CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[emathias]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I wonder if this new guy will bring any change of focus at Metra....Metra has had a nearly overt disdain for its intra-city operations....any hope that this might change with this new guy
...

At least he's not a local insider. If he's willing to call people out when they say/do counter-productive city/suburb stuff, then things will hopefully change.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Maybe Jarvis should be moved a block south between Sherwin and Chase, and given a south entrance? That would give a better distribution of stations in Rogers Park, and the Greenview/Sherwin exit would still be in the Jarvis business district.

Just checked this out on Google Maps, and there’s a curve that goes from south of Touhy to Greenview/Sherwin, so a south entrance for a new Jarvis station could go there, but a Chase-Greenview/Sherwin station would probably require lots of property acquisition. The same goes for a suggestion made a while back to have stations at Pratt & Touhy—the embankment gets curvy, so any new station would require major property acquisition.

I’m pretty sure that Jarvis is staying put, even if we get a four-track full modernization. Ald. Moore has specifically noted that Jarvis is the focus of his ward’s economic development plans, and it would be hard for the CTA to blatantly disregard it. Though the situation’s not directly comparable, look at the Congress/Blue Line—ultimately, the CTA caved to local pressure and built a station at Kostner (I’d expect a rebuilt Jarvis to be more successful, of course). Similarly, I think South Boulevard will stay too—there’s a lot of density in southern Evanston that’s more than a half mile from Washington (especially by the Lake), and Evanston’s been actively trying to build up the South Boulevard station area. It’s kind of ironic—the Chicago area really needs to be taking better advantage of its existing transportation infrastructure and promoting TOD, but some of the best candidates for station consolidation are the ones where politicians and planners have tried to build up.

I wonder if the CTA has floated exchanging the South Boulevard station for a south Evanston Yellow Line station…

I still hold out hope for the Uptown-Edgewater consolidations, where you’d get an increase in station entrances <i>and</i> an increase in travel time—win-win for all. And I’m pretty sure Noyes and Foster will end up being combined in some way—although I do have a friend who, while going to Northwestern, took the Purple Line from Noyes to Foster with a bunch of her friends.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by emathias

At least he's not a local insider. If he's willing to call people out when they say/do counter-productive city/suburb stuff, then things will hopefully change.

Whatever it takes to get Metra to stop partying like it's 1899.

They have to literally be dragged kicking and screaming over the coals of public opinion before they will make even small changes. The CTA looks down right responsive and progressive in comparison.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I wonder if this new guy will bring any change of focus at Metra....Metra has had a nearly overt disdain for its intra-city operations....any hope that this might change with this new guy

I doubt it. Even if being anti-city is part of the corporate culture at Metra, it’s the result of Metra getting all its subsidy from the suburbs. I’d guess the only reason Chicago service still exists is contractual—maybe they were obligated to keep all services offered by the old commuter railroads when they took over, and generally they haven’t altered the schedules much since then (this might be the reason for some of the weird aspects of Chicago Metra services, like the timing of the Metra Electric line in Hyde Park). Getting better Chicago service would have to be the result of a political push.

Still, there are plenty of ways Metra can be improved, and they deserve praise for choosing experience over connections. I also like his SoCal background—transit ridership’s been rising there recently, and if you can make rail more attractive there, you can certainly make it more attractive here.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

I still hold out hope for the Uptown-Edgewater consolidations, where you’d get an increase in station entrances <i>and</i> an increase in travel time—win-win for all. And I’m pretty sure Noyes and Foster will end up being combined in some way—although I do have a friend who, while going to Northwestern, took the Purple Line from Noyes to Foster with a bunch of her friends.

The closure of any of these stations is a terrible idea especially the ones in Uptown which will just end up blighting the area further. How stupid would it be to close Lawrence when it is literally the historic center of the neighborhood and what once was and hopefully will be in the future a massive entertainment district? I mean close Lawrence and you may as well just raze the Uptown Theater along with it... I'm sorry, Chicago needs more transit stations not less. The idea of 4 tracking makes it even more logical to retain stations and simply increase the frequency of express stops and then just run the express trains more frequently similar to the A/B skip service. You know how you reduce travel times? By adding real express service that stops every 4 stops or so and runs for most of the day.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The closure of any of these stations is a terrible idea especially the ones in Uptown which will just end up blighting the area further. How stupid would it be to close Lawrence when it is literally the historic center of the neighborhood and what once was and hopefully will be in the future a massive entertainment district? I mean close Lawrence and you may as well just raze the Uptown Theater along with it... I'm sorry, Chicago needs more transit stations not less.

Well, the concept only works if adjacent stations are rebuilt with extra entrances. For example, between Wilson (4600), Lawrence (4800), and Argyle (5000), a mere half mile, there are 3 station stops. What if there were two, each with entrances on their far north and south ends? For example,one station from Sunnyside-Wilson, and another from Lawrence-Ainslie? Or, as the scoping booklets suggested, instead of Lawrence-Ainslie, one could do Ainslie-Argyle. The exact closures are by no means set in stone --- it's more the concept of speeding up service with fewer train stops but maintaining high access to the system.

The idea of 4 tracking makes it even more logical to retain stations and simply increase the frequency of express stops and then just run the express trains more frequently similar to the A/B skip service. You know how you reduce travel times? By adding real express service that stops every 4 stops or so and runs for most of the day.

Depends who you ask --- residents of Uptown and Edgewater would love more Purple Express stops, while residents of Evanston are usually of the opinion that it would slow down service even further.

Regarding hours of operation of the express service, the question comes down to: (a) how frequently is local service running, and (b) how much faster is the express service than the local service?. The risk is, if demand is too low, is that you wind up with something like Philadelphia's Broad Street Line, where the Express doesn't really do much to benefit anyone's trip outside of rush hour --- the Local is running so infrequently that on average, riders would be better off allocating those man-hours and railcar-miles to more frequent local service (reducing their average wait time for a train), rather than infrequent local and infrequent express.

Similar issue plagues the A/B skipstop concept, and make the express/local bus routes (RIP) tricky to plan effectively, since their viability is so variable depending on the exact geography of the route and the time of day.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Depends who you ask --- residents of Uptown and Edgewater would love more Purple Express stops, while residents of Evanston are usually of the opinion that it would slow down service even further.

Since there would be an entire rebuild the Purple line could actually operate at higher speeds and not be subject to a litany of slow zones due to thousands of feet of deteriorated track/bridges/embankment/signals. It could easily make the two extra stops and still take less time than now.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by k1052

Since there would be an entire rebuild the Purple line could actually operate at higher speeds and not be subject to a litany of slow zones due to thousands of feet of deteriorated track/bridges/embankment/signals. It could easily make the two extra stops and still take less time than now.

Or they could have them run on the inside tracks after Belmont, skipping Wellington and Diversey, and have the same number of stops total. Now that the Brown Line has 8-car capacity, it is less reliant on the Purple Line to pick up the slack.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Well, the concept only works if adjacent stations are rebuilt with extra entrances. For example, between Wilson (4600), Lawrence (4800), and Argyle (5000), a mere half mile, there are 3 station stops. What if there were two, each with entrances on their far north and south ends? For example,one station from Sunnyside-Wilson, and another from Lawrence-Ainslie? Or, as the scoping booklets suggested, instead of Lawrence-Ainslie, one could do Ainslie-Argyle. The exact closures are by no means set in stone --- it's more the concept of speeding up service with fewer train stops but maintaining high access to the system.

Yeah, but the point is it would still gut the commerce that has built up around each node. The psychological damage done to a district like the Lawrence theater district would be massive because, believe it or not, most people aren't smart enough to use side entrances properly. The average person who is trying to get to Borders or any of the theaters is not familiar enough with the area or smart enough to figure out that they can take a side entrance to Ainslie and only add 1 block walk to their trip. 90% of travelers will likely end up walking out the main entrance and be at Argyle where you are now talking a transit-prohibitive additional walk probably a lucky 5% will end up going out Ainslie on accident and the other 5% will end up going out the wrong entrance at Winnona if they added one. This would single handedly destroy any chance of the theater district returning to its former glory and essentially remove whatever economic value the Uptown theater may still have. This would be the same story at Jarvis or any other station they may want to shut down. No one is going to walk to Jarvis from Morse or Howard unless they are itching to get mugged. Removing stops is a terrible idea in general. Rebuilding the tracks should make the train faster on its own, no need to remove stops.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by emathias

Or they could have them run on the inside tracks after Belmont, skipping Wellington and Diversey, and have the same number of stops total. Now that the Brown Line has 8-car capacity, it is less reliant on the Purple Line to pick up the slack.

I've always thought that running the Purple line on the Red line routing starting at Belmont and running it up the 13th street incline, reversing, then heading back north made more sense then sending it around the already congested loop tracks.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think the Tribune is (sorta) taking the right tack. People should be upset that the CTA stations are not up to modern standards, and are deteriorating. That anger can be used to generate popular support for the rebuild project.

Creating hysteria about station closings, though, is not a good idea.

Maybe Jarvis should be moved a block south between Sherwin and Chase, and given a south entrance? That would give a better distribution of stations in Rogers Park, and the Greenview/Sherwin exit would still be in the Jarvis business district.

We all need to join a suit against Chicago and CTA with ADA. Sue them into putting money back into CTA or stop all improvements/maintenance of all freeways in Chicago.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

The psychological damage done to a district like the Lawrence theater district would be massive because, believe it or not, most people aren't smart enough to use side entrances properly..

What about the Superior entrance to the Chicago Brown Line station? Or Racine-Loomis? And what about Morse, where the Lunt entrance actually gets more boardings than the main entrance? The 53rd Street entrance of the S. Hyde Park Metra station is technically its secondary entrance, but 53rd Street is still much more important than S. Hyde Park commercially. I don’t think being a “secondary” entrance (I suspect the revised Red Line stations will be equal or almost-equal to the primary entrances) is much of a problem. The block between Ainslie and Argyle or Lawrence really isn’t much of a barrier—almost every time I go to the Argyle-Uptown area, I get off at one station and board at another. It might be extra-super-convenient, but it doesn’t really make sense to saturate a neighborhood with heavy rail stations all within walking distance of one another. It’s a fifth of a mile.

Looking on Google maps right now, I think I see why they chose Argyle-Ainslie rather than Lawrence-Ainslie—it looks to me like property acquisition would cost less, and new track + a wider at Lawrence & Ainslie would probably mean the demolition of a shopping center and/or getting really close to the Aragon.

This would single handedly destroy any chance of the theater district returning to its former glory and essentially remove whatever economic value the Uptown theater may still have.

I don’t think getting rid of Lawrence would mean the end of the the Uptown area’s redevelopment, either—Uptown around North & Wells Streets became a gentrified entertainment district despite being about about the same distance away from Sedgwick as Lawrence or Argyle is from Ainslie. Having a directly adjacent heavy rail stop is a plus, but it’s not a prerequisite. And a fifth of a mile distance is pretty good too.

Rebuilding the tracks should make the train faster on its own, no need to remove stops.

The more closely-spaced stations, the less time you have to build speed before slowing down again. So you can have as nice of tracks as you want, but your speed is ultimately going to be limited by how close your stations are. And people are willing to walk further for faster services.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by k1052

I've always thought that running the Purple line on the Red line routing starting at Belmont and running it up the 13th street incline, reversing, then heading back north made more sense then sending it around the already congested loop tracks.

I don’t know how feasible this is, given the need for recovery time at the end of a run. Ever since I first saw this suggested on The Straight Dope, I’ve wondered whether a new through-routing would be a good idea. Sending the Purple Line to Midway seems like a good idea if they upgrade the Evanston stations to eight-car trains—both lines have pretty similar peak frequencies. It would also provide a nice split between Metra and the CTA—UP-North takes you to the West Loop, Purple Line to State Street.

[OhioGuy]

Yonah Freemark has a write-up on his website regarding the Red/Purple rebuild.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ment-pondered/

The CTA has four fundamental options: Maintain the track in its current condition, allowing it to degrade, slowing trains and requiring constant upkeep and high operating costs ($280 million); Rehabilitate the track, putting it into a state of good repair for a short period of time (20 years) and potentially introduce new transfer options from express to local trains ($2.4-2.9 billion); Build a new elevated line along the Chicago section of the corridor, either with three or four tracks, and rebuild the embanked Evanston portion ($4-4.2 billion); and Construct a subway along the southern half of the line, eliminating the existing elevated portions there ($4 billion).

Moreover, while fewer stops, fewer curves thanks to the new alignment, and more reliable track would speed the underground trains much faster than today’s elevated, the subway would only have two tracks, versus the four now offered. This would eliminate express Purple Line trains between Howard and Belmont Stations — a service that saves commuters almost half their travel time compared to the local Red Line (12 versus 22 minutes) — and require everyone to take the local. On the other hand, all local commuters in the areas now served by both the Purple and Red Lines would then get generally quicker travel times. Planners estimate that this could attract more riders than the other options. Could this be an acceptable trade-off?

The tunneled train alignment does offer one possibility that the city should study very seriously: The option of selling the development rights to the parcels where the elevated trains once ran. Unlike in many places, where elevated trains run directly over a street, on this corridor, the trains run in the middle of blocks. If a subway were built below, a long stretch of real estate would suddenly be available for sale. This could offset construction costs tremendously.

[the urban politician]

The tunneled train alignment does offer one possibility that the city should study very seriously: The option of selling the development rights to the parcels where the elevated trains once ran. Unlike in many places, where elevated trains run directly over a street, on this corridor, the trains run in the middle of blocks. If a subway were built below, a long stretch of real estate would suddenly be available for sale. This could offset construction costs tremendously.

^ This is actually a great point I had never thought of, but the ROW for the Red Line isn't very wide, is it? How developable would the land under it be?

[Busy Bee]

I've thought of this many times. But this isn't the Mass Turnpike here. I'm afraid the narrowness like you said of the ROW will make the cost/benefit ratio of straddling a trench unrealsitic. I guess that leads me to another question: In a hypothetical subway scenario would we be talking about a deep bored tunnel or a simple concrete walled trench? Another thing tho remember is that in a subway scenario the real estate on the commercial streets with a station currently would more than likely still be occupied by a CTA station house, just leading down instead of up. This would eliminate some of the highest valued parcels on arterial streets.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I guess that leads me to another question: In a hypothetical subway scenario would we be talking about a deep bored tunnel or a simple concrete walled trench? Another thing tho remember is that in a subway scenario the real estate on the commercial streets with a station currently would more than likely still be occupied by a CTA station house, just leading down instead of up. This would eliminate some of the highest valued parcels on arterial streets.

Huh? The subway alternative does not use the same alignment as the current elevated tracks. The new subway would be bored directly under Sheffield/Sheridan and Broadway, with inclines north of Belmont and south of Morse. Boring it under the current alignment in a Yonge Subway-like arrangement would be pretty difficult if they need to maintain service above.

[Busy Bee]

That makes sense. I haven't really been following this too closely (been uber busy lately), so the fact that you'd have to totally shut down the elevated for construction of a subway under it didn't even dawn on me. BUT, would a tunnel under the current alignment even be remotely possible from an engineering standpoint?

EDIT: Why would a subway option limit tracks to 2? Would a 3-4 track tunnel not fit under Sheffield or sections of Broadway or Sheridan? Is a tunnel this wide not possible or would it be cost prohibitive?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

...
In a hypothetical subway scenario would we be talking about a deep bored tunnel or a simple concrete walled trench? Another thing tho remember is that in a subway scenario the real estate on the commercial streets with a station currently would more than likely still be occupied by a CTA station house, just leading down instead of up. This would eliminate some of the highest valued parcels on arterial streets.

For such a long run, I think it would almost have to be deep bored like the State Street and Dearborn subways are.

If they are deep-bored, then the bulk of the station would be, like the Red and Blue Lines, under the street as a mezzenine station, with entrances no bigger than the ones at Chicago Ave. In other words, no lose of retail possibilities needed.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This is actually a great point I had never thought of, but the ROW for the Red Line isn't very wide, is it? How developable would the land under it be?

It's not hugely wide, but it's at least a double-storefront wide. While I don't support the Bloomingdale Trail park, I would think that with a subway alignment, turning the embankement ROW into an elevated bike path/park along the North Side would be hugely beneficial. Alternately tearing it down and creating a bunch of skinny, totally non-traditional new buildings along there, by all sorts of different architects, would create a long, unique, architectural space for Chicago. Maybe even over major streets, arched buildings could be used to span the two opposing parcels. It would really open up a world of interesting opportunities to further burnish Chicago's architectural reputation.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Yeah, but the point is it would still gut the commerce that has built up around each node. The psychological damage done to a district like the Lawrence theater district would be massive because, believe it or not, most people aren't smart enough to use side entrances properly. The average person who is trying to get to Borders or any of the theaters is not familiar enough with the area or smart enough to figure out that they can take a side entrance to Ainslie and only add 1 block walk to their trip. 90% of travelers will likely end up walking out the main entrance and be at Argyle where you are now talking a transit-prohibitive additional walk probably a lucky 5% will end up going out Ainslie on accident and the other 5% will end up going out the wrong entrance at Winnona if they added one. This would single handedly destroy any chance of the theater district returning to its former glory and essentially remove whatever economic value the Uptown theater may still have. This would be the same story at Jarvis or any other station they may want to shut down. No one is going to walk to Jarvis from Morse or Howard unless they are itching to get mugged. Removing stops is a terrible idea in general. Rebuilding the tracks should make the train faster on its own, no need to remove stops.

While I would like to see at least some of the stations marked for replacement kept, I think you're greatly underestimating the adaptability of people when using the transit system. Especially when it comes to the Uptown Theatre. The vast majority of trips taken by people are taken by regular riders. Regular riders know how to use the system, how to navigate to the desired exit, etc. Most of the commercial acticity near train systems is driven by local residents who see places as they walk to and from the station. Yes, for areas where stations entrances are lost or traffic is greatly reduced, there will be commercial disruption. However, it's not as if all that commercial activity will simply disappear - most of it will simply relocate to be near new station entrances. Does that suck for those businesses? Probably, but perhaps the CTA or City will give them some moving assistance or tax break to ease the burden of change. Good businesss can survive a change, and if the induced new ridership is accurate, great businesses will probably even benefit - even if they have to move.

Besides, when you're talking about established places and not green-field or brown-field (re)development, transit doesn't popularize places, places popularize transit. To address a commonly cited example of inducing development with transit, maybe Portland's Pearl District improved because of the streetcars, but I think it's even odds that the Pearl District happened because every city's downtown was improving that decade and the streetcar benefited from renewed interest in the area and urban living to begin with. (And I say that as a former Portlander). There are plenty of commercial strips in Chicago that thrive while being 2-3 blocks (or more) from the nearest transit stations. For just one example of many, look at Clark Street in Andersonville - it's thriving despite being far from rail transit. In all the scenarios, Argyle will still be closer to rail transit than any part of Clark Street in Andersonville is.

The best hope of preserving a Lawrence station would be to get Uptown Theate up and running BEFORE decisions are made about the Red Line. There is already transit service there, so if it can't be made to work with existing transit service, then newer transit service isn't going to be a game-changer.

Newer, faster service from Uptown to Downtown, on the other hand, could very well renew interest in the Uptown Neighborhood by people who currently don't want to live further than Lakeview in order to keep their travel times down. More interest in the area, more pressure to gentrify, that could increase interest in getting the Uptown Theatre redone.

Ultimately it's the content that pulls people in, not the ease of getting to a venue. Even if you had an express subway from your front door to the Chicago Theatre, you wouldn't go there if it had some hick band no one ever heard of and you hated the demos for. But if your favorite performer in the world was playing in some cornfield in upstate New York, you'd find a way to get there. The Uptown Theatre doesn't need (renewed) transit to work - it needs a business plan that includes attracting top talent.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Why would a subway option limit tracks to 2? Would a 3-4 track tunnel not fit under Sheffield or sections of Broadway or Sheridan? Is a tunnel this wide not possible or would it be cost prohibitive?

Nobody said it wouldn't fit. But it's guaranteed to be more expensive than a 4-track elevated option, so why even evaluate it?

A more technical answer is that a 4-track subway more or less has to be built with cut-and-cover, which makes the costs absurd. Is there a way to fit four tracks into a TBM section? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Honestly, many of the benefits of a subway can be achieved with elevated stations now. They can put in platform doors and then heat/air-condition the platforms for rider comfort. If that's too girly for you, then you can enclose the whole station, sorta like Davis Street or Washington/Wells, but not as open. Obviously, as we found out this week, you can't prevent snow from shutting down the network - but there would still be elevated sections on either end of the Sheffield-Broadway subway anyway.