Metra/CTA connection question

Here's something that's bothered me for a long time - why the heck aren't any of the CTA El routes directly connected or immediately adjacent to Chicago's Metra/intercity rail stations, especially Union Station? I realize the disconnect may be related to when the lines were built, but it still seems very odd to an outsider like me and a major drawback in Chicago's rail system. I mean, in Philadelphia some people wonder why the Market-Frankford El doesn't have an internal connection to 30th Street Station (both the primary Amtrak station and one of 3 primary SEPTA regional rail stations in Philadelphia), but the line still is only a very short 1/2 block walk from 30th Street. In New York, the subways are connected to both Penn Station (primary NYC Amtrak/NJ Transit/LIRR hub) and Grand Central Terminal (primary Metro-North hub), and some people complain that the midtown Manhattan PATH terminal is located too far away from Penn Station, yet it is only one (admittedly long) block away from Penn Station and is still connected directly to multiple NYC subway routes!

There's also something else related that bothers me - why don't the CTA El and Metra have more shared stations, or at least stations at the same, adjacent stops? It seems like from looking at a Metra map that if you want to transfer lines on Metra, you need to go all the way to downtown Chicago (and then possibly walk a few blocks) to get on another line, even if the Metra lines are relatively close to each other a few miles away from the Loop. If there were more connections between CTA and Metra service outside the Loop, this possible problem would be reduced.

I guess I really don't understand why Chicago's rail system is set up the way it is, because it seems to me it could work (or could have worked) more efficiently if things had been built slightly differently.

CHIP72 wrote:Here's something that's bothered me for a long time - why the heck aren't any of the CTA El routes directly connected or immediately adjacent to Chicago's Metra/intercity rail stations, especially Union Station?

There's also something else related that bothers me - why don't the CTA El and Metra have more shared stations, or at least stations at the same, adjacent stops? It seems like from looking at a Metra map that if you want to transfer lines on Metra, you need to go all the way to downtown Chicago (and then possibly walk a few blocks) to get on another line, even if the Metra lines are relatively close to each other a few miles away from the Loop. If there were more connections between CTA and Metra service outside the Loop, this possible problem would be reduced.

I guess I really don't understand why Chicago's rail system is set up the way it is, because it seems to me it could work (or could have worked) more efficiently if things had been built slightly differently.

For the most part, commuter rail and rapid transit have had their own seperate identities throughout Chicago's history, and as such, both evolved differently. However, it should be noted that long-defunct interurbans such as the Chicago, Aurora and Elgin, and the Chicago, North Shore, and Milwaukee served the city-suburban transfer market well by utilizing exsisting CTA trackage along certain route segments, which provided more "in-city" transfer options for passengers without having to go to the Loop, but when these two companies went under, CTA's rapid transit system became more isolated in that regard. But today, three of Chicago's four active railroad terminals are within walking distance of a block or so from a CTA station in the Loop, while a Blue line subway station is a two-block walk from Union Station. Granted, the connections between city and commuter rail might not be as intimate here as they are out east, but they aren't that spread out, either. Or maybe as locals, we're just used to it...

As a way to address this issue in the future, CTA is contemplating construction of a "Circle Line" that would provide more in-city access to commuter rail, but that's at least a decade away from happening, assuming it can be funded. In the meantime, only the nearby suburbs of Oak Park and Evanston continue to provide convenient transfer access to CTA rapid transit outside of downtown...

There's a number of reasons - as Dorian stated, the most obvious were that CTA predecessors and Metra predecessors were privately funded, and didn't give a damn about connection, rather about carrying their passengers downtown and back. However, CTA's had the L for fifty years, and Metra's had the suburban trains for twenty-five years. We've had one new line (NCS), two lines extended (SWS, UP-W), and two lines built into serious haulers from petty one-trip locals (SWS, HC). In that time, however, more than you'd imagine has been ignored or forgotten, specifically better integration with CTA, Electric district, and the orphan Amtrak run to valpo. Why we let some stuff linger or die is beyond me - it takes much more effort to begin anew than it does to rebuild. Most ME stations look like hell, and the excuse that the Valpo service was unfundable is hogwash - somehow we find money to fund South Shore, why can't NICTD also fund the valpo run?

Instead of working together, the CTA and Metra are almost like the Yankees and Mets - they both play ball, but you won't ever see Steinbrenner giving tips to the mets, and you won't see the crooks at CTA helping Metra any time soon. If they really wanted to cooperate, you would have seen inline ticketing and transfer points at most crossovers. Instead we have the pink line, which makes little sense (although a railfan's delight) and then we also have two CTA vending machines in Union Station. Good deal, tell the kids from Randolph, Norhtwestern, and LaSalle that they aren't cool enough to have their own ticket machine for CTA connections.

This is a rant, but it's quite true that Metra and CTA haven't really tried very hard to make this a fluid system. True, they've done a wonderful job of stabilizing some networks that were in bad shape (RI, GM&O, MILW), and they've started new services, but was the money on new services spent as wisely as it would have been had it been put toward better interline services and the preservation of Valpo service?

Tadman wrote:This is a rant, but it's quite true that Metra and CTA haven't really tried very hard to make this a fluid system. True, they've done a wonderful job of stabilizing some networks that were in bad shape (RI, GM&O, MILW), and they've started new services, but was the money on new services spent as wisely as it would have been had it been put toward better interline services and the preservation of Valpo service?

Good question...

But remember, preservation of the Valpo service depended on a state or local subsidy from Indiana to help sponsor the trains. Since none was forthcoming, Metra had no interest in assuming the service. I'm not sure whether Amtrak actually "volunteered" to run the trains when Conrail opted out, or if there was some other deal at work, but Amtrak wound up operating the service at a steady loss during the final years. Besides, Amtrak wasn't really designed for the commuter rail business; it had enough trouble being saddled with the unprofitable passenger services that the freight roads no longer wanted any part of...

Meanwhile, the federal funds Metra spent on the recent service expansions are investments directly related to a growing population in Kane and Will counties. I think it's money well spent, since Metra was going to have to grow eventually anyway to meet the additional demand, especially given the fact these extensions had been on the drawing board for over a decade. But politics and competition has stunted both Metra and CTA's capacity for realizing its interline connectivity potential, and even though CTA's proposed Circle line will begin to address this, it's critically essential that a new spirit of cooperation among all three agencies begin to develop, and it's got to start at the top. Otherwise, they'll just continue to fight over money, while significant transit improvements will be few and far between. You know, just like it is now...

It really is a shame.

All other major cities I can think of do this right. It's invaluable to have direct (in station) transfers between heavy rail and subway/elevated transit. This greatly expands the 'effective' coverage distance the heavy rail stations have, thus drawing in new riders

but, Metra in particular, and CTA to a lesser extent, seem less worried about improving existing services, and more worried about new lines. (Which are also important, but one should not neglect the existing lines)

The original Lake St. L did have a platform to platform connection to the C&NW station at Clinton. I believe it was nicknamed the Northwest Passage. It was removed when the Lake St. line was rebuilt.

I've heard some sort of Clinton Ave. subway spur proposed as a possible idea for future connections. It seems like a cool (but expensive, and maybe impracticle) thought. Perhaps others can comment on this.

In a nutshell, the CTA is looked upon as City of Chicago rapid transit where Metra is looked upon as suburban commuter transit, both serving different areas with little need to intermingle, but the Circle Line plan seems poised to change that.

The number of possible Metra/CTA Circle Line would obviously vary based on revised Metra schedules, but I'm curious to know how many Metra riders would find some of the proposed stops to be a nuisance, especially on inbound express runs. Commuters are impatient enough as it is, so I have to question how many of them would be happy with the idea of their trains stopping a minute or two away from their destination terminals to load and unload passengers, despite the improved ease of transfers.

metrarider, you may want to note that "heavy rail" is more of a term used to describe CTA-style rapid transit, as it's heavily constructed and operated much more like a railroad than light-rail, which is much more trolley-esque. I think heavy-rail and light-rail are 90's BS terms to replace "subway/L" and "trolley".

As for Metra, I would call that a commuter train, or regional rail.

However, your observations aren't far off.

Kablam76 wrote:I've heard some sort of Clinton Ave. subway spur proposed as a possible idea for future connections. It seems like a cool (but expensive, and maybe impracticle) thought. Perhaps others can comment on this

It's been kicked around a bit; a Blue line subway spur under Clinton would definitely improve access to Metra/Amtrak trains at CUS and OTC. However, the biggest drawback would be station construction hassles along Adams & Jackson and Madison & Washington streets, where transfer stations to CUS and OTC would be built. Most transportation planners seem to think that the benefits wouldn't be worth the massive traffic disruptions the construction would cause to these busy E/W corridors, and I'm inclined to agree. In comparison, the Circle line concept is a little more comprehensive, and wouldn't pose nearly as many traffic problems, even with the proposed new "L" construction...

Kablam76 wrote:Commuters are impatient enough as it is, so I have to question how many of them would be happy with the idea of their trains stopping a minute or two away from their destination terminals to load and unload passengers, despite the improved ease of transfers.

I'm not sure that every single Metra express train would make a Circle line stop, especially on the Burlington. But on Metra lines with no express service, such as HC and SWS, making an additonal stop within a mile or two of the downtown terminal shouldn't matter too much. The improved connection to CTA rapid transit would be worth it in the long run...

Orange and HC meet at Clinton and Canal - that would be an easy transfer site. Also, were the Red to be extended about one mile south along the Bishop Ford Fwy, it would terminate under Metra/CNIC, and could connect with the CSS, ME, and Chicago State University at 103rd street station. Frankly, they could extend Red quite far down the Bishop Ford Fwy, and take out some stops on ME, which stops so frequently it behaves almost like rapid transit some times.