CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by schwerve

whoa! maybe I've had this wrong, was this all a joke? have I completely misread this? if this is a meta-internet joke... good job, I was fooled. I mean arguing with me about spending actual people's money without feeling the need to defend it by not providing a single figure or fact to support it. Brilliant work playing the "nobody could convince you" angle, complete cop-out but totally makes sense within the joke. I'm sorry, I was wrong, didn't catch it right away, it was an internet joke. I can't believe I actually caved and argued for the Gray Line back in '07 on this board, that was before I got the joke, sorry, kind of embarrassed...

Whatever; Good Luck to you.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line

Whatever; Good Luck to you.

Second City! Next Step SNL. Man did I have you wrong, what a fool.. I am.

[VivaLFuego]

For whatever it's worth, I'm pretty sure CDOT currently has some of it's retained transportation engineering/planning consultants looking at the south lakeshore corridor, with the idea of coming to some updated and more firm conclusions vis-a-vis appropriate service levels, routings, and so forth.

All major capital investment aside, there are a number of potential improvements to the ME that are mostly procedural (aside, of course from regional fare integration, that could encourage more transfer trips and multi-agency riding patterns for the many 7-day pass rides on the south side). Metra is always challenged by the rigid work rules of the railroad union culture --- CTA changes it's schedules about twice a year, while the commuter rail routes change their schedules maybe once a decade, and even then it's only the most minor of tweaks. Given the absence of freight conflicts on the ME, right off the bat off peak service could be made more passenger friendly if work rules and crew scheduling allowed for it.

As a former Hyde Parker, the off-peak service is very counterintuitive: There are 2 inbound trains per hour, one local and one express, but they arrive in Hyde Park within a couple minutes of each other. Outbound, the express departs just 10 minutes after the local.

Absent 1970s-era consideration of freight conflicts and complex timed transfers between branches (transfers for which there is negligible demand in the modern era), a simple twice-an-hour, every 30 minutes mainline (once an hour by branch, University Park trains running express north of 75th) service would make the ME much more attractive and beneficial right off the bat, using the same number of crew-hours and railcar-mileage.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by emathias

While it would be nice to be in a subway station waiting for a train during the winter, and while I generally prefer subways over elevated trains, in this instance I'd prefer the 4-track rehab as long as they created all-day express service. It's only 5% more than 3-track or subway, it creates a more true express service, and maintains more of the existing commercial-street ties to the "L" service. Plus, I think the "L" is part of what makes Chicago unique, and having outside views during the ride is a nice perk.

Exactly! As someone who lived in Chicago for 5 years for school to IIT, the 4 track restructre with eliminating the old stations that are too close together is the best way to improve the efficency and demand for the network. The 2 track subway while sounding nice I think will lose some ridership because the core portion of the effectiveness of the Red Line are the easy cross platform transfers to the Brown and Purple Lines at Fullerton and Belmont.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ There is absolutely no talk of them eliminating the platform transfers at Belmont and Fullerton. The subway would begin after Belmont...

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

For whatever it's worth, I'm pretty sure CDOT currently has some of it's retained transportation engineering/planning consultants looking at the south lakeshore corridor, with the idea of coming to some updated and more firm conclusions vis-a-vis appropriate service levels, routings, and so forth.

There is one in progress—the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study, which started in 2010 and is currently listed as “in process”:

This project will study a range of transit service options in the South Lakefront Corridor, an area that extends from the Stevenson Expressway on the north to 95th Street on the south and from the Dan Ryan Expressway and Cottage Grove on the west to Lake Michigan on the east. The City will undertake this work as a first step in identifying alternatives that would improve public transportation services for better access to jobs and other activities, and would lead to enhanced economic vitality and quality of life for the communities served. The overall goal of the study is to recommend one or two candidate projects with the high net benefits for a more rigorous evaluation that would take place within the federal New Starts process.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

Agreed—I was puzzled why they’d get rid of the embankment and replace it with a concrete structure. Also, we would be able to keep some of the historic structures without weirdly grafting them onto the new elevated structure à la 10 S. LaSalle (okay, it probably wouldn’t be that flamboyant, but it would still have an ersatz feel to it). Any word as to whether this option would have space for ten-car trains on the Red Line at some point in the future?

Some of the station consolidation did make sense, though, especially on the Evanston Branch and with Granville-Glenlake. Can they not do this in the basic rehab option because the ADA won’t allow for new narrowish stations?

A concrete structure is easier and cheaper to build than a retained earthen embankment. It would also allow for the space under the tracks to be used for parking, garbage, and whatever else needs to be done (the new viaduct would be occupying much of the alley).

The station consolidation is likely being done to reduce costs as much as to streamline service. If they can eliminate 3 or 4 stations, that's a massive cost savings, since the biggest part of transit construction usually comes from the stations, and all the complex issues of property acquisition and construction staging that come up when you build a new station. You can see this pretty clearly when you look at the crazy 3-tracking they had to do when they rebuilt Belmont and Fullerton. Imagine a project like that, but with 12 Belmonts in a row.

CTA might be able to get around the problems of widening the embankment by building side platforms for the local service. The line would then resemble the main line from Belmont south, but with the Red Line on the outside tracks and the Purple Line on the inside. The embankment would still need to be widened at Loyola and Wilson for the transfer stations, but those are fairly optimal locations.

You are correct that, under the guidelines for new construction, ADA would not permit a Thorndale to be constructed today. A newly-built station would need to have fairly wide platforms, perfectly straight and level, with a certain clearance around every obstruction, and obviously elevators from ground to platform level. The platforms would also need tactile edging. There are many, many other details as well, but those are the big ones.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

There is one in progress—the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study, which started in 2010 and is currently listed as “in process”:

According to the CDOT, the first Public Hearings should begin sometime in March; they are presently in the process of securing a venue.

[the urban politician]

Yay. Another damn study.

[a chicago bearcat]

If we look at this as a way to add new capacity & service while rebuilding infrastructure, a subway from Wilson underneath the Lakeview trunk line to North & Clybourn, south to the proposed Clinton Ave transit center, then further south to link up with the Orange Line at Halsted.

At least 2.5 miles of this line would be part of a tunnel to provide through running high speed access to downtown. While the other 5 miles would be adding additional capacity along a proven high ridership corridor. It would be an undertaking you wouldn't attempt until the high speed project was approved, but it would allow express trains to run in the center tracks of the existing 4 track sections, into the State St. subway.

Not running these trains on the same tracks as the Brown Line would allow for more capacity on the Brown Line as well as lines running clockwise through the loop. Not to mention direct service to the west loop, a high speed rail station, and Midway Airport, all of which would draw additional ridership.

The total cost would probably be more than $8 billion, but would include an HSR tunnel, as well as service to at least 5 new stations in areas previously not well served. It would also provide transfers between every CTA line & every Metra Line.

Not that realistic in the short term, but it could be a long term solution if the Lakeview trunk line reaches maximum capacity during rush hour, & serve a much greater population than rebuilding the entirety of the Red Line ROW. Which in my opinion isn't worth the cost, whether in subway, 3-track or 4-track variations.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

From a financial/operating standpoint, of course the distance from downtown is relevant. Would the extension cause systemwide average trip lengths to increase? If so, would this result in a necessary fare increase just to maintain existing service levels (since otherwise, the revenue-per-vehicle-mile would decrease as a result of the increasing average trip lengths). These are relevant issues, even if they are much more technocratically-inclined than the more straightforward politics of simply having the Red Line serve the city end-to-end. Note that CTA already has one of the highest average trip lengths of heavy rail systems, on par with DC (where distance-based fares are charged). The flat-fare rail rapid transit operating model has definite limitations regarding the trip lengths being served.

The Dan Ryan branch is actually (generally) characterized by shorter trips and less of a downtown-orientation, so I'm not saying the extension would necessarily result in longer trip lengths; I'm just clarifying that the distance is a relevant topic of evaluation.


True, but just to play devil's advocate, couldn't this market be served with a shorter extension to 103rd/I-94 with a massive park-n-ride facility, as was the original concept of the line? This would also allow for decongesting the 95th bus terminal, since all of the feeder routes coming from the east could route to the new 103rd terminal, and would be a somewhat more desirable park-n-ride situation than 130th because of the quicker travel time to downtown.

Moved from the Mayoral Race thread...

As I said before, I don't think the Red Line to 130th will make overall transit trips longer - it will just be a modal shift. A greater portion of the distance of each trip will occur on rail as opposed to bus.

Your 103rd extension scenario is an interesting one, but the 103rd location is only marginally more attractive as a bus terminal than 95th is. There's still another 3 miles of city south of that point, including the 111, 112, 119, and the 34 bus routes, as well as the 352, 353, and 359 Pace routes that all provide a tangled mess of service through Roseland and East/West Pullman that costs the CTA substantial money to operate.

If I were king, I would prefer a terminal at 115th/Cottage Grove (peeling off from the UP alignment) which could have ramps connecting the garage directly to the Bishop Ford, and it would offer trips on the Red Line, Metra Electric, and South Shore. It would reduce the total mileage over the 130th terminal, lowering the cost. It would be directly adjacent to the Historic Pullman neighborhood and might give that area a big shot in the arm. There's plenty of open land just south of 115th that could be used for dense redevelopment, unlike 130th, where all the land is very underutilized but spoken for by the water district and industries. It would also be walking-distance to the big planned community north of 111th.

The only downside is that it wouldn't put a transit station on the doorstep of Altgeld Gardens, which would cost the project a lot of political support.

[CTA Gray Line]

EVERYONE is being lead down the Garden Path; there are N O $560 Million Local Capital Matching Funds available for the Red Line Extension from the State of Illinois and/or the RTA, and the Federal Government will NOT allow the Red Line Extension to go beyond the "Alternatives Analysis" phase without assurance of these funds.

Check with RTA and CTA Executives for yourself.

[ardecila]

I'm fully aware of the state budget crisis. However, the state is able to issue bonds to borrow money, and so is the city. Plenty of other cities wishing for transit expansion have raised sales taxes within the metro area to fund the construction (Dallas, Denver, LA, Seattle, and others). This was never a realistic option under Daley because the sales tax was already so high, but it might come up for discussion under a new mayor.

There are numerous places that the local matching funds can come from - not just another state capital bill.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Moved from the Mayoral Race thread...
If I were king, I would prefer a terminal at 115th/Cottage Grove (peeling off from the UP alignment) which could have ramps connecting the garage directly to the Bishop Ford, and it would offer trips on the Red Line, Metra Electric, and South Shore. It would reduce the total mileage over the 130th terminal, lowering the cost. It would be directly adjacent to the Historic Pullman neighborhood and might give that area a big shot in the arm. There's plenty of open land just south of 115th that could be used for dense redevelopment, unlike 130th, where all the land is very underutilized but spoken for by the water district and industries. It would also be walking-distance to the big planned community north of 111th.

The only downside is that it wouldn't put a transit station on the doorstep of Altgeld Gardens, which would cost the project a lot of political support.

There was the alternative that ended at 115th/Michigan--under the old Federal cost-effectiveness ratings it scored 22% better, though now that community development is somehow being thrown into the mix that isn't as relevant, but should definitely still be taken into account.

Something that I feel often gets forgotten in the Red Line extension debate, though, is the CTA's desire for a new yards-and-shops facility around 120th, which adds another $2-300 million to the project. It's not something that your average rider really thinks about, but the old facilities are around forty years old now, and the Dan Ryan's ridership has only grown. Additionally, it's in the middle of the Bishop Ford, which puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to shipping equipment (and is also not so great for the health of everyone working there); 120th also has railway access, FWIW. I wouldn't be surprised if the original plan was only to extend the Red Line to 115th or so, but when they found a place for new facilities at 120th they though, "What the hell! We'll have to add an access track to reach the shops down there anyway, so let's just extend this thing all the way down!"

[OhioGuy]

Red, Purple Line Upgrades May Mean Cutting Stops

Three CTA ‘L’ stops between the Uptown neighborhood and Evanston may be eliminated under a new plan to modernize the Red and Purple lines, and replaced with additional entrances at existing stations.

The CTA is exploring several plans to update the lines between Lakeview and Wilmette, and three of the six plans under discussion involve “consolidating” stops and building new entrances.

Two of the plans call for upgrading Purple Line express and Red Line local service by maintaining three or four tracks. These plans also call for eliminating the Lawrence, Thorndale and Jarvis stops on the Red Line, and the South Boulevard and Foster stops on the Purple Line.

n their place, new entrances would be added to other existing stations – including an Ainslie Street entrance at the Argyle stop, a Hollywood Avenue entrance at the Bryn Mawr stop, entrances to the Howard terminal at Rogers Avenue, and an entrance to the Noyes Street Purple Line stop at Evanston’s Gaffield Place.

The current concrete ground embankment structure would also be replaced with a new concrete elevated structure, as seen on the Orange Line.

An even more radical plan calls for getting rid of the ‘L’ structure altogether between the Belmont and Loyola stops, and replacing it with a subway. New subway stations would be located at Addison, Irving Park, Wilson, Foster, Bryn Mawr and Glenlake.

The CTA is in the process of applying for federal funding to update the lines. The tracks and stations on the north Red and Purple Line corridor date from the 1920s, and by the CTA’s own admission, most of the stations are in “deteriorate condition, have very narrow platforms and are not accessible.”

Most of the line runs on a concrete embankment structure rather than the steel trestles that compose most of the ‘L,’ and much of that structure is in poor shape.

[OhioGuy]

While a subway would be nice, I enjoy the elevated ride because it gives the opportunity to look out & enjoy Chicago through the windows.

Does the concrete structure that the Orange line runs on provide relatively quiet conditions for nearby residents? To me, it seems as though the embankment that the L runs on from near Lawrence Avenue to Evanston helps lessen the severity of the noise as compared to the steel structure further south. Between a concrete structure & an embankment, I'm not sure which would produce the least sound.

As for station eliminations, that's probably reasonable, though I'll be surprised if it happens as I assume the affected neighborhoods will voice their displeasure loudly. Ideally the north line would have stops at Addison, Sheridan/Irving Park, Montrose, Lawrence/Leland, Fostner/Winona, Bryn Mawr/Hollywood, Granville/Glenlake, Loyola, Pratt/Farwell, Touhy/Chase, and Howard/Rogers.

[lawfin]

^^^^Count me as one of those who thinks closing Lawrence is dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB



I agree with your sig....extending brown line to Jeff Park ...to me would make more sense than extending yellow line or redline

has it ever been seriously considered

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Does the concrete structure that the Orange line runs on provide relatively quiet conditions for nearby residents? To me, it seems as though the embankment that the L runs on from near Lawrence Avenue to Evanston helps lessen the severity of the noise as compared to the steel structure further south. Between a concrete structure & an embankment, I'm not sure which would produce the least sound.

The Orange Line is pretty quiet through Chinatown when it runs on a concrete viaduct. But the Red Line runs on a steel viaduct in Chinatown too, and it's not really any more noisy. But both are modern, monolithic structures, unlike the 100-year-old steel structures that are made of many, many small pieces of steel, each one vibrating separately when a train goes by.

Really, though, I think the sound difference between a modern aerial structure on piers (regardless of material) and a solid-fill embankment is pretty small. The bigger noise reduction comes from the parapet that most modern viaducts have now. Since most of the noise is generated where the wheels meet the track, shielding this area with a parapet will reduce the noise going outwards and down. Look at the new sections of the Pink Line, where there's no parapet. It's much noisier.

[OhioGuy]

^^ Ok, thanks for the info. I guess it doesn't really matter one way or the other between concrete pillars and a solid-fill embankment.

On a different subject, when I've been in Wicker Park/Bucktown in the past, I've always noticed the old elevated rail right-of-way alongside Bloomingdale Ave. Has there ever been any consideration in turning this elevated right-of-way into a new CTA line? It's only about 2.5 blocks away from the commercial corridors of North Ave & Armitage Ave. Trains could be split off the blue line similar to the old North Avenue line that serviced Humboldt Park back in the 50s. The line could terminate at the Grand/Cicero Metra station.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

On a different subject, when I've been in Wicker Park/Bucktown in the past, I've always noticed the old elevated rail right-of-way alongside Bloomingdale Ave. Has there ever been any consideration in turning this elevated right of way into a new CTA line? It's only about 2.5 blocks away from the commercial corridors of North Ave & Armitage Ave. Trains could be split off the blue line similar to the old North Avenue line that serviced Humboldt Park back in the 50s. The line could terminate at the Grand/Cicero Metra station.

I can't remember the rational, but that has been abandoned for transit usage, and is slated to become a greenspace : LInk

SSDD