CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Even a remote chance of an open gangway prototype out of this process?

[Busy Bee]

Yeah that's what I thought.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

We're probably talking about a mainline rail solution - Metra tracks, not CTA, with little or no new grade separations. So are people in the communities along the rail line willing to deal with trains every 7-8 minutes (15 minute frequency, two directions) even if they are short and relatively quiet? Crossing gates closing that often?

OMG, there are a ridiculous number of grade crossings along that route, including a dicey scissor configuration across Grand Ave. Looks like there isn't a single grade separated crossing beyond Central Avenue until you're already in the ORD area (at Irving Park).

So it's not just inconveniences to the street grid, you also get nearly inevitable tragic consequences - and, bad publicity - of a luxe airport express crashing into a truck.

What's the tab for building a 1-track viaduct along the entirety of that section? I eyeball it at 5 miles in length. Sigh.

Originally Posted by ardecila

All that is not to say you can't go one level up to an Elektronik solution

Is this spelling an inside/foamer joke?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Is this spelling an inside/foamer joke?

Probably too obscure for most foamers.

Some transit activists with better German skills than me uncovered the German rail planning principle of "organisation vor elektronik vor beton" - Organization before Electronics before Concrete.

As a rule of thumb, it helps planners look for the most inexpensive solution to a given planning problem. It also helps counteract the tendency among politicians to push for large, visible projects with ribbon cuttings. A concrete solution - e.g. the Englewood Flyover - would be the last resort after organizational and electronic/signaling solutions have been exhausted.

Of course, in the US the organizational solutions are often the LAST to be considered. Planners and politicians in the US would virtually never think of asking Metra to solve a problem that CTA is grappling with, even if Metra is better equipped to solve that problem. Mike's Gray Line is a great example... Metra Electric already exists and operational changes to bring service up to CTA standards are only medium-cost, but CTA still insists on pushing a multibillion dollar plan to extend the Red Line.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Probably too obscure for most foamers.

Some transit activists with better German skills than me uncovered the German rail planning principle of "organisation vor elektronik vor beton" - Organization before Electronics before Concrete.

As a rule of thumb, it helps planners look for the most inexpensive solution to a given planning problem. It also helps counteract the tendency among politicians to push for large, visible projects with ribbon cuttings. A concrete solution - e.g. the Englewood Flyover - would be the last resort after organizational and electronic/signaling solutions have been exhausted.

Of course, in the US the organizational solutions are often the LAST to be considered. Planners and politicians in the US would virtually never think of asking Metra to solve a problem that CTA is grappling with, even if Metra is better equipped to solve that problem. Mike's Gray Line is a great example... Metra Electric already exists and operational changes to bring service up to CTA standards are only medium-cost, but CTA still insists on pushing a multibillion dollar plan to extend the Red Line.

MUCH THANX for seeing what I see quite clearly.....

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.masstransitmag.com/blog/1...create-us-jobs

[jpIllInoIs]

Richard Wronski launched a new online news mag.
Citing the loss of such reporting from print and radio.

http://www.chitranspo.com/about-chic...ation-journal/

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

OMG, there are a ridiculous number of grade crossings along that route, including a dicey scissor configuration across Grand Ave. Looks like there isn't a single grade separated crossing beyond Central Avenue until you're already in the ORD area (at Irving Park).

So it's not just inconveniences to the street grid, you also get nearly inevitable tragic consequences - and, bad publicity - of a luxe airport express crashing into a truck.

What's the tab for building a 1-track viaduct along the entirety of that section? I eyeball it at 5 miles in length. Sigh.

The Grand Ave crossing is a noted safety hazard. Efforts to grade-separate have been stymied by Elmwood Park in the past, they are (somewhat understandably) concerned about the property impacts. It's very complex and expensive to build a crossing on a skew like that...

It would be better from a construction standpoint to build an S-curve on Grand Ave to reduce the crossing angle, but that would take out half their downtown...

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Grand Ave crossing is a noted safety hazard. Efforts to grade-separate have been stymied by Elmwood Park in the past, they are (somewhat understandably) concerned about the property impacts. It's very complex and expensive to build a crossing on a skew like that...

It would be better from a construction standpoint to build an S-curve on Grand Ave to reduce the crossing angle, but that would take out half their downtown...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...alert-20160225

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.chitranspo.com/

Richard Wronski is the Chicago Transportation Journal’s creator and editor. He is a veteran Chicago journalist, with more than 40 years of experience as a writer and editor at four daily newspapers.......

[CTA Gray Line]

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/02/2...7a1a-276822525

Thursday, February 25, 2016

by Steven Vance

Metra, the regional commuter train operator, is seeking a consultant to develop “creative recommendations” on how to change its fare structure. The consultant would be in charge of finding the pros and cons of the current fare structure, comparing it to Metra’s commuter rail peers around the country, and building a model that allows Metra to test how different fare policies would affect ridership and revenue. The Request for Proposals is due at the end of the month.......

[Rizzo]

Confirmed with contractor today steel for elevator towers at Washington / Wabash being delivered today. Should be impressive to see them be installed in place.

[Chicago29]

Originally Posted by hayward

confirmed with contractor today steel for elevator towers at washington / wabash being delivered today. Should be impressive to see them be installed in place.

fhp? I think it has the potential to be the best looking CTA station.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It would be better from a construction standpoint to build an S-curve on Grand Ave to reduce the crossing angle, but that would take out half their downtown...

Useful of you to link to the aerial photo version of that location, since the original r-o-w remains visible there for comparison. Although it's peculiar that the intersection that had to be rebuilt was relocated to the viaduct, rather than a couple dozen yards to the west and at grade level where it could have been constructed more cheaply, presumably. It's as though they put the beton before the organisation there!

(I guess they must have been allowing for a potential future extension of the perpendicular road.)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Useful of you to link to the aerial photo version of that location, since the original r-o-w remains visible there for comparison. Although it's peculiar that the intersection that had to be rebuilt was relocated to the viaduct, rather than a couple dozen yards to the west and at grade level where it could have been constructed more cheaply, presumably. It's as though they put the beton before the organisation there!

(I guess they must have been allowing for a potential future extension of the perpendicular road.)

Yeah, they figured it was cheaper to suspend the intersection over the tracks than to build two overpasses. There's a similar structure a few miles west.

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...t?oid=21215854

Connecting the airport to the southeast side could broaden the project's appeal.

February 29, 2016 NEWS & POLITICS | TRANSPORTATION

By John Greenfield

With Mayor Emanuel under fire over police scandals and the schools crisis, it's a strange time for him to move forward with a plan for an airport express train aimed at well-heeled business travelers. But last week the city awarded a $2 million contract to local engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff to identify possible routes, station locations, and a cost estimate for pricey high-speed rail service between the Loop and O'Hare.....

[denizen467]

People say that an O'Hare express train, in order to have a chance at success, would have to run to the air terminal buildings (the current CTA station) rather than requiring passengers to change trains to the ATS for the last mile. In that case, a bunch of concrete would have to be poured in order to create a flyover connection somewhere, whether as Blue Line bypasses or as a spur off of Metra tracks.

So assuming some kind of federal funding could be obtained to build a short section of trackage and substructure, how would a connection between UP-NW and the Blue Line in the Jefferson Park area sound? There is a 2 to 3 mile straightaway there where UP-NW and the Blue Line are parallel and practically next to each other; there might be a way to add a brief 3rd track to the Blue Line where a flyover connects. If some highway realignment were absolutely necessary there seems to be space for it to happen (and the expressway will have to go under construction at some point in its lifespan anyway, and probably for a widening as well).

The benefit is zero grade crossings, unlike the troublesome MD-W option. Coexistence with Blue Line trains would occur over a stretch that has just 3 stations, or just 2 assuming operating an easy bypass track at Rosemont.

The city terminus would not be at Union but at Ogilvie, but Ogilvie has plenty of upsides too. The wildcard would seem to be whether a trainset at reasonable cost could be had that has self-contained propulsion yet can run on the el tracks and in a short tunnel; these exist in the world but in our case is that considered a major hurdle? Or is getting CTA and UP/Metra to interoperate a bigger problem?

[Mr Downtown]

The real problem is FRA buff strength requirements. Anything operating on real "steam road" railroad tracks has to be big and heavy enough to survive a crash with a freight train. That means it can't be allowed to run on the same tracks as CTA trains. FRA rules have even forbidden side-by-side running at the same level of rapid transit and suburban rail lines.

If you can solve the grade crossing problems on the Milw-W, your best bet is to come in to O'Hare from the south, from Bensenville.

[Pink Jazz]

FYI, the contract for the 7000-series cars should be announced soon. The two finalists are Bombardier Transportation and CSR America. The base order of these cars should be assigned to the Blue and Orange Lines to replace their 2600-series cars, while the options (if exercised) should replace the 3200-series cars on the Orange and Brown Lines.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz

FYI, the contract for the 7000-series cars should be announced soon. The two finalists are Bombardier Transportation and CSR America. The base order of these cars should be assigned to the Blue and Orange Lines to replace their 2600-series cars, while the options (if exercised) should replace the 3200-series cars on the Orange and Brown Lines.

Maybe I'm nuts, but the 3200's can't possibly be that old, the cars on the "Charlie Line" were built in 1926, and the RTA still manages to keep them running; are these newer cars designed to be replaced (like today's bad Computer Printer), instead of maintained? 'Sup??