Making the “L” more Sustainable How the CTA can increase “L” ridership and reduce the number of cars driven Study conducted by: Chirag Sabunani Advisors:

Making the “L” more SustainableHow the CTA can increase “L” ridership and

reduce the number of cars driven

Study conducted by: Chirag SabunaniAdvisors: Dr. Kalyan Raman

Dr. Aaron GellmanFunding Organizations: ISEN

Transportation Center at Northwestern University

Index

Motivation

Executive Summary

Hypothesis & Methodology

Regression Results

Recommendations

Potential Impact

Motivation Scenario: Despite its inherent

benefits, people often prefer alternatives to the CTA

Objective: To identify and recommend

potential solutions to factors pushing people away from the “L”

To measure potential sustainability impact of recommended changes www.visitingdc.com/images/cta-train.jpg

Executive Summary Original hypothesis relating station

performance to rider satisfaction proven false

Station performance not statistically significant in predicting rider satisfaction

Typical response of “L” rider:Riders want it [the “L”] to be reasonably clean, safe, and to be on time, higher frequency, and not break down every other day

Lower travel times are the only meaningful statistically significant variable in improving rider satisfaction

railfanning.org/graphics/chicago_3851.jpg

Hypothesis & Methodology Hypothesis

Rider satisfaction is related to station performance. Profitable real estate investments can thus increase rider satisfaction and lead people to choose the “L”

Methodology

Target audience: People who travel to Chicago by car or METRA

A survey was conduced to collect data on consumer preferences. Regression analysis was used to analyze results

Images from Wikipedia

Regression Results

Regression Results Station performance is not

statistically significant in predicting rider satisfaction

Riders have accepted CTA’s dire financial position and seek a basic, clean, well-functioning system

In the words of a survey participant:

Riders want it [the “L”] to be reasonably clean, safe, and to be on time, higher frequency, and not break down every other day

http://blogs.suntimes.com/transportation/2008/03/what_cta_stations_really_need.html

Regression Results cont.Travel-times

Longer travel time is the only meaningful statistically significant variable affecting (lowering) rider satisfaction

‘Not getting what I am paying for’ & ‘Other’ are also statistically significant variables but they provide no basis for recommendations. They are therefore excluded from analysis

Need

To lower travel time on the “L” CTA Limitations

The limitation of two-tracks over most of the “L” prevents train-passing and express services

northatlantamedical.com/index-3.html

Recommendations

Reducing Travel times Merge Purple & Red Lines

Close minor “L” stations

Develop joint METRA and “L” services

Build the Circle Line

Remove Slow Zones from tracks

Wikipedia Commons

Merge Purple & Red Lines

Current Scenario: Red Line stops at Howard Purple Line runs from Howard to Linden (Purple Line Express service includes downtown)

Disadvantages: 2 trains needed to provide service from downtown to Linden Transfers at Howard take time (10 min. going North, 2 min. going South)

Key Insights: “L” has 4 tracks from Howard to Fullerton for Purple Line Express service Brown Line & Purple Line Express follow the same path starting Belmont

Fullerton

http://www.rususa.com/city/trainmap.asp-region-chicago

Merge Purple & Red Line cont.

Recommendation: Extend Red Line to Linden & close ‘Purple’ Line. Run a Red Line express from Howard to Fullerton simultaneously with normal Red Line service

Impact: Time saving from efficient service, reduced congestion at common

Brown and Purple Line stops Extra trains from closed ‘Purple’ Line can be added to Brown Line

and new Red Line

Lind

en

Cen

tral

Noy

es

Fos

ter

Dav

is

Dem

pste

r

Mai

n

Sou

th B

lvd

Ho

war

d

Jarv

is

Mor

se

Loyo

la

Gra

nvill

e

Tho

rnda

le

Bry

n M

awr

Ber

wyn

Arg

yle

Law

renc

e

Wils

on

She

ridan

Add

ison

Bel

mo

nt

Wel

lingt

on

Div

erse

y

Key Red Line

Brown LineYellow Line

Red Line ExpressMultiple Line station

Fu

ller

ton

Close minor stations & Compensate with bus-rerouting

Current Scenario: Due to track limitations, all “L” trains must stop at all stations (except Purple Line Express)

Disadvantages: Service slowed even for minor stations

Key Insights: Most buses operate on routes connecting minor and major stations

Close minor stations & Compensate with bus-rerouting cont.

Recommendation: Close low-traffic stations near one another and compensate by re-routing buses to transport riders to major stations

Impact: Quicker service for most “L” customers and cost savings from closing low-traffic stations

CLOSE Re-route Quicker Service

Wikipedia & http://www.Chicago-L.org/

Joint METRA & “L” Services

Current Scenario: Riders need separate tickets to ride METRA and CTA

Disadvantages: Separation of services, uncertainty due to no “L” schedules and additional cost discourages dual use of METRA and CTA for transit to/in Chicago

Key insights: Where there is abundant parking at METRA stops, driving to METRA station is encouraged. METRA is taken downtown and then using CTA within downtown – IF CTA buses & trains run abundantly from Ogilvie

METRA

www.ktransit.com

Joint METRA & “L” Services

Recommendation: Pursue a CTA and METRA collaboration that will allow bundling of CTA and METRA services (and even parking).Increase bus frequency from Ogilvie

Impact: This could reduce driving into downtown and increase ridership for both CTA and METRA

METRA

www.ktransit.com

Circle Line Current Scenario:

The Circle Line is being considered to connect CTA and METRA Lines, to provide transit shortcuts and more efficient linkages

Without the Circle Line, Ogilvie is 8 min. walking distance from nearest “L” station

Lack of CTA bus & “L” schedules presently discourages connections

Disadvantage: Delay and uncertainty of service discourages office-goers from using Metra-CTA combination.

Circle Line Recommendation:

Pursue the plan for the Circle Line and benchmark systems like the London Tube and Boston T for station design and operations

Ensure there is a stop at Ogilvie Transportation Center

Remove Slow Zones

Current Scenario: 9.2% of all CTA tack-miles fall under Slow Zones Slow Zones take 38% of track-miles in certain areas

Disadvantages: Slower service and potential damage to tracks

Key Insights: Funds from $56.6 million federal stimulus being applied to remove Slow Zones

Recommendation: Make improvement work highest priority

http://www.transitchicago.com/

Comparison of changesChange Relative

EffortTime

saving potential

Further work/testing

Cost/Profit

Merge Lines Minimal Significant Analysis & minor technical

Minimal. Cost Saving + Revenue generating.

Close minor Stations

Moderate Significant Analysis & significant testing

Minimal. Cost Saving + Revenue generating.

Joint METRA & “L” services

Significant administrative & strategy

Significant Analysis & significant testing

Minimal. Potentially Revenue generating.

Circle Line Significant and long term

Significant Long term strategy etc.

Significant and long-term

Slow zone removal

Moderate Moderate Under way Significant

Potential Impact

Drivers switching to “L” Present automobile worktrips1: 305K/day

2020 projected automobile worktrips: 332K-354K/day

CTA has a variety of options to lower travel times and attract drivers to ride the “L”

If drivers are attracted to the “L:”

Potential for daily Energy & CO2 saving & Revenue generation2

Criteria Current 2020 Low 2020 High

Energy (GWH) 16.8 18.3 19.5

CO2 (tons) 5555 6046 6446

Revenue ($ million) 1.51 1.64 1.75

1: Metro Transportation Group, Inc., ‘SUMMARY OF GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT TRENDS For THE CENTRAL AREA OF CHICAGO, ’ Prepared for The Parking Industry Labor Management Committee (PILMC), August 7, 2003 2: These numbers are based on following assumptions

$4.5 Collection per person/day 1.1 persons/current car driven

Average one-way driving distance = 25 milesAverage CO2 emission per mile per car =1.1 lb/mile Average energy use per mile per car =1KWH/mileIt is assumed that the energy and CO2 emissions from extra passengers on “L” is negligible compared to resultant savings

Summary Rider satisfaction on “L” is lowered by longer travel times

CTA has several options to choose from to lower travel time, which can induce people driving to Chicago to use the “L”

Current potential daily impact

Energy = 16.8 GWH

CO2 = 5555 Tons

Revenue = $1.51 million

The right systems can lead to behavioral change. Together we can make Chicago more sustainable

Special Thanks to

Prof. Kalyan RamanProf. Aaron Gellman

Prof. Benjamin ArmbrusterMs. Diana Marek

Ms. Donna Kwiatkowski