ignores the McCormick Busway entirely and uses surface streets instead (McFetridge-Columbus-Middle Randolph-Lower LSD to Navy Pier). Either way, the CHI-Link at this point definitely seems like more of a rough concept than an actual proposal.

I don’t want to be a wet blanket here: if a developer has enough cash to develop sky rights over the Metra Electric and is actively willing to integrate transit options to better connect the South Loop, the Museum Campus, and downtown to each other, it should be seriously considered. I just wish that, if the state is willing to enter a public-private partnership to create a monumental regional transit hub, the operational aspects of how transit connects and interacts with the existing regional system be considered and addressed alongside capital needs and concerns.

Oh, if only someone would come up with a better operational plan for a future regional transit hub at One Central to start some conversations about the best ways to serve the site, the Museum Campus, and the region as a whole…


If we’re going to build a $3.8 billion transit center, let’s do it right. First and foremost, there needs to be a general acknowledgement that investments in a One Central transit center must include improvements outside the footprint of the project. In this case, the most significant external improvement I’ve included in my back-of-the-napkin sketch here (toggle the layers in the embedded map above) is a new approach ramp between the St. Charles Air Line bridge and the south approach to Union Station. This connection would not only improve efficiency for Amtrak service (until it gets rerouted as part of CREATE P4 as noted above), but it’s also an integral plan in other regional transportation improvement plans including Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s ambitious CrossRail Chicago initiative. It’d take some creative engineering to avoid taking out Amtrak’s maintenance facility or too much of Metra’s BNSF yard, but it probably could be done.

In no particular order, here are the key aspects of the Star:Line plan.


Landmark Development’s concept required either a split or a rerouting of Metra’s BNSF service to serve One Central, which would require some sort of transfer facility to maintain a connection to Union Station. Our plan turns that on its head and makes One Central the transfer center (think Seacaucus Junction) where Metra Electric trains split to serve different parts of downtown. Our proposal recommends routing South Chicago Branch trains — what we call the Diamond Line — through One Central, over the St. Charles Air Line, and into Union Station on electrified tracks. The South Chicago Branch was chosen due to its relatively high frequency and relatively short current run time. This would provide direct connections between Union Station and One Central, which would actually enhance regional mobility since now seven Metra lines would have a connection to One Central and McCormick Place rather than just the BNSF and ME. This also would happen to serve as Phase I of CrossRail Chicago, the eventual plan to get electrified service between O’Hare and McCormick Place.


As previously discussed, creating a spur route off the Orange Line at the freight railroad tracks creates a few issues with existing junctions and existing development nearby. However, moving the spur track two blocks south and over 18th Street would allow the tracks to tie into an existing junction (where the Orange Line splits off the Green Line) and over a surface parking lot in the northeast quadrant instead of requiring a building relocation. (Obviously noise would be an issue on this alignment for local residents, but noise would likely be an issue with an elevated alignment along the freight tracks as well.) Depending on how the junction is constructed, this location opens up a lot of different service patterns over the Red, Orange, and Green Lines. Here’s three of my favorite routing options:

  • The Q Line: Named for the overall shape of the route, the Q Line would function as a new Loop circulator, with service only between One Central and the Loop. Unfortunately as a standalone option it’s not great since it will increase congestion on the Loop, so this might be better served as an off-peak-only offering in conjunction with a different option, including…
  • The Red Line Spur: Passenger loads on the Red Line are significantly unbalanced between the North and South Sides, with the former having notably higher ridership demands. This option would send some southbound Red Line trains leaving Roosevelt up the 13th Street Incline onto the Orange/Green Line tracks (similar to the Red Line trains getting sent to Ashland/63rd during 95th/Dan Ryan construction) and over to One Central via the new 18th Street Elevated. Cutting service to the South Side is more challenging from a political and equity standpoint however, so this option may work best during peak hours only to complement an off-peak Q Line.
  • The Teal Line: The Teal Line and its subsequent secondary options kill two birds with one stone by serving One Central and also giving the Block 37 superstation a reason to exist so Chicago won’t have to repay $175 million to the feds. The Block 37 superstation included a planned northwest-to-southeast crossover between Clark/Lake in the Dearborn Subway and Monroe in the State Street Subway; a decent amount of the crossover was constructed before the project got mothballed. So the question is, can the crossover be completed for less than $175 million?
    • Option 1: Re-route Blue Line trains that terminate at UIC-Halsted through Block 37 and out to One Central. A straightforward option, but it may overcrowd Monroe and Jackson in the State Street Subway and crowd Clark/Lake with Blue-to-Blue transfers.
    • Option 2: A new standalone service (the Teal Line) between Jefferson Park and One Central to add additional service to the congested northern Blue Line. Would likely require a new yard somewhere to store and service trains.
    • Option 3: My personal favorite crazy idea, this proposal would reroute northbound Orange Line trains down the 13th Street Incline into the State Street Subway, through Block 37, and out to O’Hare to add service to the Northwest Side and to create a single Airport Line. This would also involve turning all Blue Line trains at Jefferson Park, except runs to/from Rosemont Yard and overnight service. With a single Midway-O’Hare service operating, a dedicated fleet of 7000-series (or whatever the next order ends up being) cars with luggage/bike racks could be used for the combined service. Since this proposal would also take Orange Line trains off the Loop Elevated, One Central would be served by a full-time Q Line.

North and South CHI-Line Circulator Buses

The CHI-Line would serve One Central with circulator buses and dedicated BRT-style stops along the McCormick Busway, primarily serving tourist destinations. The line would run from the Adler Planetarium, through the Museum Campus down to 18th Street, cross under Lake Shore Drive, and onto the Busway at One Central. Buses would continue north with stops at 11th Street, Balbo, Jackson, Monroe, and Millennium Station on the Busway. Buses would then head east on Lower Randolph, north on Lower Columbus, west on Lower South Water, and north on Lower Michigan Avenue to cross the Chicago River with stops at Lower Michigan/Lower Wacker to serve the Riverwalk and at Lower Michigan/Hubbard. From there, new bus lanes on Grand and Illinois would connect the rest of the CHI-Line to the Navy Pier bus terminal.


If the One Central developers wanted BNSF service because they wanted to better connect the western suburbs to their development, I’ll say what I said to Kendall County last week: try a bus instead of a train first. The McCormick Busway’s south end is at 25th Street just one block east of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive interchange on I-55, so One Central could work with Pace to start a new service that connects the Plainfield/Bolingbrook corridor to One Central via the Busway. If the Pace service can combine with CHI-Line service to the Museum Campus and/or Navy Pier, there’s even the potential for some weekend ridership gains for Pace.

It’s important not to look a gift horse in the mouth, so if developers like Landmark want to make a significant investment in our regional transit network, it’s in our best interest to find ways to leverage their offer. That said, just because they’re willing to kick in cash doesn’t mean we should simply go along with whatever they propose without weighing proposals on their merits, including operating costs and logistics involved with significantly changing well-established transit routes. One Central is still an exciting megaproject and has plenty of merit, but before the state makes a serious commitment for a transit hub, there are still a few kinks that need working out.

Diverging Approach: A Bridge Too Far

Just in case you haven’t been following what’s been going on in Springfield, our state legislature did more in about a week and a half than the previous administration did in four years: weed’s going to be legal and we’re expunging 770,000 minor pot-related offenses in the process; we’re getting more casinos and sports betting; Illinois voters will get a shot at amending the state constitution to legalize a graduated income tax; and, of course, we’re finally getting a statewide capital bill to be mostly paid for by doubling the gas tax (and indexing it to inflation) and hiking vehicle registration fees.

As if that isn’t good enough news, non-motorized transportation modes got a bigger slice of the $33 billion transportation pie than expected, with a dedicated $50 million to basically double the ITEP budget for pedestrian/bike accommodations, a good-sized shot in the arm for transit ($4.7 billion over six years), and a sustainable, annual capital program of $281 million for transit thereafter.

Is that enough? Probably not – Metra says they alone have $12 billion in state of good repair needs, let alone the needs of CTA, Pace, and every other transit district in the state – but nonetheless it’s real money that can be put towards real improvements.

With Governor Pritzker’s signature a foregone conclusion, the RTA appears to be declaring victory, trotting out a new #WeCanAllAgreeOnTransit campaign that you can get in on the ground floor of and get featured on RTA’s social media.

Pretty sure #WeCanAllAgreeOn a hashtag about 15 characters shorter.

A capital bill is a major victory for Illinois, especially one that gets funded by increased user fees for drivers and not by gimmicks used to move around money from elsewhere in the state budget. Of course, even with significant majorities in both houses and the governor’s mansion, everyone loves a bipartisan gesture, so there’s still plenty of dollars dedicated downstate and elsewhere that, honestly, probably should be invested in other places based on need rather than based on clout. Alas, one legislator’s pork is how another brings home the bacon, but not including some sort of performance management system to prioritize spending is a regrettable omission in the overall bill. It’s worth noting that the ITEP process is based on competitive applications, so at least that small slice for pedestrian and bike improvements will be a bit more based on need and effectiveness than, say, Metra extensions to Kendall County.

Yeah, this post is about the Metra extension to Kendall County.

The capital bill earmarks $100 million for construction of a BNSF extension beyond Aurora and into Kendall County. Metra’s currently overseeing a $4.7 million engineering study for the extension, a study that was funded way back when by earmarked funds from U.S. Representative Dennis Hastert (remember him?). Metra estimates the extension will cost about $440 million altogether and projects a net 2040 bump of about 2,000 new passenger trips, according to Metra’s cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The project is one of the top fiscally-rated expansion projects in the network according to the CBA, with a relatively-healthy 68% farebox recovery ratio. (Metra’s systemwide farebox recovery ratio is about 54.4%.) Metra’s CBA assumes the extension will be peak-only, with 4 morning inbound trains and 4 evening outbound trains, with new stations in Montgomery, Oswego, Yorkville, and Plano.

Kendall County really wants this extension, with Oswego appearing to leading the charge. (Their village administrator has done a few recent press interviews, and personally responded to a thread by yours truly a few weeks ago about this very issue.) However, since Kendall County is outside the boundaries of the RTA’s sales tax district, an as-yet-unidentified local funding source for operations still needs to be determined. While a 68% farebox recovery rate is better than Metra’s standard 54.4%, without Kendall County paying into the RTA, Metra’s not going to take a 32% hit on those expanded operations.

It’s understandable that Kendall County wants Metra service: a faster connection to and from downtown Chicago is obviously a major selling point for current and future residents, and politicians have been promising their constituents Metra for decades. Oswego went so far as starting construction on a train station, or at least a parking lot for one. If you build it, they will come, right?

Advocates for the extension are quick to point out that Kendall County is the fastest growing area in Illinois, so investing in transportation infrastructure is key not only for livability and sustainability, but also to nurture new economic development opportunities in a stagnating state.

But take a minute to think about why Kendall County is the fastest growing part of Illinois. Land is cheap, taxes are low, and there’s just enough existing infrastructure to support growth, so that’s where growth occurs when homeowners are looking for cheap new construction. But more growth leads to more demand for infrastructure as two-lane country roads get bombarded by suburban traffic, as rural school districts need to plan for exponential population growth, and as demand for municipal infrastructure like water and sewer exceeds their modest capacities. While those new residents will shoulder much of the brunt themselves through property tax increases and local sales taxes, plenty of those investments get levied on non-residents, especially when it comes to transportation, since a good amount of transportation investment gets aggregated at the county, regional, and state levels.

Then, when the economy hits a bump and takes a cyclical downturn, cheap houses that were nonetheless mortgaged either get foreclosed or trap their owners underwater. Municipal growth projections fall short, and those communities are left holding the bag on expanded but underutilized infrastructure, which means either cutting services or raising property taxes. Those with means get the itch to get out of Dodge, and wouldn’t you know it? All those recent investments in regional transportation, upgrading those two-lane country roads to six-lane suburban arterials, make low-tax, cheap-land areas a few towns west look awfully financially attractive for someone looking to relocate. Lather, rinse, repeat.

That’s how sprawl works: a model built on unsustainable, never-ending growth, designed for those with capital to generate more capital by selling the American dream to middle-class families who may (or may not) actually be able to afford it. Is growth at any cost — while inner-tier suburbs continue to shrink — really what we as a region should be subsidizing?

I have nothing against the good people of Kendall County — my stepsister lives in Montgomery — and of course I don’t fault their elected representatives and government staff who rightly want to do the most they can for their constituents. That’s their job. But my job is promoting sustainable transit for suburban Chicago. (That’s a lie; people get paid for jobs. This is more of a hobby of mine.) What’s missing in all the studies and analyses is the macro level picture. I have zero doubts that extending the BNSF to Plano will be a huge financial benefit to Kendall County and its residents, but what’s the impact to the rest of the region? If we’re just accelerating the declines of inner-tier suburbs by making it easier to sprawl deeper into the hinterlands, is it really worth it? When we #InvestInTransit in Kendall County, what exactly are we investing in?

That’s a slippery slope argument, you might say; every transportation improvement requires understanding the delicate balance between those directly affected and impacts to our regional network as a whole. (And some projects just require a few well-connected politicians who support the project.) Besides, you add, Metra’s still projecting a 68% farebox recovery ratio on the extension, so if Kendall County can identify an operating subsidy, or if they end up joining the RTA, can’t it still pencil out? Sure it can. But a few more things to consider:

  1. Metra’s current Lake County reverse commute pilot is targeting a 100% farebox recovery ratio to consider the pilot a success.
  2. Metra’s CBA also includes a $270 million project that would add an additional 18 weekday trains to the existing BNSF. That project — 61% of the cost of the Kendall County extension — is projected to generate 8,600 new daily passenger trips, compared to only 2,200 daily passenger trips generated by the more expensive Kendall County extension. Spending the $270 million to get 18 more trains nets a 12% ridership increase over the baseline condition and is projected to have an incredible farebox recovery ratio of 105%.
  3. Metra’s Station Evaluation Policy calls for a projected station rating of “sustainable” within ten years of a new station opening for a new station to be considered warranted. In 2018, a “sustainable” (above the systemwide median) station needed at least 410 typical weekday boardings. According to the CBA, the extension would generate 2,200 new passenger trips on the BNSF, or 1,100 new daily passengers (assuming each passenger makes a two-trip round trip daily commute) in 2040, which is likely beyond the ten-year horizon of when the extension would open. With each station therefore only averaging only 275 boardings a day, the ridership may not justify new stations by Metra’s own standards.

I don’t want to shut down Kendall County on the issue, and as a whole we should encourage any community that actively wants more transportation options to get things implemented. However, with limited regional funds coming from taxpayer subsidies, we need to be smart with how we spend capital funds to provide new and efficient transportation options to as many people in our region as we can.

And this leads to the far bigger issue: our transit system is not designed for efficiency. The RTA was created to prop up a failing regional transit model with just enough public subsidies to keep buses and trains running. The RTA was ostensibly created to coordinate public transportation in northeastern Illinois, but the only power assigned to the RTA was facilitating operating assistance from sales tax revenues and approving the budgets of the three transit boards. The RTA and the three service boards have made progress in coordinating some plans and occasionally some service, but we’re still far from having seamless integration and the three boards’ state-of-good-repair needs remain an ongoing challenge. Our problem — and, to be fair, this is most definitely not unique to the Chicago region — is that the various boards are focused on individual modes of transit rather than the best ways to serve the region as a whole. Kendall County isn’t asking for transit service; they’re asking for commuter rail service that may or may not be justified. Metra’s not going to do a corridor study and determine service would be better accommodated with Pace buses. Similarly, no matter how successful it gets, Pace has no incentive to ever recommend replacing the I-90 corridor with Metra’s long-standing STAR Line plans or a CTA Blue Line extension; indeed, the loss of Pace ridership would be an active disincentive even if it meant providing more efficient coverage to more riders. (Shameless plug: check out Pace’s I-90 corridor with us on our next Star:Line Social event coming up on Saturday, June 22! More details and RSVP here.)

These aren’t necessarily indictments against the three transit boards who, like the Kendall County politicians pushing for Metra service, are simply doing they job they were tasked with. But we take it for granted that this is simply how things work when we either forget or simply don’t realize that it really doesn’t have to be like this. The RTA was formed only 45 years ago, and while change is scary and hard, it’s not impossible. If it’s not perfect (and it never will be perfect), it’s not like it can’t be changed at some point. “The way we’ve always done it” isn’t even the way we’ve always done it.

What we need is to become more mode agnostic. The best way to serve a particular area may be via bus instead of via train, but since one service board runs buses and one service board runs trains and one service board runs buses AND trains (but not those kinds of trains) that decision often gets made at a political level, not at a performance or efficiency level. Invariably that leads to duplication, competition, and waste, whether that’s Metra and Pace bickering over the Interstate 55 corridor or the CTA dropping $2 billion on a Red Line extension instead of $935 million to modernize the Metra Electric through nearly the same corridor.

(For what it’s worth, as part of a larger effort to diversify Metra’s offerings, I feel Kendall County, along with parts of McHenry County, would be excellent pilot areas for a supplemental Metra-branded bus service that provides direct transfers to/from trains similar to GOTransit’s operations in the Toronto area. Comfortable coach-style buses that operate directly between park-and-ride facilities and rail terminals with timed transfers and integrated fares would extend the reach of the Metra system and/or allow for more frequent off-peak service for a fraction of the cost of full rail service without precluding eventual commuter rail extensions if/when bus ridership warrants. In Kendall County’s case, this could be a bus that picks riders up in Oswego and goes directly to Aurora, where an upgraded station area allows for covered, timed transfers directly to waiting inbound trains and vice versa for the reverse trip home.)

The new capital bill is an excellent step forward for Chicago-area and statewide transportation, full stop. The bill provides a significant amount of capital funds that allow our transportation agencies to put a serious dent in much-needed state-of-good-repair improvements and ongoing annual capital funds to start taking service improvements more seriously. But without a fundamental shift in how our system works — whether that’s at the individual project level or more holistically between the various transit boards and the RTA itself — we’ll always come up short in our sustainable transportation needs.

Diverging Approach: Summer Pilots

A few months back post-polar vortex, Metra gave the region the “pat on the back” weekend where riders could ride for free, systemwide, all weekend long as a sort of “thank you” for coping with the challenges Metra faced during the cold snap. While it was a great way to gin up some off-peak ridership following a few brutal weeks (and months of slow but steady declines), what struck me was a particular quote from Metra’s press release:

“We survived the polar vortex – now let’s have some fun,” said Metra CEO/Executive Director Jim Derwinski. “There is a lot to do in Chicago and the suburbs and Metra can take you there. We’re hoping this weekend will convince people who have never ridden Metra or who haven’t ridden Metra in a while to become paid customers in the future.”


That line perked my ears up because it sounds pretty familiar to why I run The Yard Social Club: I believe that, if I can help people explore the suburban transit network in fun group settings where they feel comfortable and have a positive experience, they’ll be more likely to choose to take transit for their next trip on their own.

I had a similar bout of deja vu last week with Metra’s latest announcement:

Metra this summer will increase weekend service as a pilot project on two lines – Rock Island and UP Northwest – to give customers more options to enjoy all the activities that the Chicago area offers. “Our goal with these new summer weekend schedules is to give our customers along these lines more options and make it easier than ever to ride Metra to the Chicago area’s many summer events and attractions,” said Metra CEO/Executive Director Jim Derwinski.


While I’m hardly the only voice calling for better weekend service — a whopping 88% of respondents in a Metra survey earlier this year said increasing weekend frequency was one of the top three weekend service priorities Metra should consider — I’m pretty sure I’m one of the loudest voices advocating for those changes, so it brings me joy to see Metra making some serious efforts at improving weekend service offerings. (Not that I think my insistent yelling into the void had any actual impact on these pilot projects, of course.)

It’s also good to see Metra being a little more proactive on improving weekend service. Above and beyond the schedule pilots, Metra also announced that monthly passes now include Weekend Passes. My favorite thing about that rollout is that it really doesn’t do anything: the vast majority of weekend Metra trips are still to and from the urban core, trips that would already be covered by the monthly pass of a suburban Metra rider. The best value with this new initiative would be for transfers to different lines (which, as we’ve discussed in the past, require pulse scheduling for effectiveness), going to destinations along someone’s home line further out into the hinterlands (which generally requires dealing with even longer headways than the trip home from downtown), or, of course, train crawls (in which case, my friend, you are in the right place).

Speaking of which, with new schedules come new Weekend Guides. If you’re new around here, or if you only read the blog and don’t dig into the rest of the site, our Weekend Guides (and our map — no, not that one, this one) generates a good amount of web traffic for people who are interested in organizing or participating in a train crawl. As someone who wants to see Metra succeed with these weekend pilots — albeit with a few reservations, which I’ll get into later — I went ahead and put together new, special Summer Weekend Guides for the three affected lines (the BNSF is also having a summer pilot, but with only one additional round-trip each Saturday and Sunday). The schedules take some getting used to at first: since they’re designed as an aid to planning train crawls, more focus is put on what time trains serve individual stations rather than what individual trains serve each station, so the schedules aren’t formatted like Metra’s traditional schedules. (For the transit nerds in the audience, it may be helpful to think of the schedules as text stringline charts.)

Let’s dive in.

Union Pacific Northwest

Check it out as a PDF. (And feel free to print it yourself! They’re formatted for 8.5×14 legal sheets; print them double-sided, flip on the short side, and fold into fourths.)

The UP-NW summer weekend pilot, in my opinion, has the most promise: Metra’s adding a full five round-trip trains to their Saturday schedule, which already was one of the more robust weekend offerings in their system. Sundays are also getting three new round-trips, including express trains to/from Arlington Heights. The express trains here are going to be interesting to keep an eye on, since previously Metra’s only weekend express options have been on the BNSF (and I suppose the split operations on the RI and ME that allow suburbanites to fly through the South Side of Chicago, which honestly brings up a few uncomfortable equity issues, but that’s another post).

What I’m personally excited about is the later evening outbound departures: my hypothesis has always been that going from two-hour headways to one-hour headways after 9pm is the best bang for the operational buck since suburbanites will no longer have to worry about just missing a train and being stuck at a quiet West Loop terminal for two hours before the next train leaves. (Not that an hour is a terribly easy amount of time to kill either, but it’s much more palatable than the length of a feature film.) I think those 9:30pm and 11:30pm departures are going to do well, but I’m also not sure how well Metra has gotten the word out about those new trains other than the occasional social media post.

The schedule as a whole is good, not great: it doesn’t address most of my longstanding concerns with the UP-NW weekend schedule. First and foremost, there’s still way too much variation between the Saturday and Sunday schedules, and for seemingly no good reason. Metra’s schedule, with separate Saturday and Sunday listings, hides the issue a bit, but our version puts it a little more front and center: some trains leave or arrive at Ogilvie at the same time on Saturdays and Sundays, but either start or end at different stations each day. Likewise, Harvard and Woodstock each have ten inbound trains on Saturdays and seven on Sundays, but only four trains leave at the same time on both days. There are also a few holdovers from where trains run at two-hour headways both days but on staggered hours: there’s an evening train that arrives Ogilvie at 7:23pm and 9:23pm on Saturdays but not Sundays, but there’s an evening train that arrives Ogilvie at 8:23pm on Sundays but not Saturdays. It might seem overly pedantic to be this concerned about a relatively minor thing like that, but any effort to make the schedule easier to use and, more importantly, easier to remember should be taken seriously. Every time someone reaches for a paper schedule is just one more small barrier to entry for people unfamiliar with the system. In a perfect world, trains come so often that schedules aren’t needed, but given the political realities of the Metra network, settling for consistent times for hourly or bi-hourly headways will have to do. (This is also one of my critiques of the standard Milwaukee West schedule: departures skip from the :30s to the :40s after 6pm, which is needlessly complicated, especially since the Milwaukee North runs on the :35s all day long.)

There’s also still the obnoxious three-hour headway between the 8:30pm and 11:30pm outbound trains on Sunday nights. Come on.

All in all though, the UP-NW has a lot of promise, especially considering the summer attractions along the line, whether that’s suburban street fests or Cubs games (transfer to #80-Irving Park buses at Irving Park) or races at Arlington Park.

Rock Island

Check it out as a PDF.

Metra’s adding six round-trips on the Rock Island on Saturdays and leaving the Sunday schedules as-is. Going back to the text stringline chart concept, it’s easy to see here with the color-coded Saturday-only service how the new service operates as two new consists working their way to Joliet and back.

What’s more interesting here though is what’s not shown. I mentioned in the last post about how I made my Metra map with Rock Island split into two separate services, and that divide is front-and-center here: the Rocket trains (Blue Island-Joliet) see all the added service, and the Suburban Line (Chicago-Blue Island) doesn’t see any additional service. I understand the goal is to serve where the people are and Metra feels added service out in the Cook and Will suburbs will spur more ridership than the Morgan Park/Beverly neighborhoods of Chicago, but it just feels wrong from an equity standpoint that Chicago — and the South Side in particular — isn’t seeing any service enhancements as part of this pilot program.

Also worth noting another untouched three-hour headway (between the 8:10pm and 11:15pm departures) for Suburban Line riders while in that same window Rocket riders see an added Saturday train that cuts a two-hour headway into two one-hour headways. I feel like pushing that 10:00pm Main Line express departure up 20 minutes to 9:40pm and making Suburban Line stops would be a better option for train #729 without significantly affecting operations.

BNSF Railway

Check it out as a PDF.

The BNSF’s summer weekend pilot is much more understated than what’s getting rolled out on the UP-NW and RI; indeed, it’s buried in a separate press release about other tweaks to the BNSF weekday schedule and starts a week later than the UP-NW and RI weekend pilot, a difference I did not notice until this very moment and I’m not going to go back and change my Weekend Guide because by the time I correct it and republish everything it’ll be next week anyway.

The added service is pretty straightforward: a new Saturday outbound train at 11:40am for reasons I don’t fully understand; a new Saturday inbound express train in the mid-afternoon; and an extra Sunday round-trip that corresponds with two trains that run on Saturdays. The meat of the added service is that afternoon express train; however, by not adding any additional outbound options in the evening, Metra won’t be able to realize the full benefits of that express train since it doesn’t address those awful two-hour headways on the busiest line in the system. Think of it this way: the new express train arrives Union Station at 4:23pm, but the only outbound options (assuming whoever is coming downtown isn’t doing so just for an hour or two) are the 8:40pm, 10:40pm, and 12:40am trains. It’s extremely informal, but last week we ran a quick Twitter poll that found 90% of suburbanites chose not to take Metra downtown on a weekend at least once in the last year specifically because of the return trip two-hour headways.

n = 51 suggests we need more followers.

That poll is hardly scientific and it’s hardly representative, but this is the flip side of induced demand and shows one way that less service leads to fewer riders.

Metra’s adding weekend service, which is a good thing, full stop. Could it be better? Sure, but let’s not have perfect be the enemy of good here. It’s also promising to see that Metra is taking off-peak service seriously and is starting to at least tinker with schedules. Jim Derwinski and Metra staff should be proud of this modest schedule pilot, and I hope this is the beginning of many more schedule analyses and pilot projects throughout the system.

And if any of you are reading this: may I suggest a pulse scheduling pilot next?

Diverging Approach: Mayday

This Saturday, the Chicago Chapter of Young Professionals in Transportation is hosting their second-annual Transportation Camp, an “unconference” where professionals, students, and anyone with a passing fancy in transportation issues can hang out and talk turkey about trains (and cars and trucks and buses). If you’re free, I highly recommend attending the camp, which this year is at DePaul’s downtown campus. While I would love to be there, unfortunately my in-laws decided to have a daughter thirty years ago this weekend, so I will be celebrating with my wife in downtown Forest Park.

But, of course, I’m happy to leave you all something to discuss in the meantime. In the last Diverging Approach blog entry, I teased Version 3 of our infamous regional Metra map. (I also offered up my own station optimization interactive assessment tool, which if anything just proves that I basically never really stopped working for transit agencies: I just stopped showing up to the office and they stopped paying me. Old habits die hard.)

Between that post and this post, however, I kept tweaking the map. And tweaking it some more. And a little more. And totally changed a few things as well. No work of art is ever completed; it is only abandoned, and tonight’s the night I abandon the map for another year. So let’s dive into it.

Click here to see a larger version, or click here to download a PDF.

I kept the overly-stylized “lotus” orientation, where you can think of the Metra system as a flower floating on Lake Michigan, blooming out towards the hinterland. (There’s probably a joke in there about the delicate nature of Metra’s aging rolling stock as well.) As I’ve mentioned in plenty of previous blog posts, our visioning of Metra’s network expands the system from 11 distinct lines to 14: the Rock Island has two separate service patterns, and the Metra Electric has three.

Dating back to the first map, one of my goals of this ongoing exercise is to try to show just how complex Metra’s system is in a single map. It seems counterintuitive to try to make a transit map as confusing as possible and, to be fair, I actively tried not to make things unnecessarily complicated here. But one of Metra’s weaknesses — and, honestly, one of their strengths as well — is presenting a unified, homogenous network when the legacy of commuter rail service they oversee is anything but. To an extent, it does Metra a service to show the conflicts between the lines and the different service patterns used. The Metra Electric is a good example: the half-mile spacing along the main line doesn’t really fit the commuter rail model of higher speeds and longer distances seen in the south suburban areas of the line; our map splits off the city parts of the main line and joins them with the Blue Island branch, which allows me to show the suburban operations as a distinct service, which in my opinion better represents how the service functions anyway.

This version of the map gets more complicated with service patterns by trying to show not only the Metra system as a whole, but also adding a temporal element to show frequency and service levels at particular times of the day. This being The Yard Social Club and our tireless advocacy for sustainable suburban transportation, rather than focus on where Metra can take you during rush hour, I approach the map as an exercise to better show where Metra can — or can’t — take you throughout the day and throughout the week.

This leads to a complicated legend with different line styles and different dot styles representing service times and frequencies. (Yes, it’s complicated. Again: that’s the point.) The style of each line indicates overall hours of service: a more traditional transit-looking line (solid color with black edging) represents a line with service seven days a week; as the line washes out more, service gets cut back until peak-only service, which is a white line with gray edging that almost — but not entirely — fades into the background. (Barely notice the Heritage Corridor? Good. That’s the point.) I also included the “extended service” concept as well, where service and headways closer to downtown don’t necessarily correlate to the same level of service further out. This leads to a few non-traditional “terminals” listed for some of the lines, but what’s shown on the map is more indicative to where most trains actually terminate during the off-peak.

On the station side, in this version I expanded beyond just “normal”/peak-only stations by diving into off-peak headways and splitting each station into one of four categories:

  • Core Service: The bread-and-butter of Metra’s off-peak service, these are the typical stations that see headways of no worse than every two hours during off-peak. Admittedly, “core” is a bit of an odd word to use here, but obviously I’m not going to call one train every two hours “good” and even “standard” seems to imply that we’re settling for this when we should be doing much, much better for off-peak riders. So I landed on “core”.
  • Basic Service: The “basic” service level is one step below “core” and generally indicates a station that is situated on a line with core service but that particular station doesn’t get that many trains. This is mostly — but not always (coughNCScough) — related to “extended” service, where many off-peak trains don’t actually quite make it all the way out to places like Kenosha or Harvard. Oh, and it highlights a few random issues like that off-peak skip-stop on the UP-W line at Melrose Park and Maywood, which is just another one of those things you notice that just kind of overlaps uncomfortably with suburban racial demographics and makes you wonder how it could survive a theoretical Title VI challenge.
  • Peak Service: Pretty straight-forward, these are your standard peak-only stations.
  • Minimal Service: It’s a station, and occasionally a train stops there, but there are a few places where frequency is limited to single-digit trains per day; in some cases, that digit is “1” like on that random 19th NCS train of the day that makes four stops, changes lines, grabs a few more passengers, and expresses back to Union Station at 7:30pm. If it looks like the station icon just blends into the line behind it, well, that’s the point.

Alright, I’ve buried the lede on you all for too long, so now let’s talk about the fun part of this map: the new line names! I kept the lettering system (albeit with some tweaks that will require me to eventually go back and change most of our Weekend Guides around, but that’s okay because they need updating anyway) since I still strongly believe the letters are an easy short-hand to refer to lines in certain cases. However, I did go ahead and simplified the lettering scheme: peak-only express services now have their own dedicated letter. I also gave up trying to simplify the UP-N schedule into express and local services; no two “express” trains have the same stopping patterns and very few of them skip more than about five stations at a time, so they aren’t really express services anyway. The overall idea is that, during rush hour, the “primary” letter represents local service (either a short-turn supplemental service, or a milk run farther out) while the “secondary” letter represents an express service, regardless of how long the express stretch is or where the train terminates. (This is slightly different on the BNSF and Metra Electric lines, where the express patterns are much more regimented and easier to combine into distinct stopping patterns or at least split consists for the <M> trains to Downers/Main-Aurora.)

But the biggest change — and maybe your reward for dealing with all my pedantry above — is the totally new, from-the-ground-up line naming system developed for this map. I tossed out the old parallel-road-corridor naming system, which had plenty of holes, listened to comments I received from some people, and flexed my creative muscles to come up with this one.

First, a quick note on why I feel Metra needs to revamp their line names. In a nutshell: they aren’t intuitive and can be plenty confusing for non-regular riders. There are two separate North Lines; two separate West Lines (and, of course, a Northwest Line); three lines with “Union” in the name, none of which go to Union Station; a defunct railroad (Rock Island); the Milwaukee “District”; a few totally random names (Heritage Corridor, SouthWest Service, North Central Service); and so on. Railroads in Chicago have a rich history, and it’s true that the three Union Pacific lines and the BNSF Railway are owned and operated by the respective freight railroads, but with the Metra branding and unified fleet that’s a distinction without a difference for most riders. This also leaves open the possibility of forced name changes should one of the private railroads consolidate (such as the three Chicago and North Western lines becoming the Union Pacifics back in the 1990s).

The compromise I came up with for this version of the map is to create line names based on old named passenger trains that served each route, but (generally) without a direct reference to an individual railroad. This way, the network still pays homage to our region’s rich railroad history, while streamlining the line names into something simple and memorable for riders. I also tried to avoid Amtrak train names to reduce potential confusion (which kind of sucks because that disqualified a few of the more well-known historic trains, like the Hiawathas and the Zephyrs). And, just for kicks, while I’m no graphic designer, for the first time ever I included line icons that — 21st Century bonus! — also have corresponding standard emojis for smartphone users.

The Ashland Line
(A, Union Pacific North)

  • History: The Ashland Limited was a Chicago and North Western train from Chicago to Ashland, Wisconsin, via Green Bay. I was tempted to go with the Flambeau, another C&NW train that used what’s now the North Line, but as a true blue Chicagoan I couldn’t in good conscience go with a name so similar to “Lambeau” on the only line that goes into Wisconsin and has a forest green color scheme to boot. (The forest green color Metra uses is officially “Flambeau Green”. You’ll see I overlapped a few of these line names with Metra’s throwback color names, so I’m hoping that could be a foot in the door to actually making some of these changes.) Plus, the corridor parallels Ashland Avenue pretty closely in the city, so that’s good enough for me.
  • Line Icon: A fish, being fished. (The Ashland Limited was also occasionally referred to as the Fisherman’s Special or the Northwoods Fisherman.)
  • Emoji: 🎣

The North Western Line
(C, Union Pacific Northwest)

  • History: The North Western Limited was the Chicago and North Western’s primary train between Minneapolis-St. Paul and Chicago before the streamlined 400s were used. This one could have also been called “The Viking Line” for the C&NW’s Viking; Metra uses “Viking Yellow” for the color. Honestly, I’m playing a little fast and loose with this one: the North Western Limited used today’s North Line up to Milwaukee before heading to the Twin Cities, but considering it’s currently the Northwest Line that parallels Northwest Highway and used to be operated by the Chicago and North Western, let’s keep this one simple. (And it did operate over the current UP-NW’s tracks between Ogilvie and Clybourn, after all.)
  • Line Icon: A compass. (And yes the compass is pointing in the correct direction: since the needle always points north, if you’re heading northwest, this is what the compass should look like.)
  • Emoji: 🧭

The Kate Shelley Line
(E, Union Pacific West)

  • History: Kate Shelley has a prominent place in railroad folklore. An Irish immigrant living in Iowa in 1881, she overheard a C&NW inspection locomotive wreck into Honey Creek following a bridge washout during a round of severe thunderstorms. Since a passenger train was due through the area later that night, Kate ran through the storm to a nearby train station to alert railroad staff of the wreck. Her quick thinking saved the passenger train as well as two of the crew members from the initial wreck. C&NW would later run the Kate Shelley 400 over what’s now the Union Pacific West Line between Chicago and Iowa. It’s never a bad time to celebrate another brave woman in Midwestern history. (Plus Metra already officially uses “Kate Shelley Rose” as the color for the line.)
  • Line Icon: A thunderstorm.
  • Emoji: 🌩

The Marquette Line
(G, Milwaukee North)

  • History: The Milwaukee Road ran the Marquette from Chicago to Madison and points west over what’s now the Milwaukee North (before the Illinois Tollway effectively killed demand for passenger rail service into Wisconsin).
  • Line Icon: In honor of early Midwestern explorer Father Jacques Marquette, who cut through what’s now Chicago in 1673, this line uses a canoe.
  • Emoji: 🛶

The Laker Line
(J, North Central Service)

  • History: Metra’s service now operates over tracks controlled by Canadian National, but way back when, the Soo Line operated The Laker between Chicago and Duluth over this corridor (north of Franklin Park). Interestingly enough, the line between Franklin Park and downtown swung south and paralleled what’s now the Blue Line in Oak Park and Forest Park, which makes a fun corridor to discuss in the context of the O’Hare Express. “The Laker” is also a good name for this corridor since it cuts right up through the center of Lake County.
  • Line Icon: A sailboat. Maybe on the nearby Chain O’Lakes.
  • Emoji: ⛵️

The Arrow Line
(K, Milwaukee West)

  • History: The Arrow was the Milwaukee Road’s Chicago-to-Omaha train, which operated over what’s now the Milwaukee West corridor. Metra calls the color “Arrow Yellow” after the train, but personally I feel like “yellow” is a bit misleading.
  • Line Icon: I used a stylized arrowhead, pointing left (west) as a hat-tip to the current Milwaukee West name.
  • Emoji: There’s no direct arrowhead emoji and I feel like one of the standard arrows is a little too, uh, direct… but there is a bow-and-arrow, so whatever, close enough. 🏹

The Western Star Line
(N, BNSF Railway)

  • History: I really, really wanted to use the Zephyr here; the last version of the map that I posted in the last blog post still had the Zephyr listed. But, since this line does serve Union Station, and since Amtrak runs both the California Zephyr and the Illinois Zephyr over this same route, I unfortunately decided that it’d be too easy to confuse. I also considered the Mainstreeter, which is just a cool name for a train plus would be pretty representative of the small towns served by this Metra service, but I opted against it since there’s literally a “Main Street” station on this line (as well as one on a different line). That left the Western Star, a Burlington/Great Northern train that connected Chicago to Spokane via Glacier National Park. Plus, hey, a Star Line!
  • Line Icon: Not Luxo. But close.
  • Emoji: ⭐️

The Abraham Line
(P, Heritage Corridor)

  • History: It’s nice when history is still current. The Alton Railroad began the Abraham Lincoln in 1935, and since then the operators have changed (from Alton to Gulf, Mobile and Ohio, and on to Amtrak) but the long-distance train keeps rolling today as Amtrak’s Lincoln Service. To distance the Metra line from the Amtrak service, I kept the Abraham and dropped the Lincoln.
  • Line Icon: Lincoln’s trademark stovepipe hat. If regular Heritage Corridor riders prefer to see it as a tombstone, hey, go for it.
  • Emoji: 🎩

The Blue Bird Line
(Q, SouthWest Service)

  • History: The Wabash Railroad originally ran the Blue Bird (and the Banner Blue, which Metra uses as the color of the line) between Chicago and St. Louis via Decatur.
  • Line Icon: It’s a bird’s head. Or at least it’s supposed to be a bird’s head. I’m not good with animals.
  • Emoji: Another iPhone/Android conflict here: Apple’s bird emoji is actually blue (doesn’t look too dissimilar from my icon, actually); other emoji libraries use a bird that looks more like a cardinal here. When in doubt, add the blue ball in front. 🔵 🐦

The Rocket Line
(R, Rock Island – Main Line)

  • History: When Amtrak was first formed in 1971, the government offered railroads a simple deal: pay a small fee and/or give Amtrak your passenger rolling stock to let Amtrak run passenger service, and in return the freight railroads would no longer be on the hook for providing (money-losing) passenger service. The Rock Island was one of six railroads that opted out of joining Amtrak, continuing to run their famed Rocket trains into the 1970s. In Chicago, the Peoria Rocket and the Des Moines Rocket (later the Quad Cities Rocket) operated over the Rock’s tracks between downtown and Joliet.
  • Line Icon: A rocket, theoretically flying north-northeast from Blue Island to LaSalle Street Station.
  • Emoji: 🚀

The Suburban Line
(S, Rock Island – Suburban Branch)

  • History: Another freebie, the Suburban Line has been known as the Suburban Line (or Suburban Branch, depending on the source) since before the Great Chicago Fire. Since in our lettering scheme the Rock’s Rockets are R trains and the Suburbans are S trains, no need to get too deep in the weeds here.
  • Line Icon: A single-family house. Picket fence and 2.3 kids not included.
  • Emoji: 🏠

The Panama Line
(U, Metra Electric – Suburban Main)

  • History: The most famous Illinois Central train that doesn’t have a song written about it, the Panama Limited was one of the most luxurious trains in the country, connecting Chicago and New Orleans over the Illinois Central’s main line. The original train was named after the Panama Canal, which was still being constructed when service first started.
  • Line Icon: Since the train was named after the Panama Canal, the icon is a (very crude) container ship.
  • Emoji: 🚢

The Magnolia Line
(V, Metra Electric – City Main/Blue Island Branch)

  • History: The Panama Limited was one of the most luxurious trains in the country, with an all-sleeper consist. In 1967, as the Panama Limited was losing ridership (along with just about every other passenger train in the nation), the Illinois Central threw a few coach cars onto the Panama Limited and briefly called the coach accommodations the Magnolia Star, probably to try not to sully the luxurious reputation of the Panama Limited. I wonder if there’s some sort of allegory in there for how Metra treats suburban riders vs. city riders…
  • Line Icon: A simplified magnolia bloom.
  • Emoji: 🌺

The Diamond Line
(W, Metra Electric – South Chicago Branch)

  • History: The Diamond represents a few different Illinois Central trains, including the Green Diamond, the Diamond Special, and the Night Diamond between Chicago and St. Louis. While the South Chicago Branch never hosted long-distance trains (for obvious reasons), these trains still share the old Illinois Central main line into downtown north of 63rd Street.
  • Line Icon: A basic diamond on a teal background.
  • Emoji: 💎

So what are your thoughts on the map? What should I change next year when I get restless about the map again? Go yell at me on Twitter. (P.S. – one of the most important things I did to this version of the map is format it to fit nicely on an 11×17 piece of paper. Here’s a PDF if you’d like to print it out at home or at work.)

One last quick plug for Transportation Camp: this Saturday, May 4 from 9am-5:30pm at the Chaddick Institute in DePaul’s Loop Campus (14 E. Jackson, 16th Floor). $30 for the day ($20 if you’re a student) is a bargain to nerd out all day long. Get registered over on YPT’s website.

Diverging Approach: The Purge

Editor’s Note, 1/22/20: The PABST Report has been updated with 2018 data, optimized for mobile use (with the Google Sheets app) and now features generated reports for each station. If you already know our methodology, feel free to go straight to the report.

Metra’s draft Station Evaluation Policy procedures are out, and Metra’s encouraging the public to review and comment on them by April 15. From Metra:

The policy establishes a plan to review existing stations at least every two years.  Metra will collaborate with community stakeholders to create plans of action for stations with low ridership, in order to increase ridership, improve customer experience, and build support for Metra service among nearby residents.  The policy also identifies a process for working with communities to address stations where ridership is not able to be improved.
In addition, the policy provides guidance for consideration of infill stations (that is, new stations on existing Metra lines, between existing stations).  Proposals for new access points to the Metra system must weigh the potential benefits to new riders against drawbacks to existing riders, before they can proceed.


Metra taking a data-driven approach to analyze current levels of service and assessing their built assets (in this case, stations), is most certainly a good thing and fits in quite well with the Metra Board’s ongoing pursuit to run service as efficiently as possible despite a chronic lack of funding for operations and capital improvements.

Unfortunately, the draft plan as written leaves plenty to be desired. Metra’s triage method of analyzing stations relies on a single metric: weekday boardings. Regardless of how many trains a day serve each station, all the stations are measured against each other looking only at raw utilization. The first pass of the analysis is simply assuming the top half of all stations are “Sustainable”, whether that’s the thousands of people who board at Route 59 every day or the 410 boardings per day for the median station. The bottom half of stations are thus considered “Underperforming” by default, which means each station in the bottom half effectively needs some additional analyses to determine ways to boost ridership. While this will undoubtedly keep Metra’s planning staff (or Metra’s consultants) busy for each two-year cycle, it may be a little bit of overkill. Of course, the meat of the Station Evaluation Policy comes for the stations that fall in the bottom 10% of boardings, the “Unsustainable” stations. While the plan is ostensibly written as a way to boost ridership systemwide by performing deep-dive data analyses at Metra’s worst-performing stations, cynically it’s also easy to see how this overall plan will be used to simply produce a list of stations for the Board to cull.

I have three major issues with the “Unsustainable” stations. First and foremost, publicly branding a station as “Unsustainable” (or “Underperforming”, for that matter) could potentially be kryptonite for potential transit-oriented development projects, which is a bitter irony: TODs are potentially a great way to boost ridership at a station by creating newer, denser development within walking distance of the station, but it may scare a developer away if they think the station itself is threatened. Second, since “Unsustainable” is defined as the bottom ten percent of the system, there will always be a significant number of “Unsustainable” stations regardless of ridership levels. The assumption with this kind of system is that Metra inherently has too many stations, which may not actually be the case. In a worst-case scenario, with an iterative process that shuts down the bottom ten percent of stations every other year (an unlikely scenario, but not impossible), Metra could theoretically declare 80 of their 242 stations “Unsustainable” within the next decade.

And the third reason I’m not a fan of the “Unsustainable” branding is, well, when you map everything out, this process targets Chicago’s South Side with almost surgical precision. By relying on this mathematical method, Metra may be able to meet Title VI standards that are intended to prevent disporportionate negative impacts to majority-minority populations. (Stations that could potentially be slated for closure would still need to pass a Title VI analysis before the Board could vote to close those stations.)

I’m not accusing Metra of specifically targeting neighborhoods of color for service cuts, of course; half-mile spacing for rail stations through an urban area does not fit Metra’s commuter rail service model and invariably leads to waste regardless of the demographics of the neighborhoods served: more maintenance costs, longer travel times, and significant costs to bring these grade-separated stations up to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. However, what I fear is that Metra will move to close and remove many of these South Side stations, which would significantly raise future costs if the Electric Line ever goes back to a more rapid transit-style service that the South Side sorely needs. (Two numbers to keep in the back of your mind when discussing a modernized Metra Electric service on the South Side: $2.3 billion, the CTA’s projected cost of extending the Red Line to 130th Street, and $931 million, Metra’s projected cost of the “Modern Metra Electric” alternative in the recent cost-benefit analysis. And if you really want to make yourself mad, check out these 1957 Illinois Central timetables that included 24-hour service and 20-minute off-peak headways on what’s now the Metra Electric.)

The “Chicago problem” is something this blog has discussed in the past: upwards of 70 of Metra’s 242 stations are within the City of Chicago, but the Metra Board is statutorily restricted to only a single member who lives in Chicago proper. Furthermore, the above map is a great example of why I tend to see how Metra operates their service differently than Metra’s official count of 11 lines: I consider Metra to operate no fewer than 14 distinct services, and it’s more effective to think of the Metra Electric in particular as three separate lines rather than a single operation: the Suburban Main Line, which operates similar to the rest of Metra’s suburban services; the City Main Line/Blue Island Branch, which has station spacing more similar to rapid transit service but operates with commuter rail headways (and fares); and the South Chicago Branch, which operationally is similar to the City Main/Blue Island Branch but is distinct for its mostly street-running operations down 71st Street and Exchange Avenue through a denser built environment. To help illustrate this, I went back and updated our infamous map. (A forthcoming blog post will dive deeper into the new map, but in the meantime, here’s a sneak peek.)

Check it out as a PDF.

Back on topic for the Station Evaluation Policy: the draft also includes a recommendation for infill stations, which would require that any new infill station would have to be projected to make it into “Sustainable” (top half) station territory within the first decade the station is open, which seems unrealistic since none of Metra’s seven new/infill stations that opened in 2006 met that standard themselves. While it’s good that maybe Metra is trying to avoid the lackluster performance of these new stations, I worry that requiring a station to make it into the top 50% within a decade will require a massive coordinating development like Lincoln Yards or a massive sea of parking like the “Sustainable” 80th Avenue, Pingree Road, or Route 59 infill stations to meet those projections. (Of course, with Metra’s capital funding shortfalls, maybe that’s a feature of the analysis, not a bug.) It’s also worth noting that some of these recent infill stations were either poorly executed or victims of just bad luck: Rosemont was built in the middle of nowhere and lacks off-peak service for potential riders heading to the entertainment district; Schiller Park is more or less inaccessible from the east side of that community due to the existing rail yard in that location; Belmont Avenue is walking distance from the Franklin Park MD-W station, which sees significantly more service and is the first station served for peak-period expresses; the two SWS stations opened just in time for the housing bubble to cool off the Will County market; and so on.

StationOpening Year2016 BoardingsDraft Classification
Grand/Cicero MD-W200696Underperforming
Belmont Ave NCS200632Unsustainable
Schiller Park NCS200636Unsustainable
Rosemont NCS200635Unsustainable
Washington St/Grayslake NCS2006110Underperforming
Laraway Road SWS200624Unsustainable
Manhattan SWS200622Unsustainable

If you’re reading this, whether you agree with me or not, I encourage you to review the draft proposal yourself and shoot an email to Metra to let them know your thoughts — good or bad — before the April 15 deadline.

It’s been just about a year since this blog barged in with my two cents about the BNSF’s new Positive Train Control (PTC) schedule, wrote a letter to Metra about it, got my comments more or less dismissed, and observed the predictable shenanigans that followed last summer. I was going to do something similar this time around, but (1) I know there are a few people at Metra who read this blog anyway, and (2) if I’m going to give Metra some constructive criticism, I want to be able to offer up some justifiable, productive alternatives as well. So, as a self-appointed Blue Ribbon committee of one, I brainstormed what I’d want included above and beyond triaging the system based on boardings alone and seeing where the chips fell from there. I came up with five key performance indicators (KPIs) that I think should be used to give an easy, high-level assessment of each station:

  • Parking. Since I know Metra historically hasn’t met a parking lot they didn’t like, I wanted the assessment to see how efficient parking is at each station that has it: does the station have an appropriate amount of parking or is the station overparked? How well are parking permits utilized, and can changes to parking lot management help improve the efficiency of existing parking lots to grow capacity without actually adding new hardscape?
  • Accessibility. Is the station currently ADA-accessible? If not, would it be relatively easy to bring the station up to accessibility standards or would it require a significant investment?
  • Boardings. Do a lot of riders use the station? Do more people board or alight at each station?
  • Service. How many trains serve each station? Are the trains themselves relatively busy (which can increase dwell times and decrease service reliability), or is there a surplus of service, which suggests ridership issues at that station are not related to service levels?
  • Trends. Is ridership increasing or decreasing at each station? While ridership decreases are obviously a more pressing issue, are there stations that have significantly gained ridership? Can we determine why ridership increased in those locations, and are there any lessons learned we can take away to apply to other stations for improvement?

Then I realized that all that data is already accessible (at least for 2016; still waiting on 2018 to get published) over on RTAMS. Instead of telling Metra what they should do, I could just do it myself.

Thus the PABST Blue Ribbon report was born. It’s nothing fancy: basically just a glorified spreadsheet that ranks each criteria on a 5-point scale for a quick and simple station assessment to provide a quick snapshot of each station. Go ahead: try it out for your station, and let’s talk about it over on Twitter. If you’d like the direct link to open it up on your own (or if the drop down menu isn’t working for you), check it out here. If you’re on a smartphone or tablet, make sure to download the Google Sheets app for best results. For a systemwide snapshot report, check out the “Scorecard” tab.

This report isn’t meant to make recommendations for station closures or station improvements (although in a few circumstances, a few standard recommendations will automatically pop up in the report), but rather a simple snapshot of KPIs to help guide conversations. So go ahead, play around with it (but try not to break it), and see how your station rates. And don’t forget to let Metra know your thoughts on the real Station Optimization project as well.

Diverging Approach: Investing In Transit

John Greenfield over at Streetsblog Chicago posted a good article today about Metra’s awful start to 2019 and the desperate need for more capital funding. It’s a good read if you’re unfamiliar with the trials and tribulations Metra’s dealt with this year (much of it beyond Metra’s control, including a freight derailment that knocked out the overhead catenary on the Metra Electric and Amtrak’s now-infamous clumsy employee who accidentally killed the Union Station signaling system for a day).

Metra’s Twitter account boosted the Streetsblog article with a thread about the need to solve the capital crisis Metra currently faces:

It’s good that Metra is taking their arguments for more funding straight to the people and encouraging more direct action to get a capital bill passed. To be clear: our region — and our state, and our nation as a whole — needs to invest more in transportation infrastructure at just about every level to keep the built environment safe and productive while providing healthier, more environmentally-friendly alternatives to driving that are efficient, practical, and useful. Metra’s rolling stock is downright ancient, and their current strategy of just going second-hand everything is obviously not sustainable.

It’s no secret: Metra’s capital needs are dire. The fleet experiences regular breakdowns; signal systems routinely cause significant delays; there are currently in-use bridges that are over 100 years old.

And Metra has used 0% of their bonding authority, in favor of trying to rally ridership to lobby Springfield on their behalf.

Now, there’s a definite argument for fiscal restraint in the face of an uncertain future. As Metra’s tweetstorm points out, we’re on the wrong side of a decade since the last state capital bill was passed, and “it is understandable fewer people choose to ride Metra when half our assets are in marginal or worn conditions”. But if the needs are so dire and the potential outcomes so negative, why not pull out the credit card for some fleet upgrades? Why teeter on the brink of a death spiral of increasing fares and decreasing ridership when Metra could finance some important capital improvements today that could start to turn the ship around? When the Better Government Association, a government watchdog charged with calling out wasteful government spending, publishes an editorial basically saying a unit of government isn’t taking on enough debt, it’s quite the statement.

But it’s also worth asking if more sustainable capital funds are the only thing that’s needed to save Metra. In other words, a sustainable capital funding source is no doubt important, but are outdated and unreliable infrastructure the primary causes of Metra’s ridership losses? Undoubtedly, it has no small impact on ridership (and rider morale); a quick perusal of @OnTheMetra‘s Twitter mentions will make that abundantly clear. But just a few years ago Metra rolled out a brand-new fleet on the Metra Electric line and the Electric Line is losing ridership faster than any other line, with a whopping 18.1% drop in ridership from 2014 through 2018. Will new locomotives and coaches boost ridership elsewhere in the system?

Metra, as an agency, was formed to bail out Chicago’s failing commuter rail network with public subsidies back in the 1980s. The state’s fatal flaw in creating the Regional Transportation Authority was setting up a (mostly) sustainable operations subsidy, but no corresponding capital improvement subsidy. That’s not Metra’s fault, of course; the CTA and Pace also have to deal with the lack of dedicated capital funding. Metra has done an absolutely stellar job of maintaining the Chicago commuter rail network since the 1980s, maybe to a fault: as the CTA and Pace innovate with new service patterns, new service options, and service expansions, Metra keeps grinding on with mostly the same network and very similar services it inherited. (While Metra is able to claim that they’ve opened a truly-new rail line more recently than the CTA has — the NCS opened in 1996 compared to the Orange Line’s opening in 1993 — since then the CTA has also totally rebuilt both branches of the Green Line, most of the Brown Line, what’s now the Pink Line, all of the Dan Ryan branch of the Red Line, and is about to embark on a Red Line extension deeper into areas that would probably be better served by increased frequencies on the Metra Electric instead.)

If Metra was formed to bail out a fiscally-failing commuter rail model with public subsidies and now, 35 years later, finds itself in a fiscally-failing commuter rail model that requires additional public subsidies to bail itself out, perhaps now is the time to refresh that model as a whole. It’s okay to start small with incremental improvements: Metra needs a new fleet, no doubt about that, but a stronger pitch for more investment in transit includes what Metra will do more effectively with that new fleet, or plans Metra has to modernize their service that they can’t do because of capital limitations. A new fleet that pushes on-time performance from 92% to 96% won’t get anyone excited — nor should it, because that 4% is probably not why ridership is dropping. However, rolling out something like pulse scheduling — one of this blog’s favorite topics because it doesn’t really change operating costs but creates convenient transfer opportunities to expand Metra’s reach and passenger mobility throughout the region — alongside the reliability improvements a modernized fleet would bring to help guarantee convenient transfers could be made can turn some heads and pique some interests. Likewise, if Metra can pitch a capital improvement as making a significant positive impact on operating costs — like, say, a new fare collection system that would reduce the need for conductors — that proposal would likely be a lot more palatable to politicians regardless of political party. Metra has plenty of fun ideas in the queue to enhance or expand service systemwide, yet they stick with a message of maintaining a (declining) status quo as their lead argument to rustle up some new capital funds. Get people excited about the future and they’ll probably be more motivated to pick up the phone and call their representatives.

Increasing capital funding to Metra is a good idea, full stop. Our region depends on Metra, and investing in transit is a good investment. However, a new capital bill out of Springfield that lets Metra buy a few new trains, swap out a few signals, and replace a few bridges but doesn’t encourage Metra to update their operational structure to reflect the shifting demographics and travel trends in the Chicago region just kicks the can down the road a few more years and we’ll just end up in the same spot all over again. After all, a capital bill that brings Metra into the 21st Century is already 19 years out-of-date.

Diverging Approach: Kill the Weekend Pass

I hate getting gifts.

My wife knows this, and I think she knows that when I say “you don’t have to get me anything” when my birthday or Christmas rolls around that I actually mean it, but she still does her best, since I think she would feel awkward not giving me something (even if I explicitly tell her not to get me anything), and she likes me to have something to open for those special occasions. She’s too good for me, and I’m incredibly lucky to be married to her.

But still, I hate getting gifts.

It’s not that I don’t appreciate a thoughtful gesture, of course. If someone goes out of their way to do something kind and special for me, of course I’m grateful for the effort. But, simply stated, I generally have most things I’d like to have, within reason, of course — if someone wants to buy me a boat for my birthday, it’s coming up in the summer, let’s talk about delivery options. For smaller, more “normal” gifts though, I have just enough social anxiety that I have an irrational fear of disappointing someone who gave me a gift that they put a lot of thought and effort into because I won’t be able to hide my disappointment, to the point where I’d rather get nothing at all.

I don’t want to sound snobbish or high-maintenance or anything — I’ve received plenty of gifts in my life. Checking my privilege as a straight white male who is an only child in a family somewhere between middle class and upper-middle class, I’ve gotten more than my fair share of free things throughout my life, and I’m grateful for everyone who has shown me so much generousity over the years. But that upbringing combined with my personal history cuts the other way too: I’m an only child of divorce, who took the first job I could following a summer on medical bedrest and in the face of the Great Recession (that happened to be in Peoria), followed by moving into my grandmother’s in-law apartment in her Northwest Side bungalow to help defray some costs as I put myself through grad school. While I’m lucky to have a supportive family and network of friends through it all, day-to-day it was still filled with a lot of alone time and self-reliance. Eventually you just kind of get used to being on your own, and that becomes the new normal: if you want something, you save up (or splurge) and just buy it yourself, easy as that. So when it comes time to receive a gift — especially a relatively unexpected one — there’s a certain sense of dread I get, worrying that, bluntly stated, the gift will suck.

This weekend, Metra gave a gift to the region, and for their most loyal riders, the gift sucked. As most of the people reading a blog like this already know, Metra offered free rides systemwide this weekend. Following the railroad’s abysmal record through the polar vortex days (I still haven’t forgotten that in the polar vortex post-mortem, Metra CEO Jim Derwinski said he regretted running too many trains), Metra decided to offer free trips all weekend long as a “pat on the back” for coping with Metra through the bad weather.

Now, for infrequent or new riders, that’s not a bad gift at all. Two free days of riding the train — during the Chicago Auto Show, no less — is a pretty sweet gig. As someone who has purchased 10 of the last 11 Metra Weekend Passes offered due to my usual weekend travels, it was a pleasant surprise to keep an extra ten bucks in my wallet. But I also didn’t have to deal with Metra during the polar vortex. Instead, the people who did deal with the polar vortex — a significant number of whom ride with monthly passes anyway — didn’t really get anything from the free weekend since weekend trips (between downtown and their home station, at least) are included in their monthly passes. And, of course, drawing more attention to weekend schedules can quickly turn negative as well: free weekend rides to someone who lives along the North Central Service or the Heritage Corridor won’t do much to sway opinion.

The timing of the promotion also seemed a little, well, off to me. If it was supposed to be a “thank you” to the riders who dealt with the brunt of the polar vortex, the gift was misguided since it doesn’t do much for the core commuting market with monthly passes. A more effective “thank you” would be discounts on March monthly passes; interestingly, Electric Line riders are getting discounts on April monthly passes, but I feel like that message got trampled by the regional free weekend and Metra’s missing an opportunity for more positive messaging. If it was just a weekend ridership grab, why not wait for the weather to turn a little warmer in the spring?

Of course, there was another stated purpose for the free weekend:

“We survived the polar vortex – now let’s have some fun,” said Metra CEO/Executive Director Jim Derwinski. “There is a lot to do in Chicago and the suburbs and Metra can take you there. We’re hoping this weekend will convince people who have never ridden Metra or who haven’t ridden Metra in a while to become paid customers in the future.”


Giving people resources to use transit throughout the region for leisure trips on the weekends in the hopes that they’ll become more comfortable with transit and be more inclined to choose transit on their own in the future is, of course, a great idea that sounds really, really familiar.

I spent some time at Chicago Union Station on Saturday to scope out the crowds, and there did seem to be a bit of an uptick in ridership, at least on the Milwaukee lines. (Weekends on the BNSF are always busy, so it was a little harder to get a read on any ridership gains on those trains.) If the goal was a quick ridership boost, it probably isn’t too soon to declare mission accomplished; with a projected financial cost of $300,000 for the weekend, Metra could make a decent dent in that simply on the value of free marketing from local media and word-of-mouth. Whether it leads to any long-term gains in ridership — even just weekend ridership — obviously remains to be seen, but I’m sure Metra will be keeping a closer eye on their weekend ridership numbers for the next few weeks.

But that brings up another consideration: how will Metra define this weekend being a “success”, and what are the potential ramifications either way? While free transit is gaining ground in some European countries, it’s hard to believe Metra — which always seems to be about two board meetings away from doomsday — would take a $16 million hit in their operations budget to make weekends free all year long. There’s also the elephant in the room regarding onboard fare collection, where conductors missing out on collecting fares already provides a non-zero number of “free” rides daily. To put it another way: if more people ride when the trains are free but not when fares are normally priced, does that really mean anything useful to Metra?

Meanwhile, our transit neighbors in Indiana have quietly been going in a different direction post-polar vortex. To coincide with the Chicago Auto Show at McCormick Place — which the South Shore Line serves, alongside the Metra Electric — NICTD (the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, the South Shore Line’s operator) has also been giving out free fares — but only off-peak, and only one way. (Also worth noting: this promotion was planned pre-polar vortex, and the South Shore Line doesn’t usually doesn’t offer any special weekend fares.) It’s a great hook: come to Chicago for the Auto Show and your ride there is free!

It’s also brilliant because people are irrational, and we think differently when we hear the word “free”. If NICTD ran half-price fares both ways, the cost to the rider would be the same, but “free” just sounds better. Not only that, but it also changes the mental budgeting process for a trip. For most transit trips, travelers have to plan chronologically, focusing on how to get to your destination first, then figuring out the return trip (sometimes significantly later). On Metra, a $10 Weekend Pass means you pay more upfront and get free rides later on (if you even end up using them); on NICTD for the last two weeks, the free ride comes first.

For instance, let’s say you’re taking Metra to the Brookfield Zoo on a normal Saturday. If you’re coming from Naperville, you’ll look at a BNSF schedule, figure out what train you want to take there, determine what time you need to leave the house to get to the station, and figure out how much cash you’ll need to bring for the train fare. In this case, a family of four (two adults, two kids) will quickly figure out that they’d need $20 for two Weekend Passes. At $20 to take a train that runs once an hour (on Saturday mornings, every two hours the rest of the weekend) and makes 11 stops between Naperville and Hollywood, the obvious next thing you do is look up how much parking costs at Brookfield Zoo ($14) and all of a sudden you’re mentally assigning dollar values to how much your kids have to enjoy riding a train to make it worth your while. (The additional $1.50 in tolls doesn’t even cross your mind.) You’re not even looking at the return trip schedules yet and Metra’s mode choice is already in significant danger, even though the trip home is “free”.

Meanwhile, in Indiana, a similar family of four wants to head to the Chicago Auto Show from Michigan City. They’ll check the South Shore Line schedules, and then see on the website that their ride there is free. “Neat! Why would I pay for parking and tolls when I can ride the train there for free?! And it’s only $20.50 for the four of us to ride the train back home.”

As someone who has built an entire website around train crawls, it pains me to say this, but I’m offering up a pilot study for Metra to consider to try boosting weekend ridership:

Kill the Weekend Pass.

That’s not an easy thing for me to say, especially because the Weekend Pass is by far one of the best values in transit fares, to the point where it’s actually something that other commuter railroads are trying. Messaging the Weekend Pass’s demise would also take some finesse.

But it can be done. Get rid of the Weekend Pass and replace it with two things: First, downgrade the Weekend Pass to a Weekend Day Pass: the same unlimited rides, system-wide, for $10, but only for a single day (Saturday OR Sunday, not Saturday AND Sunday).

Second: make all weekend inbound trains free.

Think about that: Metra will get you downtown for free, you just pay for the return trip. For most riders, that would be the standard full fare ticket, which systemwide is less than $10. However, per person, assuming most riders are in the Zone D-F band, that’s only about $3 cheaper than what they’re paying now. Considering Metra’s core demographic is (and likely always will be) suburbanites heading downtown, focus on getting them downtown and they’re a captive audience. It’s an easier message, too: right now, Metra faces headwinds trying to market the Weekend Pass for groups bigger than about three people: it’s easy to find parking, even in the heart of the theatre district or up in Wrigleyville, for less than $30 a car. But “leave the car at home, we’ll take you downtown for free” can be a much stronger message that could be enough to encourage people to switch over to Metra, even if they’re only saving a buck or two.

This also should (theoretically) reduce the unintentional fare evasion that frequently happens on weekend trains, as conductors can concentrate their efforts on collecting fares for people leaving the downtown terminals, which from my personal observations is where conductors are most effective in terms of collecting the most fares. (In the long run, Metra should eventually switch over to proof-of-payment for all fare collection, full stop. But in the meantime, if Metra’s unwilling to abandon the conductor fare collection model, this will at least reduce uncollected fare issues.)

There are downsides to this approach: namely, it costs money, and without knowing weekend ridership numbers there’s no guarantee Metra wouldn’t end up losing money compared to the current Weekend Pass system. Free inbound trains would also make transfers more costly between lines, which is why I’m proposing maintaining a $10 all-inclusive option. (By cutting it back to a single day instead of both days of the weekend, I think the financials of this kind of proposal would pencil out a little more cleanly than without it. And, you know, gotta keep the crawls going.) I could also see Metra having concerns about Zone B-C “freeloaders” who would use Metra to get downtown fare-free and simply take the CTA back home, but that’s more of an indictment of the RTA’s ongoing lack of integrated fares than a reason not to try something that would stimulate more suburban ridership.

I’d hate to see the Weekend Pass go, but I also doubt that a free weekend inbound proposal would actually go anywhere since this is just me spitballing. However, it’s worth discussing how people use (or don’t use) Metra on the weekends and how Metra can be competitive when its inherent peak-period advantages in travel time and parking costs both disappear off-peak. I think it’s long overdue for Metra to dive deeper into weekend ridership and better understand where people are going, how people are getting there (whether on Metra or not), and what it’d take to get more people onboard trains.

Of course, if Metra actually wants to significantly move the needle on weekend ridership, they just need to change the schedules. At any price point, why would I take Metra to a 7:10pm Sox game at Guaranteed Rate Field when my return options are leaving the game early to get back to Union Station by 10:40pm or figuring out how to kill an hour waiting for the 12:40am? While more service is generally better, I’m confident there are still improvements that could be made with the same number of trains running either on different headways or at different times.

The important thing is, whatever it is that lit a fire under Metra to take weekend ridership losses more seriously, it’s the best gift we as a region could get, provided it evolves into action on boosting weekend ridership. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that Metra continues to look at targeted strategies focused on building ridership rather than doomsday service cuts where service is already too infrequent and unreliable.

Diverging Approach: Transit Throwdown

Tomorrow is Lincoln’s Birthday, which means many humble civil servants have a random Tuesday off work. Whether or not you have the day off, it’s a great time to get cracking on our Transit Throwdown! Make a copy of our base map, mark it up with all the ways you want to make Chicago transit great again, and tweet it at us by Tuesday, February 26. We’ll review the entries and get a bracket together for Twitter voting through March. Last map standing gets $20 in Ventra transit credit.

More details are here. Good luck and have fun!

Diverging Approach: Lighting a Fire

As the polar vortex leaves Chicago in its wake again and we all thaw out, something very interesting is happening in the south suburbs tomorrow. The weather has obviously been brutal and the deep freeze landed Chicago in the national spotlight, and Metra’s switch heaters at Tower A-2 are going viral because, holy crap, Chicago lights our train tracks on fire. It’s almost custom made for the Internet age with a ready-to-go clickbaity headline, short cell phone videos of trains rolling through fire and brimstone, and plenty of fodder for professional photographers to work with to show how Chicago deals with mind-numbingly cold temperatures (or, you know, normal winter temperatures below 40°F).

Metra’s leaning into the national stories, I imagine happy for something to distract from the mechanical failures, emergency track repairs, and signal problems that most rational people would logically expect from 36 straight hours below 0°F with wind chills befitting a Martian hellscape.

And kudos to Metra’s social media team for using the newfound attention to try to pivot and bang the #InvestInTransit drum again. It’s absolutely the right thing to do here. While the flaming switch heaters are cool to look at, they’re also emblematic of just how antiquated the incredibly-complex A-2 junction is (where the Milwaukees cross the Union Pacific West at Western Avenue). A-2 is one of the most complex interlocking plants in North America, and a significant operational chokepoint that needs improvement if Metra wants to increase frequencies on any of the lines passing through it, or simply to improve reliability for the current schedules. Arguably, it’s Metra’s most important capital improvement systemwide.

Many plans to improve suburban transit options throughout the region have to deal with the A-2 gauntlet of crossovers and switches, including the Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s CrossRail Chicago vision to electrify parts of the Milwaukee West and North Central Service to ultimately through-route future high-speed rail trains through McCormick Place and Union Station to O’Hare Airport.

But the Metra Electric is the backbone of the CrossRail Chicago plan, and the polar vortex has not been kind to the MED. In case you were too busy watching the A-2 videos, a one-two punch of the cold wreaking havoc on the catenary and a freight derailment taking out an overhead truss in Harvey has shut down the Metra Electric for the last two days, with the shutdown continuing at least through tomorrow. (The South Shore Line, which uses Metra’s tracks north of Kensington/115th, is also suspended.) With all the other problems the MED has in terms of ridership losses outpacing the rest of the system and the overall levels of disinvestment in the MED’s marketshed as a whole, a three-day shutdown is the last thing the line needs.

Not great.

But as I said earlier, something very interesting is happening in the south suburbs tomorrow, and it’s shaping up to be a mini pilot study of a lot of the things this blog routinely offers up. Included in the mitigation plan for tomorrow is the following:

  • Fare integration with Pace and the CTA. The three service boards inevitably get caught up in “who takes the loss?” tit-for-tats whenever an actual fare integration plan gets floated, but Pace, Metra, and the CTA have something of a gentlemen’s agreement when it comes to service disruptions and accepting tickets from sister agencies. While the shutdown contingency plan on the MED is far from a real fare integration scheme, Pace and the CTA opening their (bus and Red Line) doors to Metra fares on a handful of routes is a good start.
  • Timed, free bus shuttles to Metra trains. Metra’s working with Pace to provide limited bus shuttles between pairs of MED stations and Rock Island stations, and they’re running them for free! There are only three sets of shuttles being offered, and schedules are not perfect – looking at you, half hour layover in Oak Forest – but it’s a start.

It’s not a perfect plan – there’s a glaring hole in free bus coverage south of 95th Street in Roseland and Pullman, the small-but-non-zero group of Rock Island riders who transfer to the Metra Electric in Blue Island and head to Hyde Park are still screwed, there are a lot of suburban MED stations with no transit alternatives at all, etc. – but I hope Metra, Pace, and the CTA collect some data from tomorrow’s experiment to see what works, what doesn’t, and what takeaways there are for similar contingency service in the future. While Metra likely hopes tomorrow is a one-off situation, this is a unique opportunity to gather and analyze data that can be used to bolster future contingency plans or even make its way into regular service some day.

Diverging Approach: The Sandbox Gang

Northwestern University’s Transportation Center hosts the Hagestad Sandhouse Rail Group (informally known as the Sandhouse Gang) regularly throughout the year since 2002. Back when I used to work at Metra, I went to a few of their events, which were quite interesting. As their home page states, the “sandhouse” is an old railroading term for a building where sand was dried and, since it was one of the few warm places on cold nights like tonight, folks who did the hard work on the railroad in the yards and on the trains would meet up in the sandhouse and, more or less, shoot the shit.

Northwestern’s Sandhouse Gang carries on that noble tradition, mostly for railroad alumni and grad students. Topics are a mix of the locally-relevant (“A Tale of Two Stations: Construction challenges associated with the new CTA Wilson and 95th Street stations”), the high-level theoretical (“Transit Network Design Under Stochastic Demand”), and good old-fashioned foamer deep dives (“Rail/Air Competition in the New York-Chicago Market, 1945-1970”). The events are free, but generally hosted at 3pm on weekdays in Evanston.

The Sandhouse Rail Group steering committee is composed of Diana Marek, the “NUTC’s cornerstone for more than forty years”; William Sippel, an attorney who co-founded a law firm dealing exclusively with railroads; and Norman Carlson, who chairs the board of directors of everyone’s favorite commuter railroad. They know their stuff and have decades of railroading experience.

In the meantime, right now you, dear reader, are reading this blog, written by someone who washed out of Metra a year and a half after washing out of the Chicago Transit Authority (whose employ I was also under for about a year and a half). I have ideas, and the point of this blog is to get them out there and start discussions on how things could be better out here in the Chicago suburbs, but I’m by no means an expert. I’m just someone with a passion for quality transit, someone who spent too much time driving for the last fifteen years or so, and someone with just a little too much time on his hands. I’ve been doing this because I didn’t think there was an adequate forum to discuss suburban transportation in the Chicago region.

But I admit, it’s been pretty one-sided. I’ve had a few good conversations over on the @StarLineChicago Twitter account, but otherwise Diverging Approach is mostly me just screaming into the void.

At the same time though, you’re reading this now, so you care about transportation in the Chicago region, too.

So let’s make this interesting. And interactive.

The Sandhouse Gang has over a century of railroad experience at the helm and the support of a Big Ten university; I have a cheap laptop, the internet, and a bunch of opinions. But you, dear reader, probably also have a cheap laptop, the internet, and opinions on ways to improve Chicago transit. While this blog usually focuses on — and occasionally gets criticized for — pragmatic, short-term solutions that can thoretically be done cheaply and easily by transit providers (cough cough Metra pulse scheduling cough cough), a wise man once said that little plans have no magic to stir men’s blood. So let’s think big.

Instead of the sandhouse, we’re heading to the sandbox.

This link will take you to a Google Map I’ve prepared of the current state of Chicago-area transit. It includes just about every CTA, Metra, and Pace transit route that isn’t a local bus. Open it up and copy it to your Google Drive, or download it as a KML/KMZ for Google Earth.

Then change it.

Go wild with it. Finally build the Ashland BRT. Run a streetcar down Lake Shore Drive. Build the STAR Line. Run a water taxi down the Fox River. Extend the BNSF to Oswego (Ugh.) Run a Tesla tunnel out to O’Hare. (Double ugh.) This is your chance to figure out what you think the Chicago region needs and see how it looks on the map.

But it’s also important that we all share and discuss our individual transit futures, bounce ideas off of each other, see what sticks, see what doesn’t. So to facilitate that discussion — and just to have a little bit of fun as we enter the duldrums of winter — we’re launching the Star:Line Chicago Transit Throwdown. Finish your plan and send it back to me (via Twitter or email) by Tuesday, February 26. I’ll review all the submissions and post them all in a single Diverging Approach blog entry by Friday, March 1.

Then, just in time for March Madness, the bracket begins using Twitter polling on Monday, March 4. (Bracket format will depend on number of entries received.) Last map standing at the end of the bracket will win a brand-new Ventra card with $20 of transit value ready to go.

You care about Chicago-area transit; after all, you’re reading this blog. I’m offering you my soapbox — small as it may be — to get your ideas out into the world and to help make the world around you a better place. Let’s see what you got!

Map Notes and Contest Notes

Express buses that only serve a single employer are not included on the map. The X9-Ashland Express and X49-Western Express buses are not included because, come on, we all know they aren’t actually express buses. If your plan involves changing frequency, fares, schedules, or other things that don’t show up well on the map, float a bottle out on the lake and add details as needed.

Each person can submit up to three different maps, and you can continue editing your maps even after submitting them to me (up until the deadline). Teams are welcome and encouraged; however, the winning prize will still be capped at $20 for the team as a whole.

If you have any other questions or suggestions, send me a Tweet or DM @StarLineChicago, or email me.

Diverging Approach: Carrots and Sticks

Pace, like the rest of Chicago’s transportation agencies, faces some daunting capital funding challenges. However, Pace is doing something quite savvy: today, which also happened to be J.B. Pritzker’s inauguration, Pace got two pretty positive write-ups in both of Chicago’s newspapers of record, despite asking for $1 billion in new capital funding, posting a 3% slide in ridership, and openly cutting service including totally axing 12 routes.

They did it by talking up their recent improvements, touting their successful experiments with bus-on-shoulder, and getting some excitement building about launching Pulse service on Milwaukee Avenue (despite Pulse’s launch being two years later than expected). Pace’s I-55 service has exploded, with daily ridership up 750% since 2011. That’s not a typo — Pace ridership on I-55 went from 400 daily riders to 3,000 in eight years. (Well, it may be a typo: the Trib says it’s 750%; the Sun-Times says it’s 600%. Some digging through RTAMS would probably tell us who is correct, but right now we don’t need to dive that deep into the weeds.) The articles are a great example of an effective way to appraise the state of Pace’s operations and show how Pace as an agency is constantly reimagining and retooling their service to better serve their constituency through innovation and adaptation. One of the routes Pace is cutting, the 304, dates back to the days of streetcars through the near western suburbs, but that historic lineage isn’t enough to save a route simply hemmorhaging riders. No one wants to cut service, but when the agency can make a convincing case that (1) those riders will be otherwise accommodated and (2) the resources freed up by those cuts will be used to improve service elsewhere where capacity is limited, it’s a lot easier to accept.

(For what it’s worth, even though the Chicago region desperately needs north-south transit options west of Ashland Avenue, I’m a bit skeptical about how belt bus service would work on Interstates 294 and 355, but that’s a blog post for another time.)

Compare and contrast that approach with that other suburban transit board, which has been more or less going with a doomsday approach to trying to secure more capital funds, threatening significant (but unidentified) service cuts and continued fare increases for what more or less amounts to simply maintaining the status quo in terms of service schedules and service options moving forward. No one gets excited about only maintaining the status quo (especially when there are plenty of issues with current service anyway) and it’s a lot harder to drum up good press. It’s also a particularly bitter pill to read about Pace’s dramatic growth on the I-55 corridor the same day all Heritage Corridor service gets cancelled.

The good news is, at Metra’s Wednesday board meeting, there’s a chance to get people just a little more excited. Metra is (finally) releasing their Cost-Benefit Analysis, which looks at a whole bunch of Metra improvements and gives some data about, well, basic cost and benefit projections to help Metra prioritize their capital improvement plans moving forward. I don’t want to give too much away — I saw some earlier drafts back in my days working at Metra — but a lot of the pie-in-the-sky projects we transportation nerds discuss amongst ourselves are included, including some strategic triple-tracking projects and actually adding some real service to the Metra Electric.

Metra has a chance here to get people excited about capital improvement projects, and this blog certainly hopes the board sees the cost-benefit analysis as a way to publicly advance some bold, exciting plans. While we don’t advocate for all the projects in the cost-benefit analysis — a moratorium on line extensions further into the hinterlands should be seriously considered since projects like pushing the BNSF out to Oswego or Sandwich will just encourage more sprawl and make it more challenging to reduce headways in the middle zones where Metra sees most of their ridership anyway — it’s at least a starting point to see what’s realistic, what’s possible, and what would give our region the best bang for our capital buck. This will likely be more palatable to riders and potential riders as well, given that Metra’s more recent efforts to drum up support for new capital are somewhere between holding riders hostage (“look, nothing’s going to get any better unless we get a bunch of new money”) and extortion (“the service is fine for now, but it’d be a shame if something were to… happen to it”).

The cost-benefit analysis will be a good first step to making some real positive improvements to the Metra system, but all it is is a first step. Not following through on the projects, or going back to doomsday scenarios while this report languishes, should be considered a failure. Every project in the cost-benefit analysis will have some merit, and while Metra’s staff is doing the right thing by using a data-driven approach to help prioritize their plans, each of those projects will also need champions — both internal and external — to bring those projects to fruition. The cost-benefit analysis will be a huge asset for Metra and their staff should be proud of what it represents, but staff and the board need to make sure they stay excited and keep pushing these projects forward.

So to Metra’s staff and board: I just want to tell you both good luck — we’re all counting on you.

Speaking of Pace, our Pace Pub Crawl is this Saturday, January 19! You’ve read about Pace collaborating with the Illinois Tollway on the Interstate 90 corridor, so here’s your excuse to come on out and check it out first hand, and otherwise nerd out about suburban transit with us over food and drinks. The crawl starts at the Rosemont CTA station at 11:00am. Check out our Facebook event for more details!

Diverging Approach: Home for the Holidays

Tonight I took Metra home. Not like going-home-from-work home, but going-to-the-house-I-grew-up-in-for-Christmas home. It’s not unusual for me to take Metra back to Itasca; I’m a bonafide weekend regular at Tree Guys. But on Christmas Eve, it’s always a special trip. (My wife has the car and is visiting her family out in Carol Stream tonight; we’ll exchange presents later when we both get back home.) As long as I’ve been alive, most of Itasca comes out for the annual Christmas Eve luminaria, a village-wide tradition hosted by the town’s Lions Club. Throughout the entire community’s residential areas, residents put candles in paper bags along the town’s streets and sidewalks. The luminaria has its roots in the southwestern United States, and somehow found its way to this corner of DuPage County by 1960.

The lore of the luminaria.

As a young Itascan (and as an only child) lighting my family’s luminaria quickly became one of my roles at Christmas. There was always a bit of a debate as to where to set up the luminaria: right next to the street, as was common before most of the town got curbs and sidewalks, or along the sidewalks but less visible from the street. As I got older – and most certainly this year when I made the 15-minute walk home from the train station – I realized the only correct answer is to put the luminaria along the sidewalk. Cars have their own headlights, after all, and anything that encourages people to get out of their cars and explore the town on foot is a positive anyway. Besides, the tradition states that the luminaria is meant to “light the Christ child’s way home,” and Jesus strikes me as a walker.

But I also realized, beyond the religious aspects of it, the luminaria has a practical purpose as well. In the suburbs, all too often cars are not only seen as a status symbol among the decently-well-off (see the last month of television commercials where rich white people in McMansions buy each other luxury cars as gifts), but also as an indicator of class and caste. People aren’t supposed to walk, bike, or use transit in the suburbs, at least not as a form of “real” transportation. Transit especially is generally seen as the mode of the unwashed masses, with barely-existent buses weaving and winding their way through circuitous routes in the name of coverage and stations without amenities as basic as benches that can seat more than two people in the fear that some weary traveler would actually use a bench to rest.

But, for one night of the year, the luminaria lights Itasca’s sidewalks, providing just a little extra light during one of the darkest times of the year for everyone going on their merry way. It’s a reminder for all of us that, regardless of whether tonight is a night for celebration or just another day in the life, we all have the responsibility to do what we can to lighten the loads of those who travel alongside us through life: friends, family, neighbors, strangers, everyone. Even if all we’re doing is shedding a little extra light on someone’s walk home, it’s on all of us to realize, in the long run, we’re all heading the same direction and we owe it to each other to use the talents we’ve each been blessed with to make someone else’s journey just a little bit easier.

I’ve brought the luminaria tradition to our new home in Forest Park, and next year if you have some extra lunch bags, a few candles, and something to weigh down each bag, I encourage you to light up the night as well. Share your light with those around you every chance you get: if there’s just one person whose holiday season you can make just a little brighter, it’s always worth it.

From The Yard Social Club, Star:Line Chicago, and me personally, riding a lonely Pace #307 bus down Harlem Avenue, here’s wishing you and yours safe travels this holiday season and throughout the coming new year.

Merry Christmas.