CHICAGO: Transit developments [Archive] - Page 75

ardecila

Jan 20, 2011, 7:43 AM

RTA to weigh cost, practicality of switching diesel locomotives to electric (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-18/news/ct-met-metra-electric-0119-20110118_1_electric-line-diesel-fumes-judy-pardonnet)
Concern over soot, emissions prompts officials to study issue
January 18, 2011|By Richard Wronski, Tribune reporter

Of Metra's 11 routes, the Electric Line is the only one whose trains are powered by electricity. But with heightened concerns over toxic locomotive fumes, some officials wonder if dumping diesel power on Metra's other lines isn't such a bad idea.

No one is proposing that Metra stop running diesel, Costello said, but the RTA and the Transit Finance Learning Exchange are co-hosting a March 22 discussion of the costs and issues involved in converting to electric commuter rail lines.

-----

Metra says electrifying its 10 diesel lines would be hugely impractical.

"To convert from diesel, you'd have to rebuild the entire line and start from scratch," spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said. "The costs are astronomical."

Metra bought the former Illinois Central Electric line in 1987. The IC electrified its commuter tracks in 1926 to allay complaints of smoke and noise from steam locomotives along the lakefront.

Electrifying the whole Metra network might be impractical. However, if it can be done on the BNSF and the UP-North lines, it would be hugely beneficial to the service. At rush hour, trains are packed very densely on these lines. Especially on the BNSF, I'm not sure there's any more room for growth, withe one of the busiest schedules in the country for passenger rail (both Metra and Amtrak) and one of the busiest schedules in the country for freight.

Electrification would allow for quicker acceleration, shaving a few minutes here and there and possibly allowing for another set of trains to be added. Of course, the wires would need to be designed to allow double-stack containers underneath them. It is possible... the Indians have already done it (http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/reaching-up.html).

Plus, BNSF has already indicated that they're willing to consider electrification. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but Berkshire Hathaway owns both BNSF and IMPulse NC (an overhead wire company). ;)

Beta_Magellan

Jan 20, 2011, 7:59 PM

I remember reading that electrification was supposed to be finished in the thirties, but it was interrupted by Great Depression and only the IC was able to finish. It definitely made the most sense to electrify that line first, since it probably had the highest density of riders at the time and basically worked more like a rapid transit than commuter line, and the Electric District still has the second-highest number of passengers per mile today. However, the interurbans at that time also ran on electric power to the western and northern suburbs, so maybe the C&NW and whatever the BNSF's predecessor was saw less need to electrify their lines as they occupied different niches (I think--don't know much about regional rail in the early-mid twentieth century).

It would be great to electrify the BNSF and UP-North, but at least on the BNSF line we'd miss out on one of the big benefits--switching to lightweight EMU's along the lines of what Caltrain hopes to do, since there's way too much freight on that line. I could see it working on the UP-North and Northwest given the low levels of freight traffic there, but that would preclude eventually through-routing it to the BNSF line (I know how impossible the West Loop Transportation Center seems, but I was at one of the Go TO 2040 meetings this summer and CMAP emphatically stated that Metra needs really through-routing). Still, we'd be able to claim that Chicago has nuclear-powered (http://www.energy.gov/illinois.htm) trains. :cool:

ardecila

Jan 20, 2011, 8:54 PM

In the 1920s, the BNSF would have been the CB&Q (Burlington Route).

Caltrain may have the option of switching to EMUs, but Chicago simply doesn't. Not unless we accept EMUs heavy enough to operate on US railroads (like SEPTA uses). If Metra electrified, we'd most likely end up more like NJT, with some European knockoff locomotive pulling the same bilevel cars we've always used.

Thundertubs

Jan 20, 2011, 9:01 PM

Busy Bee

Jan 20, 2011, 9:11 PM

^Yeah, lightweight EMU's (like a Stadtler or Siemens Desiro) are better suited to 1 to 2 train length consists. The passenger volume on most of Metra's long-haul commuter lines warrants bigger and longer trainsets anyway. Think Berlin S-Bahn, Paris RER, London Overground. FRA compatibilty is only one issue, and an issue I don't think would really be part of the equation. As far as North American operations, an electrified Metra line would pretty much look just like the current Metra Electric or CSS+SB. Other examples of course would be Metro North New Haven branch, NJT (Arrow cars) and Septa suburban routes. I see no reason that with electrification, Metra would continue with locomotive hauled push-pull consists. Technology has made that type of operation less desirable and efficient through the introduction of powered bogies under multiple cars that increases acceleration and multi-car dynamic braking.

BVictor1

Jan 20, 2011, 10:23 PM

VivaLFuego

Jan 20, 2011, 10:35 PM

In light of mayoral candidate Emanuel's recent endorsement of the Red Line extension to 130th Street: I'm curious, what is capacity like on the Dan Ryan branch? Would there be enough room to handle riders from the four proposed new stations, or would more trains need to be added?

At present, service levels and capacity are primarily driven by the northern half of the route. Also, the nature of ridership on the Dan Ryan branch involves a lot of rides within the branch --- it's less downtown-focused than other routes, so it's peak vehicle requirement isn't as steep.

That said, the extension would obviously still require the purchase of more railcars because of the increased running time of the route (i.e. even at similar service frequencies as now, you'd need more railcars to provide service).

whyhuhwhy

Jan 21, 2011, 1:08 AM

the urban politician

Jan 21, 2011, 3:27 AM

^ There's plenty of good news.

But no amount of good news will convince the person who has already made up his own mind. You chose to leave, and now you're rationalizing your decision.

Mr Downtown

Jan 21, 2011, 4:23 AM

I see no reason that with electrification, Metra would continue with locomotive hauled push-pull consists.

Cost of the rolling stock. One loco and nine unpowered trailers is cheaper than 10 MU cars. Look at NJTransit, which has moved away from MU operation to loco-hauled.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 21, 2011, 5:28 AM

And aren’t the new Metra Electric trains mixing in unpowered cars pulled by EMU pairs, too?

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 6:23 AM

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 6:35 AM

And aren’t the new Metra Electric trains mixing in unpowered cars pulled by EMU pairs, too?

No, they are all Motor Cars (and thus all have to be Inspected and Certified as Locomotives - more expensive than plain trailers).

emathias

Jan 21, 2011, 7:17 AM

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 9:14 AM

I think you're mostly preaching to the choir, Mike :cheers:

Thanks, that is Really Good to hear!!

ardecila

Jan 21, 2011, 11:43 AM

Eh, I think they should build both. If the Grey Line would really be that cheap, then Illinois can probably pull that out of a state capital bill once the state has some money again, with no Federal funding required.

They won't do it, of course (even though they could) because the people at Metra have their head stuck up their ass. They plan the STAR Line, ask for several billion from the Feds to build it, and then call electrification a pipe dream. Asshats.

On the worthiness of the Red Line extension: 95th was never designed to be a proper terminal. It has hundreds of buses coming in and out, and it's overcrowded because of all the people trying to transfer from train>bus and vice versa. That's CTA's public rationale for the extension, as well as the usual stuff about replacing bus operating costs with rail operating costs, etc... It's not bullshit, though.... 95th is a very poorly-planned station for the high amount of traffic it has, and there's no room to expand without tearing up the neighborhood and the Dan Ryan along with it.

Plus, if anybody is driving into the city from the south, there's no park-and-ride for them to use, and surrounding streets are both dangerous and the street parking is heavily restricted with various permits.

OrdoSeclorum

Jan 21, 2011, 4:07 PM

Chicago No. 1 in road congestion
New study says commuters here waste an average of 70 hours on the road annually
By Jon Hilkevitch, TRIBUNE REPORTER

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-traffic-congestion-0120-20110119,0,4877984.story

--

Is there ANY good news lately in Chicago? I used to be really fond of this place, even just 10 years ago, but my wife and I are actively trying to leave lately, it's just a matter of finding another job. Everything just seems to be getting worse here.

Lots of good news, in fact.

On this topic though, there's awesome news. In September a study of commute times showed that Chicago has the shortest commutes in the country of any city in the country. Nashville and Oklahoma City are te worst. It's because we don't have to go very far and because we have options. This study assumes that every car traveling under 60mph is experiencing congestion. The speed limit on highways in the city is 55mph, so if you are driving at 3:00 AM on the Dan Ryan, you're experiencing traffic delays.

Chicago, lowest commute times in the country: http://www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/DrivenApartInfoGraphicFINAL.jpg

whyhuhwhy

Jan 21, 2011, 4:11 PM

^ There's plenty of good news.

But no amount of good news will convince the person who has already made up his own mind. You chose to leave, and now you're rationalizing your decision.

Wrong. I didn't choose to leave, I have a good job and haven't quit yet. I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I won't lie when I say both my wife and I *want* to leave lately though, and we are both born and raised here/nearby. Just five years ago I was Mr. Chicago with all my friends. I convinced two of my best friends to move here, one from West Palm Beach, another from Milwaukee, and decided on a job here versus better paying ones elsewhere.

But please tell me some good news. I mean it. I need to hear it as I'm on my wits ends. I want to want to stay here. I bought a home in the city and the value is WAY down, we have the highest gas prices in the country, the worst traffic congestion (worse than LA!), the most scary pension/deficit problem in the entire country (look at what we spend and what we take in, look at our pension obligations, we're screwed and I predict the state of Illinois to declare bankruptcy if Congress ever allows this), my state income tax just went up 67% along with everyone else who lives here poor or rich, and people in this state/city just keep re-electing the same people over and over again without wanting any change and instead of cutting spending in this state they "won't increase it more than 2% year over year." And people are leaving. My best friend from West Palm just moved to Peoria. And according to United Vans we have the most negative domestic migration in the country right now, worse than Detroit.

Please tell me something good I need to hear it. I may be able to put up with all of the above if we had world class transit or the weather were actually decent, but Chicago has neither. I hate to sound like a hater but most of my friends have become the same way and have really turned on Chicago lately. It's like we are a constant laughing stock around the country lately.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 4:22 PM

http://www.ntui.org/itef/cta-to-waste-12-billion-in-red-line-boondoggle#more-324

As stated here by the NTUI, the Red Line Extension is a HUGE WASTE of SCARCE Transit Capital Funds (like the +$200 Million spent on the U N U S E D Block 37 Airport Express SuperStation) ; when there is a Project that would create NINE TIMES AS MANY New CTA 'L' Stations (37 vs 4) on Chicago's South Side for ONE / SEVENTH the Red Line Extensions Capital Cost ($200 Million vs $1.2 BILLION): http://bit.ly/GrayLineInfo

And on Page 19 of their Getting-on-Track Report, CNT and CTAQC recommend the Gray Line Project for Immediate Funding above A L L Transportation Projects in the entire Chicago Area: http://www.illinoispirg.org/uploads/C3/Yv/C3YvO-xHoA5eWCFoMMQhvQ/Getting-on-Track.pdf

If you want to spend 200 million dollars to increase trains on the ME, I'm all for it. However, be honest about the plan, it isn't new service, it's increased service. You purposely use the transfer of title from Metra to the CTA to misleadingly call the project a "a new CTA line". In fact there's no reason to change agencies on the line at all. Why would the CTA spend $200 million dollars on a line that, according to your website, loses money for Metra and doesn't connect into CTA's existing system? That's certainly a boondoogle. Instead of calling your little transit fantasy "the Grey line" be an adult and call for money to be spent on improved Metra service. Most people are behind that, including myself.

whyhuhwhy

Jan 21, 2011, 4:29 PM

Lots of good news, in fact.

On this topic though, there's awesome news. In September a study of commute times showed that Chicago has the shortest commutes in the country of any city in the country. Nashville and Oklahoma City are te worst. It's because we don't have to go very far and because we have options. This study assumes that every car traveling under 60mph is experiencing congestion. The speed limit on highways in the city is 55mph, so if you are driving at 3:00 AM on the Dan Ryan, you're experiencing traffic delays.

Chicago, lowest commute times in the country: http://www.ceosforcities.org/pagefiles/DrivenApartInfoGraphicFINAL.jpg

The traffic is bad here and it is getting much worse though. The mother of all studies (the TTI annual mobility report) confirms this.

VivaLFuego

Jan 21, 2011, 5:19 PM

VivaLFuego

Jan 21, 2011, 5:35 PM

emathias

Jan 21, 2011, 6:06 PM

If you want to spend 200 million dollars to increase trains on the ME, I'm all for it. However, be honest about the plan, it isn't new service, it's increased service. You purposely use the transfer of title from Metra to the CTA to misleadingly call the project a "a new CTA line". In fact there's no reason to change agencies on the line at all. Why would the CTA spend $200 million dollars on a line that, according to your website, loses money for Metra and doesn't connect into CTA's existing system? That's certainly a boondoogle. Instead of calling your little transit fantasy "the Grey line" be an adult and call for money to be spent on improved Metra service. Most people are behind that, including myself.

First off, it's the "Gray Line" since we're in the U.S. and not Britain, not the "Grey" line.

Second, there would be no reason to change agencies if Metra actually cared about City services. But they don't, and they've REPEATEDLY stated so, and demonstrated so. Even then it might not be necessary if Metra stopped ignoring the REQUIREMENT given it by the RTA to develop a unified fare system with the CTA. Metra has steadfastly refused and/or intentionally dragged its feet on that, though, meaning that it doesn't "connect" to the CTA physically, but it also doesn't "connect" via fare medium. If Metra Electric local service were turned into a CTA operation, service would be more frequent, bus transfers would be handled under CTA norms, which would almost instantly increase ridership (and take some pressure off the Red Line but also induce new ridership), and it would make certain things - like re-extending the Green Line to Jackson Park (for what would be a much-improved transfer-connection to "normal" CTA rail service) easier and more likely to happen.

In other words, despite your condescending "adult" snide (the man who is advocating the Gray Line is very much an adult and has been advocating for it for nearly 20 years now), the idea of bringing local Metra Electric service under the operations of the CTA may be the only way to bring service levels up to a level appropriate for the needs of City residents. It neatly sidesteps a number of contentious Metra/suburbs/city issues, and while it would probably cost more than $200 million, it would almost certainly cost less than the Red Line extension while providing service enhancements that would positively impact far more people than the Red Line extension will.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 6:10 PM

emathias

Jan 21, 2011, 6:41 PM

...
we are both born and raised here/nearby.
...

Have you ever lived anywhere else? Are you sure you're not just experiencing "the grass is always greener" syndrome during the worst national recession in your lifetime?

... I bought a home in the city and the value is WAY down, ...

This is true in the majority of the country, and for the most part it's not any one region's fault - it was a national problem.

... we have the highest gas prices in the country, the worst traffic congestion (worse than LA!) ...

... my state income tax just went up 67% along with everyone else who lives here poor or rich, and people in this state/city just keep re-electing the same people over and over again without wanting any change and instead of cutting spending in this state they "won't increase it more than 2% year over year." ...

I don't like that tax rate either, and they DEFINITELY should cut more. But even with the increase, Illinois and even Chicago do not have an unusually high tax burden relative to other states and large cities. Despite all the hype, we're still not in the top five for overall tax burden, and once the dust settles we'll probably still not be in the top 10. Before the recent issues, we weren't even in the top 20.

... And people are leaving. My best friend from West Palm just moved to Peoria. And according to United Vans we have the most negative domestic migration in the country right now, worse than Detroit. ...

I don't know where you're getting your data. As far as I can tell, United Vans only publishes state-level data (http://www.unitedvanlines.com/united-newsroom/press-releases/2011/documents/2010-migration_000.pdf), not city-level. And even then, for 2010 (the most recent study) Illinois does NOT have the worst net domestic migration in the country - not even close. What state does? New Jersey. Even in the Midwest, Michigan and Missouri both have higher losses than Illinois. According to the list, we're closer in numbers to New York and Indiana than we are to New Jersey and Michigan.

Besides, almost all big, international cities have high domestic out-migration just due to the nature of how cities work. Young single people move to big cities to get jobs or go to school. They work hard, do well, have kids (this is key - two people move in, two people plus kids move out) and some (not all, but some) choose to settle elsewhere, often in smaller, quieter places since with kids they can't afford the avail themselves of the city's advantages anyway. Not something to worry about to bash a city over, it's just the way the world works.

Please tell me something good I need to hear it. I may be able to put up with all of the above if we had world class transit or the weather were actually decent, but Chicago has neither. I hate to sound like a hater but most of my friends have become the same way and have really turned on Chicago lately. It's like we are a constant laughing stock around the country lately.

Weather here ain't great. But on balance I don't think it's any worse than Boston or New York City or Toronto or even Philly. It's certainly no worse than places like Berlin and Moscow and Beijing and Minneapolis.

Transit here is better than you give it credit for. It could be better, for sure, but car travel and transit do compete. I think Chicago has a good balance. It's a lot easier to drive here than it is in Paris or London, and we still have very useable transit (I'm car-free here for the past 12 years) even if it's not quite as rail-comprehensive as Paris or New York.

Honestly, the only thing that really worries me about Illinois (and thus Chicago) is the pensions issue. And I think that can be worked out. The rest of the issues, even the other budget issues, I know can and will be worked out. Chicago is still positioned very well to take advantage of a recovery. I've been here 15 years. I grew up near Portland, Oregon, which a lot of urban people admire, and I have family in Idaho, which a lot of anti-tax, anti-government people admire. But I have no interest in trading Chicago for either of those places. No place is perfect, but Chicago really is a great city and, despite some big problems (largely also problems in the rest of the nation), I think it's still on the upswing.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 21, 2011, 6:42 PM

The traffic is bad here and it is getting much worse though. The mother of all studies (the TTI annual mobility report) confirms this.

Whose methodology is flawed, according to Brookings (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1004_traffic_puentes.aspx):

The critique, by Joe Cortright, argues that comparing travel times during rush hour to other times of day misses a key element: the lengths of those trips. Compare Charlotte and Chicago. While the TTI regularly identifies Chicago as one of the worst performers, Cortright’s study shows that not only are traffic delays in these two metros nearly the same, the situation in Charlotte is actually much worse since Charlotte travelers spend much more time on their trip and are exposed to traffic for a much longer period of time. The rub, according to Cortright, is that by failing to account for travel distance, it misses a key component of metropolitan traffic: land use and development patterns.

In fact, Cortright turns the whole thing on its head. Places like Nashville, Oklahoma City, Birmingham, and Kansas City that rank ok by the TTI are actually the worst performers according to the CEOs for Cities study. Conversely, Miami, New York, Sacramento, and Chicago turn out to be not so bad after all. In other words, the emphasis here is on accessibility (more economic and social interaction) rather than mobility (more movement).

Also take a look at this pdf (http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/NTPP%20Report.pdf#page=64) from the National Transportation Policy Project.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 7:04 PM

First off, it's the "Gray Line" since we're in the U.S. and not Britain, not the "Grey" line.

Second, there would be no reason to change agencies if Metra actually cared about City services. But they don't, and they've REPEATEDLY stated so, and demonstrated so. Even then it might not be necessary if Metra stopped ignoring the REQUIREMENT given it by the RTA to develop a unified fare system with the CTA. Metra has steadfastly refused and/or intentionally dragged its feet on that, though, meaning that it doesn't "connect" to the CTA physically, but it also doesn't "connect" via fare medium. If Metra Electric local service were turned into a CTA operation, service would be more frequent, bus transfers would be handled under CTA norms, which would almost instantly increase ridership (and take some pressure off the Red Line but also induce new ridership), and it would make certain things - like re-extending the Green Line to Jackson Park (for what would be a much-improved transfer-connection to "normal" CTA rail service) easier and more likely to happen.

In other words, despite your condescending "adult" snide (the man who is advocating the Gray Line is very much an adult and has been advocating for it for nearly 20 years now), the idea of bringing local Metra Electric service under the operations of the CTA may be the only way to bring service levels up to a level appropriate for the needs of City residents. It neatly sidesteps a number of contentious Metra/suburbs/city issues, and while it would probably cost more than $200 million, it would almost certainly cost less than the Red Line extension while providing service enhancements that would positively impact far more people than the Red Line extension will.

You've accurately described the problem, and I agree with that assessment. But this is not a serious solution because it does not deal with any of the new issues created. The CTA is just used as a foil to highlight the issues with Metra without actually assessing the limitations and complicated bureaucracy which would need to be created to actually implement the solution. The idea of incorporating a completely independent rail system which they don't maintain, operate, or train personnel, but are completely responsible for in the eyes of the public for is a nightmare. The CTA had issues with the yellow line because it had overhead caternary electrification and you don't think that moving the ME to the CTA wouldn't result in a host of new problems? Again, I have no issues with the idea of spending money to increase service on that portion of the line, but if the proposal wants to be taken seriously by me and others, don't ignore the host of problems associated with the solution and label it for what it is. It should say something when one guy has been arguing for something for twenty years and almost nobody takes him seriously.

Nowhereman1280

Jan 21, 2011, 7:04 PM

Wrong. I didn't choose to leave, I have a good job and haven't quit yet. I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I won't lie when I say both my wife and I *want* to leave lately though, and we are both born and raised here/nearby. Just five years ago I was Mr. Chicago with all my friends. I convinced two of my best friends to move here, one from West Palm Beach, another from Milwaukee, and decided on a job here versus better paying ones elsewhere.

But please tell me some good news. I mean it. I need to hear it as I'm on my wits ends. I want to want to stay here. I bought a home in the city and the value is WAY down, we have the highest gas prices in the country, the worst traffic congestion (worse than LA!), the most scary pension/deficit problem in the entire country (look at what we spend and what we take in, look at our pension obligations, we're screwed and I predict the state of Illinois to declare bankruptcy if Congress ever allows this), my state income tax just went up 67% along with everyone else who lives here poor or rich, and people in this state/city just keep re-electing the same people over and over again without wanting any change and instead of cutting spending in this state they "won't increase it more than 2% year over year." And people are leaving. My best friend from West Palm just moved to Peoria. And according to United Vans we have the most negative domestic migration in the country right now, worse than Detroit.

Please tell me something good I need to hear it. I may be able to put up with all of the above if we had world class transit or the weather were actually decent, but Chicago has neither. I hate to sound like a hater but most of my friends have become the same way and have really turned on Chicago lately. It's like we are a constant laughing stock around the country lately.

You just sound like a pessimist to me. All but 5 states or something like that are facing massive budget deficits right now, Illinois is the first to actually raise their income tax to do something about it. You should be glad you live in a state that is at least going to attempt financial solvency. Chicago does have world class transit, its just a unique system that is among the oldest in the entire world and built in the most challenging soil type for tunneling. For a 125 year old system, the EL is pretty damn good. Finally, that report is bullshit, traffic in Chicago is nowhere near as bad as it is in LA. When you get on the freeway at rush hour and traffic is moving at 25 mph, be thankful because in LA its going 5-10 mph all day long... I'd know I lived there all summer long and it sucked. And I view high gas prices as a good thing, it more accurately reflects the true costs of driving to society.

One thing you have to get used to in Chicago is that we always fear being second best and therefore blow small negatives up into a huge deal.

If you want to spend 200 million dollars to increase trains on the ME, I'm all for it. However, be honest about the plan, it isn't new service, it's increased service. You purposely use the transfer of title from Metra to the CTA to misleadingly call the project a "a new CTA line". In fact there's no reason to change agencies on the line at all. Why would the CTA spend $200 million dollars on a line that, according to your website, loses money for Metra and doesn't connect into CTA's existing system? That's certainly a boondoogle. Instead of calling your little transit fantasy "the Grey line" be an adult and call for money to be spent on improved Metra service. Most people are behind that, including myself.

The Gray line is completely feasible and could connect into the El system. The St. Charles Air Line tracks could be used to feed the line over to the Red, Green, Orange trunk at Roosevelt and connect right into the heart of the system. Additionally the Green Line could be re-extended to Jackson Park and provide even more connectivity.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 7:44 PM

whyhuhwhy

Jan 21, 2011, 7:48 PM

Have you ever lived anywhere else? Are you sure you're not just experiencing "the grass is always greener" syndrome during the worst national recession in your lifetime?

This is true in the majority of the country, and for the most part it's not any one region's fault - it was a national problem.

I don't like that tax rate either, and they DEFINITELY should cut more. But even with the increase, Illinois and even Chicago do not have an unusually high tax burden relative to other states and large cities. Despite all the hype, we're still not in the top five for overall tax burden, and once the dust settles we'll probably still not be in the top 10. Before the recent issues, we weren't even in the top 20.

I don't know where you're getting your data. As far as I can tell, United Vans only publishes state-level data (http://www.unitedvanlines.com/united-newsroom/press-releases/2011/documents/2010-migration_000.pdf), not city-level. And even then, for 2010 (the most recent study) Illinois does NOT have the worst net domestic migration in the country - not even close. What state does? New Jersey. Even in the Midwest, Michigan and Missouri both have higher losses than Illinois. According to the list, we're closer in numbers to New York and Indiana than we are to New Jersey and Michigan.

Besides, almost all big, international cities have high domestic out-migration just due to the nature of how cities work. Young single people move to big cities to get jobs or go to school. They work hard, do well, have kids (this is key - two people move in, two people plus kids move out) and some (not all, but some) choose to settle elsewhere, often in smaller, quieter places since with kids they can't afford the avail themselves of the city's advantages anyway. Not something to worry about to bash a city over, it's just the way the world works.

Weather here ain't great. But on balance I don't think it's any worse than Boston or New York City or Toronto or even Philly. It's certainly no worse than places like Berlin and Moscow and Beijing and Minneapolis.

Transit here is better than you give it credit for. It could be better, for sure, but car travel and transit do compete. I think Chicago has a good balance. It's a lot easier to drive here than it is in Paris or London, and we still have very useable transit (I'm car-free here for the past 12 years) even if it's not quite as rail-comprehensive as Paris or New York.

Honestly, the only thing that really worries me about Illinois (and thus Chicago) is the pensions issue. And I think that can be worked out. The rest of the issues, even the other budget issues, I know can and will be worked out. Chicago is still positioned very well to take advantage of a recovery. I've been here 15 years. I grew up near Portland, Oregon, which a lot of urban people admire, and I have family in Idaho, which a lot of anti-tax, anti-government people admire. But I have no interest in trading Chicago for either of those places. No place is perfect, but Chicago really is a great city and, despite some big problems (largely also problems in the rest of the nation), I think it's still on the upswing.

Lived all over the place when I was younger. London, NYC, North Carolina, Madison Wisconsin. Of course those were back in boom times.

I appreciate your optimism. It helps. I feel like I'm surrounded by nothing but pessimism here lately. All you do is turn on the news and see Chicago is the worst in this and Illinois is the worst in that. It's constant lately it seems. And its serious issues too. The middle of the night, lame duck massive income and business tax increase did not help, let me tell you. I guess if Illinois can solve its pension issue and at least admit that there are some serious outdated highway bottlenecks here, I'll become a lot more optimistic. I hope Emanuel wins the mayoral bid because at least he has publically stated he is going to try to look into cutting current state employee pensions, while the other candidates have gone on record that they are going to try to "increase revenue." It seems all of our tax dollars lately go into enriching the government and its employees. I remember back in the 70's and 80's the taxes were lower and there was much more new infrastructure and construction being done by the government, way more than today. I wish we would get back to those days. Instead most of our budget seems to go to retired workers whose unions paid millions of dollars to get certain people, who they negotiate with, elected. At least I can see Emanuel busting some heads together.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 21, 2011, 7:52 PM

No, they are all Motor Cars (and thus all have to be Inspected and Certified as Locomotives - more expensive than plain trailers).

Didn’t see this when skimming through the thread earlier—thanks for the answer!

Metra Electric local service were turned into a CTA operation, service would be more frequent, bus transfers would be handled under CTA norms, which would almost instantly increase ridership (and take some pressure off the Red Line but also induce new ridership), and it would make certain things - like re-extending the Green Line to Jackson Park (for what would be a much-improved transfer-connection to "normal" CTA rail service) easier and more likely to happen.

If anything, the Dan Ryan segment of the Red Line has excess capacity, due to greater usage on the north side. Where it does have trouble is where ardecila mentions, at the 95th Street not-intended-to-be-a-terminal.

the idea of bringing local Metra Electric service under the operations of the CTA may be the only way to bring service levels up to a level appropriate for the needs of City residents. It neatly sidesteps a number of contentious Metra/suburbs/city issues, and while it would probably cost more than $200 million, it would almost certainly cost less than the Red Line extension while providing service enhancements that would positively impact far more people than the Red Line extension will.

I definitely agree about this—but only for the mainline down to 63rd and the South Chicago branch (which also has the advantage of being recently rebuilt to ADA standards). One thing that’s worth remembering is that the IC was already reducing service to the South Side before Metra took over, mainly in response to two things: competition from the CTA (with its subsidized fares) and declining demand for downtown trips. Looking at the South Chicago branch, we see a number of different CTA bus routes paralleling it (which, in my experience, tend to be pretty packed), so it looks to me like there competition from the CTA the major factor. Still, according to RTAMS (http://www.rtams.org/rtams/asset?id=22200001) the stations there average around 195 boardings per weekday (taking out 93rd, which is a major outlier).

In contrast, the mainline stations between 63rd and Kensington (another big outlier) average about 62 boardings per weekday. Part of this is competition from the CTA’s integrated bus and rail network, but I think a large part of it is also the fact that a lot of people who live in further south don’t work downtown, and a lot of the ridership on the Dan Ryan line and major bus lines is for non-CBD travel. If someone who lives in Roseland needs to get to the 74th Street industrial belt, for example, the Gray Line won’t do him much good. It also seems to me like riders south of 95th tend to live further west (a Halsted elevated route to 115th had the highest cost-effectiveness rating of any of the Red Line extension alternatives), so the preferred Red Line alignment—in between Halsted and State—makes a more sense to me rather than having a frequent service along Cottage Grove, basically at the eastern edge of the far south neighborhoods.

It’s also worth remembering that the Red Line extension’s cost is so high because it extends all the way to 130th rather than 115th (I haven’t seen to figures after inflation, but IIRC if only extended to 115th the cost was $800 million, as opposed to $1.1 billion for a full extension to 130th) and the CTA wants new shops-and-yards, which adds about another $200 million to the 130th option and $300 million to the 115th one (higher for 115th because of the need for extra track to reach the yards, at 120th). I don’t have the links on me at the moment, but they’re at the CTA’s red line extension page.

Despite my critique, I think it’s worth noting that I still think the Gray Line’s a great idea—just a great idea I’m in partial disagreement with, if that nuance is able to be transmitted across the internet.

a chicago bearcat

Jan 21, 2011, 8:07 PM

The Gray line is completely feasible and could connect into the El system. The St. Charles Air Line tracks could be used to feed the line over to the Red, Green, Orange trunk at Roosevelt and connect right into the heart of the system. Additionally the Green Line could be re-extended to Jackson Park and provide even more connectivity.

How far north do the electric line tracks extend? do they reach Lake St, or just stop somewhere in between Lake & Randolph underneath Illinois Center?

If they make it all the way to Lake, it would seem simpler for system connectivity to build a transfer tunnel, such as at the Jackson stop, to a State/Lake super station with free transfers to Red, Brown, Pink, Green, Orange & Purple lines, similar to at Clark/Lake.

It would be less expensive than reusing the St Charles, & tying it into the red green & orange, & would maintain transit service between Millennium Park, the Museum Campus, & McCormick Place.

OrdoSeclorum

Jan 21, 2011, 8:10 PM

my state income tax just went up 67% along with everyone else who lives here poor or rich, and people in this state/city just keep re-electing the same people over and over again without wanting any change and instead of cutting spending in this state they "won't increase it more than 2% year over year."

As I posted earlier, we don't have the worst traffic in the country. We have the lowest commute times in the country, ahead of 2nd place New Orleans.

Chicago's income tax is still going to be lower than all the surrounding states. After the tax hike, it will be lower than all but Indiana and Michigan. Shrug. Nationwide, our tax burden is about 25th. Move to Mississippi if you like, I guess.

The CTA has been upgraded. Red and Purple lines will be upgraded soon. Ridership is up relative to the economy and despite service cuts. The CTA tracker is useful and a success. We are getting some BRT soon.

Chicago has added 200 high-rises in the last 11 years. Basically equivalent to all of Seattle.

Corporate headquarters continue to move downtown. Chicago's financial industry is strong internationally and improving.

Groupon is one of the most buzzed about companies in the world and is about to enter the Fortune 500. Chicago has rocketed up the list of places receiving venture capital the last few years.

Chicago's population is flat, losing low-income residents to the sun belt and gaining high-income residents and college grads from all over the country. Our percentage of college-grad retention is good and improving.

Your home value would have dropped more in most other cities (at least, any city you would want to live in.)

We have the shortest commutes in the country and the best culture/cost-of-living ratio in North America.

This week it was announced that Chicago has more Five Diamond restaurants than any other city. We have the best Symphony in North America. We have the best bike-expressway along the lake in North America. We have the best bus system in North America and good trains.

If you don't like the weather, what can I tell you. Of the six or seven "cities I like" It's damn similar to Boston and New York and better than Toronto and Montreal. San Fransisco, Seattle and Vancouver have warmer winters. Shrug.

If you're not happy, you're not happy. If you're not happy because of what Chicago is like, you probably wouldn't be happy in any other city. Unless the last six weeks of winter really makes you depressed. Then you should consult a physician.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 21, 2011, 8:11 PM

Lived all over the place when I was younger. London, NYC, North Carolina, Madison Wisconsin. Of course those were back in boom times.

I appreciate your optimism. It helps. I feel like I'm surrounded by nothing but pessimism here lately. All you do is turn on the news and see Chicago is the worst in this and Illinois is the worst in that. It's constant lately it seems. And its serious issues too. The middle of the night, lame duck massive income and business tax increase did not help, let me tell you. I guess if Illinois can solve its pension issue and at least admit that there are some serious outdated highway bottlenecks here, I'll become a lot more optimistic. I hope Emanuel wins the mayoral bid because at least he has publically stated he is going to try to look into cutting current state employee pensions, while the other candidates have gone on record that they are going to try to "increase revenue." It seems all of our tax dollars lately go into enriching the government and its employees. I remember back in the 70's and 80's the taxes were lower and there was much more new infrastructure and construction being done by the government, way more than today. I wish we would get back to those days. Instead most of our budget seems to go to retired workers whose unions paid millions of dollars to get certain people, who they negotiate with, elected. At least I can see Emanuel busting some heads together.

The Feds were much more into urban infrastructure before the Reagan and Gingrich years, and one of the reasons for TIFs caught on was as a way to make up for the loss of federal revenue. That said, although I can’t say anything about your total tax burden, business taxes are still less here than in Wisconsin (so we only have to worry about Indiana stealing out jobs), and the fact that we’re going to keep Champaign-Urbana and UIC afloat and sidewalks mended will do a lot more good for the state than people realize. As Richard Longworth (http://globalmidwest.typepad.com/) notes,

Business interests, in Illinois and in other states, are screaming about the higher taxes, saying it hurts the states' business climate. In fact, higher taxes, while painful, are a lot better than reduced spending on infrastructure, early childhood education, worker training and all the other programs that strengthen a state's capital -- human and otherwise -- and make it a good place to invest.

It’s also important to note that people always take their current situation and extend it to the past and future to make judgments—it’s just a human thing, and it makes prediction really difficult. Vaclav Smil, the great energy scientist, notes that the biggest determinant in predictions about future il prices is the price of oil at the time of the prediction. Go to 1970’s section of paleofuture.com ("http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/category/1970s)—it’s all apocalyptic stuff, because people were in an apocalyptic mood at the time. And although bad stuff’s certainly happened, we are still here.

Stimulating discussions going on here today, but you’ve also reminded me I have to run off and register to vote!

OrdoSeclorum

Jan 21, 2011, 8:12 PM

The traffic is bad here and it is getting much worse though. The mother of all studies (the TTI annual mobility report) confirms this.

It does not. The TTI considers all traffic moving below 60mph to be "delayed." The speed limit is 55mph on most urban highways. Chicago has the shortest commutes of any large metro.

emathias

Jan 21, 2011, 8:45 PM

... The CTA had issues with the yellow line because it had overhead caternary electrification and you don't think that moving the ME to the CTA wouldn't result in a host of new problems?

The only issues I'm aware of the CTA having had with catenary on the Yellow Line was that it prevented through-routing and cross-line sharing of cars that are otherwise identical, adding complexity to a system that wasn't big enough to justify it.

I'm not sure how that's relevant for a line that is in no way physically cross-compatible but would be run at service levels and with fare media compatible with the rest of the CTA system and whose rolling stock would remain completely incompatible with the rest of the system. The Gray Line could justify staying physically separate but with compatible service levels and fare media because it is physically separate, and because it is far bigger than the Yellow Line in every possible way.

Again, I have no issues with the idea of spending money to increase service on that portion of the line, but if the proposal wants to be taken seriously by me and others, don't ignore the host of problems associated with the solution and label it for what it is. It should say something when one guy has been arguing for something for twenty years and almost nobody takes him seriously.

It would behove you to actually know who and what you're talking about before making such blanket statements that make you look ill-informed.

About the only two agencies that haven't endorsed the Gray Line are the CTA and Metra. Almost every single planning committee and agency has endorsed the idea at levels from outright recommending it be implemented to at least calling on Metra and CTA to seriously study it to be able to answer the questions that a non-insider simply doesn't have access to the information to authoritatively answer.

If you bothered to learn about the Gray Line, you'd realize that it suffers mainly from the fact that it is being advocated by an outsider and it doesn't neatly fit into existing ways of thinking of Chicago-area transit by the transit establishment and it would require two (needlessly) antagonistic agencies to actually coordinate and work together. It doesn't help matters when people don't look into what's been done for it and casually dismiss it as fringe. Again, probably because it doesn't neatly fit into the current paradigm of thinking, which scares some people.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 9:58 PM

If you bothered to learn about the Gray Line, you'd realize that it suffers mainly from the fact that it is being advocated by an outsider and it doesn't neatly fit into existing ways of thinking of Chicago-area transit by the transit establishment and it would require two (needlessly) antagonistic agencies to actually coordinate and work together. It doesn't help matters when people don't look into what's been done for it and casually dismiss it as fringe. Again, probably because it doesn't neatly fit into the current paradigm of thinking, which scares some people.

no, I dismiss it because its a waste of money and would essentially kill any thought of CTA expansion for the next two decades. It puts and underserved line into bureaucratic limbo (always a good way to improve service), it approximately doubles the labor costs irregardless of increasing service, creates a new department in both the CTA and Metra with associated full-time employees to manage oversite and contracting services, cuts existing ridership revenue in half thanks to cheaper fares (on an already money losing line), requires a complete rebuild of every station on the line, and puts huge strain on existing CTA capital and operating budgets. All of this without dealing with the cost of transfer/lease of the system from Metra to CTA (that ain't cheap). And for what? increased frequency without showing a potential increased ridership or service area. Tell me why the CTA would want that? Let's purchase a line we did not design, plan, or build, nor will we operate, train personnel, or maintain, that has historically shown to underperform to significantly increase our overhead and hollow out our capital and operating budgets, sounds good to me.

I have a better idea, take all of this time spent talking about creating an incredibly complicated and costly system, and show Metra a ridership study for increased service and fare integration. Metra doesn't care about these things because the majority of their ridership doesn't care either.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 10:08 PM

Schwerve said: "It should say something when one guy has been arguing for something for twenty years and almost nobody takes him seriously".

>> Since we're into snide remarks - "DID YOU READ PAGE 19 OF GETTING-ON-TRACK": http://www.illinoispirg.org/uploads/C3/Yv/C3YvO-xHoA5eWCFoMMQhvQ/Getting-on-Track.pdf

>> Are you able to understand the things that you read????

>> What does the statement "Recommended above A L L Transportation Projects (not Public Transit - TRANSPORTATION) in the Chicago Area" mean to YOU Schwerve????

Have you read it? The rationale is factually incorrect.

"Thanks to the high number of new passengers that would be served, and how well the line would support good land use practices and boost economic development, among other benefits,"

The proposal does not serves a single new rider, not one. Increased frequency can lead to increased overall ridership but not new service (I repeat, I'm not against increased frequency on the line, I'm arguing against the byzantine and costly way in which it would be implemented). These planning agencies are evaluating the gray line as if its a new line because that's what it's being sold as, which is misleading at best.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 10:23 PM

Have you read it? The rationale is factually incorrect.

"Thanks to the high number of new passengers that would be served, and how well the line would support good land use practices and boost economic development, among other benefits,"

The proposal does not serves a single new rider, not one. Increased frequency can lead to increased overall ridership but not new service (I repeat, I'm not against increased frequency on the line, I'm arguing against the byzantine and costly way in which it would be implemented). These planning agencies are evaluating the gray line as if its a new line because that's what it's being sold as, which is misleading at best.

>> So my minimum-wage and not-all-that-smart butt somehow mesmerized or Jedi Mind Tricked the people in these organizations into supporting the plan.

>> And I want to point out that they said A L L TRANSPORTATION (not "Public Transit") Projects; which I would interpret to mean A L L (O'Hare Expansion, Thorndale Expy. and Western Bypass, CREATE, STAR Line, SES, etc., etc., etc.....), or am I misinterpreting the term "A L L" ???

>> On this page, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (our Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization) provides a link to MY PERSONAL PRIVATE CITIZEN'S WEBSITE (See "Gray Line" under "Metra Electric District Improvements") to explain the Proposal; A L L the other links on the Page are to other Government Agencies, how exactly did I mesmerize the Extremely Intelligent people staffing our Regional MPO into including the Project in their Regional Transportation Plan??

>> http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/shared-path-2030/project-links

>> The Gray Line is the O N L Y Major Capital Project in the CMAP RTP submitted by a Private Citizen, rather than a Transit Operator, Municipality, or Government Agency.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 10:36 PM

>> So my minimum-wage and not-all-that-smart butt somehow mesmerized or Jedi Mind Tricked the people in these organizations into supporting the plan.

>> And I want to point out that they said TRANSPORTATION Projects; which I would interpret to mean ALL (O'Hare Expansion, Thorndale Expy. and Western Bypass, CREATE, STAR Line, SES, etc., etc., etc.....), or am I misinterpreting the term "A L L" ???

no, you've explicitly ignored my argument that their rationale is factually wrong. If it were a "new" service and actually cost the amount you've cited, I wouldn't be on this side of the argument. You're website and publication material specifically sells the proposal as "new" that is again, misleading at best and the low level employees at the Frontier Group in California don't really know the difference.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 11:06 PM

no, you've explicitly ignored my argument that their rationale is factually wrong. If it were a "new" service and actually cost the amount you've cited, I wouldn't be on this side of the argument. You're website and publication material specifically sells the proposal as "new" that is again, misleading at best and the low level employees at the Frontier Group in California don't really know the difference.

>> Is there any CTA 'L' Service to Hyde Park and South Shore NOW, wouldn't that type of service starting be "new"; and CTA 'L' service to the Ford Plant on 130th & Torrence would certainly be "New" - as there is N O Public Transit of any type there NOW.

>> And yes, it is branded as a "New" CTA 'L' Line - because "use your UFC to get on the Metra Electric" does not carry the same subliminal influence (especially in attracting TOD).

>> How would YOU provide improved MED service; and why don't you create a website.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 11:29 PM

How would YOU provide improved MED service; and why don't you create a website.

Seriously? I have graduate level degrees in Civil Engineering have an understand of transit planning (not my specialty, but have taken some classes) and have worked for transit agencies on multi-billion dollar projects, and I'm not qualified to plan for the CTA, or any agency, because I don't have the necessary experience. I'm perfectly happy to critique plans from my base of knowledge, but hell if I think the CTA should make any decision based upon a dude on the internet.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 11:36 PM

The only issues I'm aware of the CTA having had with catenary on the Yellow Line was that it prevented through-routing and cross-line sharing of cars that are otherwise identical, adding complexity to a system that wasn't big enough to justify it.

I'm not sure how that's relevant for a line that is in no way physically cross-compatible but would be run at service levels and with fare media compatible with the rest of the CTA system and whose rolling stock would remain completely incompatible with the rest of the system. The Gray Line could justify staying physically separate but with compatible service levels and fare media because it is physically separate, and because it is far bigger than the Yellow Line in every possible way.

It would behove you to actually know who and what you're talking about before making such blanket statements that make you look ill-informed.

About the only two agencies that haven't endorsed the Gray Line are the CTA and Metra. Almost every single planning committee and agency has endorsed the idea at levels from outright recommending it be implemented to at least calling on Metra and CTA to seriously study it to be able to answer the questions that a non-insider simply doesn't have access to the information to authoritatively answer.

If you bothered to learn about the Gray Line, you'd realize that it suffers mainly from the fact that it is being advocated by an outsider and it doesn't neatly fit into existing ways of thinking of Chicago-area transit by the transit establishment and it would require two (needlessly) antagonistic agencies to actually coordinate and work together. It doesn't help matters when people don't look into what's been done for it and casually dismiss it as fringe. Again, probably because it doesn't neatly fit into the current paradigm of thinking, which scares some people.

>> Thank You much emathius, you express my thoughts and actions exactly.

>> I don't want to read TOO much into this - but about 2 weeks ago I had an hour long meeting with Metra's Planning Dept to discuss basic Gray Line concepts, and the upcoming RTA/CDOT South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study (which is going to be V E R Y thorough - to an Extreme Degree, I was surprised to hear just how much they are planning).

CTA Gray Line

Jan 21, 2011, 11:45 PM

Seriously? I have graduate level degrees in Civil Engineering have an understand of transit planning (not my specialty, but have taken some classes) and have worked for transit agencies on multi-billion dollar projects, and I'm not qualified to plan for the CTA, or any agency, because I don't have the necessary experience. I'm perfectly happy to critique plans from my base of knowledge, but hell if I think the CTA should make any decision based upon a dude on the internet.

>> I AM NOT qualified to make plans for CTA or Metra either(and I have NONE of your training); but I AM QUALIFIED to make plans for underutilized infrastructure existing in M Y Community when NOBODY ELSE is going to do it (and if anybody doesn't like that - TOO BAD)

>> But I'll bet CTA can be MADE to make a decision based on the Illinois Inspector General applying Rep. Jack Frank's recently passed SB 3943 giving him Authority Over the RTA, CTA, Metra, and Pace to eliminate fraud, corruption, and W A S T E (as in the present direct competition with each other).

>> I am in communication with Rep. Franks and the IG Office.

schwerve

Jan 21, 2011, 11:48 PM

>> But I'll bet CTA can be MADE to make a decision based on the Illinois Inspector General applying Rep. Jack Frank's SB 3943 giving him Authority Over the RTA, CTA, Metra, and Pace to eliminate fraud, corruption, and W A S T E.

>> I am in communication with Rep. Franks and the IG Office.

Congrats, it's good to know that a guy with a website and the right connections can force a transit agency serving 3 million people into doing what he wants.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 22, 2011, 12:10 AM

Congrats, it's good to know that a guy with a website and the right connections can force a transit agency serving 3 million people into doing what he wants.

Some peoples minds cannot be changed, and I have learned to just accept that (and that CNT/CTAQC thing means little or nothing to you - I JMT'ed them).

M II A II R II K

Jan 22, 2011, 12:30 AM

Some peoples minds cannot be changed, and I have learned to just accept that (and that CNT/CTAQC thing means little or nothing to you - I JMT'ed them).

What people though, the transit planners or those who have to be asked to provide the money..

schwerve

Jan 22, 2011, 1:27 AM

Some peoples minds cannot be changed, and I have learned to just accept that (and that CNT/CTAQC thing means little or nothing to you - I JMT'ed them).

When you haven't actually provided an argument for your proposal, no. We have been going back and forth now for roughly most the day and the extent of your rebuttal is to tell me who agrees with you and who you've talked to. I've gotten into arguments before with people on these boards and I typically leave them alone after a back and forth because its not productive and in the end its just people on the internet yelling, there's more than enough of that. But you are the author of this and your only defense is to point at to another person's or group's credentials. Am I seriously supposed to ignore my arguments against because a non-profit linked to your website? You are trying to spend, at least, $200 million dollars of other people's money and you can't defend it on its merits. The burden of proof is on you, but because a non-binding planning document written by a consultant in California rated your proposal highly, you're right and I'm wrong. Sometimes, when the people's mind's can't be changed it's not the people's fault.

ardecila

Jan 22, 2011, 2:57 AM

For those interested, CTA has posted this "Scoping Book" in preparation for the public EIS meetings next week:

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/rpmproject/RPM_-_web_ScopingBook_redpurple_FTA.pdf

As I suspected, the 2-track subway is less expensive than the 4-track elevated, and it's the same price as the 3-track elevated. (Otherwise why would CTA even consider a subway?)

The Scoping Book has no information about travel times. If the 2-track subway can substantially shorten up the travel times versus an elevated option, it might be worth it. Otherwise, I'd say the 3-track elevated is the better deal, provided the elevated stations are built to some basic comfort level - unlike the last round of Brown Line stations.

I'll take a value-engineered subway station over a value-engineered elevated one any day. There's no wind or freezing rain in the subway.

Personally, I think the most responsible choice is the "Renovation with Transfer Stations" option. CTA says it will only last 20 years, but that seems like a huge underestimate to me. If they suspend Purple Line service during construction, then they can completely rebuild the retaining walls with stronger tiebacks and a better blend of concrete, and it should last for another century. The steel sections should be replaced altogether to reduce the noise.

emathias

Jan 22, 2011, 4:06 AM

As I suspected, the 2-track subway is less expensive than the 4-track elevated, and it's the same price as the 3-track elevated. (Otherwise why would CTA even consider a subway?)

The Scoping Book has no information about travel times. If the 2-track subway can substantially shorten up the travel times versus an elevated option, it might be worth it. Otherwise, I'd say the 3-track elevated is the better deal, provided the elevated stations are built to some basic comfort level - unlike the last round of Brown Line stations.

I'll take a value-engineered subway station over a value-engineered elevated one any day. There's no wind or freezing rain in the subway.
...

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.

I think the worst possible choice would be the 3-track option if for no other reason than it has the highest operating costs, while not offering any service benefits over the 4-track option. I'd take a 5% increase in infrastructure investment for reduced operating costs and more efficient (and reliable) express service any day of the week.

What I don't quite visualize is how they would install new elevated structures. Would they build one set of tracks in the adjacent alleys and then remove the embankment and then build the third and fourth set of tracks?

Beta_Magellan

Jan 22, 2011, 4:21 AM

Personally, I think the most responsible choice is the "Renovation with Transfer Stations" option. CTA says it will only last 20 years, but that seems like a huge underestimate to me. If they suspend Purple Line service during construction, then they can completely rebuild the retaining walls with stronger tiebacks and a better blend of concrete, and it should last for another century. The steel sections should be replaced altogether to reduce the noise.

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 (http://www.arch.ttu.edu/people/faculty/Perl_R/weblog/images/2007april/28867233.jpg) (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?

There’s also the argument that you don’t need to get rid of stations. Even though it’s the least-used station on the Gold Coast Thorndale has ridership comparable to a lot of the Brown Line stations, so it would also make sense to retain it, even if you could conceptually put a new entrance a block away (and it also offers the possibility of my favorite Chicago transit idea—some kind of public art tribute to the Bob Newhart Show :D). And taking away Jarvis didn’t make much sense to me either—even with a new Howard entrance at Rogers (resulting in a platform large enough for 16-car trains, or maybe Congress-style ramps?) it still leaves a big gap in the system, and that station still gets more ridership than a lot of the remodeled elevated stations on the Cermak Branch. And I’d really love to see both local and express services preserved—the north side corridor’s really one of the few places outside New York able to support overlapping metro services like that, and I’d like to preserve that richness and build upon it.

I still really like your idea from a couple of pages back, though—having a subway between Belmont and an Ainslie-Argyle station. After all, if there’s no way to get a Brown Line flyover approved, the next best thing is to have the north side mainline fly under (and it would get rid of the Sheridan curve to boot). So, in summary, this would be my ideal plan, from north to south:

Evanston: Basic rehab, but extend platforms to allow for eight car trains and do the full modernization option for Noyes, Davis and Main

Howard-Argyle: Basic rehab with Loyola transfer station, maybe consolidating Granville and Thorndale into Granville-Glenlake.

Argyle-Belmont: Do full rehab at Argyle to make new Ainslie-Argyle station, then merge Red and Purple lines to go underground to a new tunnel with stations at Wilson, Irving Park and Addison before rising again to Belmont, getting rid of the Clark Junction.

South of Belmont: Run both through the middle tracks of the four-track segment to the State Street subway, with the Red Line going south along the Dan Ryan and Purple Line going Southwest to Midway, replacing the Orange Line.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 22, 2011, 6:05 AM

When you haven't actually provided an argument for your proposal, no. We have been going back and forth now for roughly most the day and the extent of your rebuttal is to tell me who agrees with you and who you've talked to. I've gotten into arguments before with people on these boards and I typically leave them alone after a back and forth because its not productive and in the end its just people on the internet yelling, there's more than enough of that. But you are the author of this and your only defense is to point at to another person's or group's credentials. Am I seriously supposed to ignore my arguments against because a non-profit linked to your website? You are trying to spend, at least, $200 million dollars of other people's money and you can't defend it on its merits. The burden of proof is on you, but because a non-binding planning document written by a consultant in California rated your proposal highly, you're right and I'm wrong. Sometimes, when the people's mind's can't be changed it's not the people's fault.

>> You are correct we have been going back and forth all day, I was trying to explain the reasons for my actions to you; BUT - I actually don't have to defend or prove anything to anybody, I could have just politely said "Thank you for your comments" and left it at that - but I was raised better.

>> I will consider your input, but it doesn't change my thinking, actions, or goals. Also past and present heads of CMAP and the RTA have told me to NEVER stop what I'm doing because Common Sense will eventually overcome political B/S.

>> CMAP is not a California entity, it is the Government Certified MPO for the NE Illinois Region - so how will you pass-off them carrying MY website and including the project in the RTP??

schwerve

Jan 22, 2011, 6:29 AM

>> You are correct we have been going back and forth all day, I was trying to explain the reasons for my actions to you; BUT - I actually don't have to defend or prove anything to anybody, I could have just politely said "Thank you for your comments" and left it at that - but I was raised better

I'm going to say this and walk away because I've taken up too much of this board space already.

So, after an entire day of pressure, where you could have provided transit studies and ridership numbers and cost figures, you're final argument is this:

"I can spend $200 million of other people's money and not be accountable."

congrats, you're in a place we all aspire to be.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 22, 2011, 6:49 AM

I'm going to say this and walk away because I've taken up too much of this board space already.

So, after an entire day of pressure, where you could have provided transit studies and ridership numbers and cost figures, you're final argument is this:

"I can spend $200 million of other people's money and not be accountable."

congrats, you're in a place we all aspire to be.

>> N O T H I N G _ I could show, do, say, or link to would in ANY way change your mind - so what would be the point. Walk away - good luck (but the board is here for intelligent conversation).

>> btw: Why don't you attend Metra's Electrification Conference ($75); I am registered, and we can discuss it directly (peacefully): http://www.tflex.org/default.asp

>> btw II: Here is a Commentary I did in 1998 on an RTA Ridership Study; I didn't mention it because I do not have the original RTA Report
that it refers to, so it doesn't mean much standing alone: http://www.box.net/shared/9eogms6vco

schwerve

Jan 22, 2011, 7:29 AM

>> N O T H I N G _ I could show, do, say, or link to would in ANY way change your mind - so what would be the point. Walk away - good luck (but the board is here for intelligent conversation).

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...

CTA Gray Line

Jan 22, 2011, 8:41 AM

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

Jan 22, 2011, 8:52 AM

Whatever; Good Luck to you.

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

VivaLFuego

Jan 22, 2011, 6:41 PM

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

Jan 22, 2011, 6:58 PM

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

Jan 22, 2011, 7:03 PM

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

Beta_Magellan

Jan 22, 2011, 8:01 PM

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 (http://www.rtams.org/rtams/planningStudy.jsp?id=434), 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

Jan 22, 2011, 11:42 PM

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 (http://www.arch.ttu.edu/people/faculty/Perl_R/weblog/images/2007april/28867233.jpg) (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

Jan 23, 2011, 8:55 AM

There is one in progress—the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study (http://www.rtams.org/rtams/planningStudy.jsp?id=434), 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

Jan 23, 2011, 12:32 PM

Yay. Another damn study.

a chicago bearcat

Jan 24, 2011, 3:16 AM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 2:50 AM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 6:27 AM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 8:10 AM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 5:30 PM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 7:54 PM

Red, Purple Line Upgrades May Mean Cutting Stops (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/25/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

Jan 25, 2011, 8:12 PM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 8:22 PM

^^^^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

Jan 25, 2011, 9:00 PM

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

Jan 25, 2011, 10:52 PM

^^ 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

Jan 25, 2011, 10:59 PM

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 (http://www.bloomingdaletrail.org/)

SSDD

OhioGuy

Jan 25, 2011, 11:04 PM

I can't remember the rational, but that has been abandoned for transit usage, and is slated to become a greenspace : LInk (http://www.bloomingdaletrail.org/)

SSDD

Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right-of-way, especially since a large park exists just a few blocks south (Humboldt Park)... not to mention Palmer Square to the north and the Humboldt Blvd green space between. If I was a resident in that area, I'd be more interested in having rapid transit than another park

Mr Downtown

Jan 26, 2011, 4:58 AM

Between a concrete structure & an embankment, I'm not sure which would produce the least sound.

Definitely the embankment. I talked with one of the engineers about this at tonight's meeting.

paytonc

Jan 26, 2011, 6:30 AM

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?

There’s also the argument that you don’t need to get rid of stations.

Due to ADA, there's almost no middle ground between a new coat of paint at a station and a complete rebuild of the entire station. Getting rid of some of those two-block-apart stations would reduce operating time and cost -- not just by reducing the number of station agents, but also by speeding up run times and therefore improving CTA's notably low line productivity.

At least 2.5 miles of this line would be part of a tunnel to provide through running high speed access to downtown.

Why would you need a high-speed tunnel heading north from downtown? Would that tunnel be built to HSR turning radius standards? Would it be four tunnel bores? (Not saving that much money vs. two bores.) Cut-and-cover? Even Milwaukee, much less Minnesota, is best served by heading northwest, then north, rather than using the UP/lakefront alignment.

Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right-of-way, especially since a large park exists just a few blocks south (Humboldt Park)...

The point is that it's a linear park, thus offering good east-west connections and an uninterrupted 2.5-mile path, in a neighborhood that is actually starved for greenspace (particularly for active uses) given its density. (Second lowest amount of park space per capita among the community areas, I think.) It's hardly an ideal corridor for transit, either -- surrounded by single-family pretty much the entire way, except for some loft conversions. The same money would be better spent on rapid bus service along a parallel street.

It was briefly considered as an alignment during the alternatives analysis for the Circle Line and rejected.

I mean, there's a reason why the Humboldt Park branch of the "L" was abandoned so early in the game, and before that why passenger service on the Bloomingdale hasn't existed in a century -- it doesn't make that much sense. (And even that was in a much better position, behind the mixed-use North Ave corridor.)

ardecila

Jan 26, 2011, 6:33 AM

Yeah, I agree... the MD-N should be enough for high-speed rail to the north (with additional tracks and some grade separation) and the IC should be enough for HSR to the south/east. The only place you need a tunnel is to connect the two, in the downtown area. We're fairly lucky in that regard, unlike European cities where the surface rail lines are all maxed-out with commuter trains and slow intercity trains.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 27, 2011, 5:38 AM

Are local matching Transit Capital Funds (like the Red Line Ext.) involved in
this mess??

______________________________________________________________________

http://www.suntimes.com/3506114-417/story.html

Court strikes down state's $31 billion capital program

BY DAVE MCKINNEY Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief

dmckinney@... Jan 26, 2011 10:02PM

SPRINGFIELD — In a stunning blow to Gov. Quinn's administration, an Illinois
appeals court Wednesday tossed out the $31 billion construction program passed
in 2009 that has been a centerpiece of his job-creation efforts.

In so doing, the three-member appeals panel also invalidated video poker,
partial state lottery privatization, higher liquor and sales taxes and other
revenues that add up to $1.1 billion, money that was designed to support massive
borrowing for the bricks-and-mortar program.

Quinn vowed an immediate appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Reversing a lower court's decision, the appeals court ruled unanimously that the
General Assembly's passage of the tax and fee hikes that underwrote the
construction program violated the single-subject clause of the state
Constitution. That clause says a bill can only deal with one specific issue, not
a multitude of them.

The law in question "began as a five-page bill addressing the narrow subject of
amending the Illinois estate and generation-skipping transfer tax. As enacted on
July 13, 2009, [it] grew to 280 pages covering a variety of subjects," wrote
Justice Patrick J. Quinn, who is not related to the governor.

Within that sprawling package were the legalization of video poker, a partial
privatization of the lottery, a boost in sales tax on candy, soft drinks and
grooming products, an increase in taxes on wine, beer and hard liquor, and a
hike in vehicle registration fees. It also contained a requirement that the
University of Illinois conduct a study on the effect on families that purchase
lottery tickets.

"In the present case, not all of the provisions of [the law] have a natural and
logical connection to the single subject of revenue to the state. For example,
we discern no natural and logical connection between the subject of revenue and
the amendment to the University of Illinois Act to require the university to
conduct a study on the effect on Illinois families of members of the family
purchasing Illinois lottery tickets," Justice Quinn wrote.

The lawsuit upon which the court ruled was brought by Chicago Blackhawks owner
Rocky Wirtz and his family's liquor distributorship, Wirtz Beverage Illinois
LLC. Wirtz also is an investor in the Sun-Times Media Group.

"This lawsuit was always about how the Legislature passed this bill and the
discriminatory tax on wine and spirits. The decision affirms that, and we are
gratified by it," Wirtz spokeswoman Julia M. Sznewajs said.

Officials in Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office said lawyers would file a
motion to stall the ruling on Thursday.

"The administration intends to appeal the Appellate Court's decision and to seek
an immediate stay from the Illinois Supreme Court," the governor's office said
in a prepared statement.

"The Illinois Jobs Now! capital program is an important part of Gov. Quinn's
plan to put Illinois back to work. Capital bill projects are putting thousands
of people to work in every corner of the state, while supporting local
businesses, improving our infrastructure and increasing energy efficiency," the
statement said.

"While the administration's request for a stay is pending with the Illinois
Supreme Court, capital projects already in progress will continue as scheduled.
We would expect the Supreme Court to rule on the request for a stay in the very
near future," the statement said.

So far, the state has borrowed $2.2 billion in construction funds that are
linked to the threatened tax and fee hikes. The state has collected $425 million
from the increases. If Wednesday's ruling stands and the original money
generators don't get re-enacted, bond holders would have to be paid with dollars
from the state's deficit-riddled General Revenue Fund that now covers state
government's day-to-day operations, said Kelly Kraft, a spokeswoman for Quinn's
budget office.

If Wednesday's decision is not overturned, Gov. Quinn will face an unexpectedly
difficult and financially uncertain spring legislative session that many
observers had expected to be relatively tame. Now, after passage of the
politically unpopular income-tax hike, he could be faced with scaling back the
construction plan or persuading re-enactment of the stricken tax and fee
increases, borrowing and video poker that has been rejected by dozens of
communities.

"For those who supported this most recent tax increase and then went home and
heard from their constituents, what will your reaction be to another vote on fee
and tax increases, which were part of the original capital proposal?" said Sen.
Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), who said it is not a certainty that Republicans in a
new Legislature will agree to the same framework as before on a construction
package. "We're in a different time."

The prospect of having to go back to the Legislature and win backing again for
billions of dollars in construction borrowing is further complicated by Gov.
Quinn's push for a separate $8.75 billion borrowing package he had intended to
seek this spring to whittle down the state's backlog of unpaid bills.

"You'd like to think at a certain point we'd collectively achieve borrowing
fatigue. I know I'm there personally," Murphy said. "This is just a sticky
wicket."

ardecila

Jan 27, 2011, 7:00 AM

Are local matching Transit Capital Funds (like the Red Line Ext.) involved in
this mess??

Yes - $2.7 billion in total for Chicago public transit capital funds (CTA/Metra/Pace).

Illinois Jobs Now Projects - Chicago (http://www2.illinois.gov/jobsnow/Documents/03%20Illinois%20Jobs%20Now%20-%20Chicago%20Summary.pdf)

The state already announced the first round of money, and CTA quickly decided how they would spend it (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/going-public/2010/07/cta-to-receive-253-million-for-improvements.html). But it's my understanding that the state still holds this money and CTA will not receive it.

CTA Gray Line

Jan 27, 2011, 9:00 AM

Does anyone know what the final Capital Cost of the thus completed part of the Block 37 CTA Airport Express Superstation was??

CTA Gray Line

Jan 27, 2011, 10:10 AM

Ardecila, somehow I only just now noticed your signature; good call - that is EXACTLY what I am trying to do. I added my own too, Thanks.

emathias

Jan 27, 2011, 1:37 PM

...
The point is that it's a linear park, thus offering good east-west connections and an uninterrupted 2.5-mile path, in a neighborhood that is actually starved for greenspace (particularly for active uses) given its density.
...

Not to be obnoxious, but isn't park space per capita sort of a silly measure of park space? It's especially silly since it penalizes density and would encourage the creation of park space just for the sake of park space in dense areas that have adequate park space but a lot of people?

Wouldn't a better measure be average distance to a park? That would reflect the accessibility, which is far more important than the raw amount of space per person within an arbitrary boundary.

Via Chicago

Jan 27, 2011, 4:48 PM

Ridership keeps going up, stations keep closing. Thats Chicago logic for you.

http://www.suntimes.com/3510964-417/evanston-cta-closing-plans-stations.html

CTA considers closing 5 stops

CTA’s top brass want to hear what riders have to say about plans to close up to three North Side stations and two others in Evanston along Red and Purple Lines.

Track repair and station renovations also are part of possible changes on a “dilapidated” 9.5-mile stretch of track from Belmont to the Linden terminal in Evanston, built between 1900 and 1920. The plans call for making 15 of 21 stations along that route handicap accessible. The project could top $4.2 billion.

But some officials, like Evanston Ald. Coleen Burrus, fear closure of stations at Foster and South Boulevard would be a blow to Evanston commuters. Station closures also are being considered at Thorndale, Lawrence and Jarvis stops in Chicago.

CTA spokeswoman Lambrini Lukidis said the plans are “more of a consolidation.”

“It would be closing some entrances and opening them up somewhere else — in some cases just a block away,’’ she added. “It’s not exactly eliminating.”

A public meeting is scheduled for 6 tonight at the Fleetwood-Jourdain Community Center in Evanston.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 27, 2011, 5:24 PM

Via Chicago

Jan 27, 2011, 5:30 PM

It's right in the article you quote--stations would be consolidated and there would actually be a net increase in the number of station entrances, up to 19 in the underground alternative and 21 in the elevated alternatives.

I don't follow. How exactly are station closures a net positive? What does "addition of entrances" even mean? For one example. removal of South Blvd. leaves an 8 block gap, which is more on par with Metra distances.

Lawrence is a major bus interchange. It also directly serves venues like the Riviera, Aragon, Green Mill, and other bars/restaurants in that area. Just wait until all the kids have to stumble from concerts and bars at 2AM up to the Wilson stop....I'm sure that will go over swell.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 27, 2011, 5:32 PM

And God, the Illinois's appellate courts are annoying, too. First Rahm's candidacy, now the capital program's shut down because some booze magnate's unhappy. Right when we the legislature makes an attempt make the state functional, the court tries to keep its ungovernable reputation intact.:hell:

VivaLFuego

Jan 27, 2011, 5:58 PM

Not to be obnoxious, but isn't park space per capita sort of a silly measure of park space? It's especially silly since it penalizes density and would encourage the creation of park space just for the sake of park space in dense areas that have adequate park space but a lot of people?

This basically describes Hyde Park, which is an overparked neighborhood that tore down nearly half its housing stock in the 1950s and 1960s to create more open space. No question that --some-- of the projects were beneficial, and the periodic smaller corner playlots are a very nice amenitiy which describe your second point, but the neighborhood went way overboard with Nichols Park (which wasn't meant to extend north of 54th but has due to rampant NIMBYism and the shadowphobia of the older generations).

emathias

Jan 27, 2011, 6:08 PM

Ridership keeps going up, stations keep closing. Thats Chicago logic for you.

http://www.suntimes.com/3510964-417/evanston-cta-closing-plans-stations.html

I understand some of why they are looking at that, but I think they should be very careful when looking at station closures, or at the very least pressure the city (or cities) into promising to encourage high density zoning and use near whatever stations remain. It would be especially disappointing to reduce stops in Evanston considering they've been making real efforts at encouraging TOD near their stations. They could do more, but they've certainly not been ignoring the resource.

I would say that if they choose the subway option and eliminated the express service, they REALLY should get Metra to add a stop at Howard Street (and maybe add one anyway and making Howard an office park, which wouldn't be a terrible idea given you have although Evanston wouldn't be excited about competition for their downtown).

Anyway, I actually wouldn't care too much about Lawrence closing, because I think between Argyle and Wilson the area is still well-served. Especially if they did some sort of cool lighting installation on Broadway under the tracks to make it less scary and tie the parts north and south of the tracks better together.

Whichever option is used, it would be really nice if the City used the rebuilt as impetus to strongly encourage very dense infill along the entire Sheridan/Broadway corridor. It's already dense, but there are still a lot of opportunities to make it even more dense. It's too bad they didn't do more to encourage that with the Pink Line and Green Line rebuilds. Imagine where CTA ridership could be if the City just put a bit more effort into directing dense development near existing stations.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 27, 2011, 6:37 PM

Good (nerve-calming) listening on both the capital bill and the Red-Purple Modernization Project from WBEZ:

http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/%5Bfield_program_ref-title-raw%5D/cta-modernization-plans-may-be-stalled-appellate-cour

pyropius

Jan 27, 2011, 10:21 PM

It would be especially disappointing to reduce stops in Evanston considering they've been making real efforts at encouraging TOD near their stations. They could do more, but they've certainly not been ignoring the resource.

I would say that if they choose the subway option and eliminated the express service, they REALLY should get Metra to add a stop at Howard Street (and maybe add one anyway and making Howard an office park, which wouldn't be a terrible idea given you have although Evanston wouldn't be excited about competition for their downtown).

...

Whichever option is used, it would be really nice if the City used the rebuilt as impetus to strongly encourage very dense infill along the entire Sheridan/Broadway corridor. It's already dense, but there are still a lot of opportunities to make it even more dense. It's too bad they didn't do more to encourage that with the Pink Line and Green Line rebuilds. Imagine where CTA ridership could be if the City just put a bit more effort into directing dense development near existing stations.

I seem to remember that before the downturn there were more midrise proposals in Evanston west of the El tracks between Davis and Foster streets. If these ever went through and NU ever built out the parking lot next to the grad student dorm tower next to the El tracks, there might be enough demand to justify the continued existence of the Foster station.

But hopes to support Foster and South Blvd stations based on attracting future higher-density development seem a little far-fetched to me, given Evanston's approach to zoning and development.

I just hope that a red line rebuild spurs the redevelopment of the parking lot wasteland along Broadway.

paytonc

Jan 27, 2011, 11:23 PM

Not to be obnoxious, but isn't park space per capita sort of a silly measure of park space? [...] Wouldn't a better measure be average distance to a park? That would reflect the accessibility, which is far more important than the raw amount of space per person within an arbitrary boundary.

It's a standard measure of park space access, dating back years. Not perfect, and yes, you're correct that "people not living within walking distance of a park" is probably better -- and probably should be used now that it's easier to compute things like that.

This basically describes Hyde Park, which is an overparked neighborhood that tore down nearly half its housing stock in the 1950s and 1960s to create more open space.

Not comparable to reclaiming as open space and transportation (yes! bicycles and shoes are transportation!) an already abandoned rail line, which hasn't been used for transit in generations.

^^^^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

1. I think it's dumb that the Red Line stops every two blocks. Granville and Thorndale have platforms just 800' apart, particularly when trains themselves are 400' long. Is this "rapid" transit or a local bus? Does everyone absolutely have to be one block from a station?

2. Yes, many times; see the history of plans at Chicago-L.org. I don't think it makes any more sense than extending other lines, particularly if attracting new riders is a goal. Pullman/Roseland and Old Orchard are bigger draws than Mayfair, and north-siders headed to the O'Hare Blue Line can take any number of westbound buses in about as much time as the Brown Line would take to get there.

Beta_Magellan

Jan 28, 2011, 2:38 AM

The Brown Line extension was also given a cursory look during the Circle Line alternatives analysis (http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/planning/Circle_Line_-_Screen_3_Presentation_9-29-09.pdf) (pdf), after people complained that the initial study area was too small—it was basically a way to get the Mid-City Transitway back on the table, but they ended up including a Brown Line extension as part of it. The Little Village Environmental Justice Organization was pretty upset about this, accusing the CTA of using the the Brown Line extension to inflate the cost of the project to make it bad compared to the Circle Line, but I think that’s unfair. A heavy rail MCT would be very expensive—that the railways are being much more demanding about rapid transit separation now, and I’ve even heard that the Orange Line would be impossible to build today—and I’m skeptical of claims that it would carry more people than the Brown Line, given that the Cicero X bus only had something like 7500 daily boardings—sure heavy rail would attract more people, but not eight times as many people.

Anyway, personally I think Lawrence Avenue west Kimball is probably one of the few places in the city that’s dense enough to support all new rapid transit, but a Lawrence Avenue subway would still be pretty expensive, due to the need to tunnel (you could do it elevated in one of the alleys behind Lawrence Avenue, but there’d be so much demolition that you’d probably lose the community’s goodwill). I don’t think it’s really a pressing need, either—there’s no capacity issues like at 95th or Midway, and the Yellow Line extension, extraneous as it may seem, is projected to essentially double ridership there (and I bet the Circle Line’s slowly sliding into oblivion). So, I think the CTA’s rail expansions priorities are about right in the moment, but over the longer term it might be nice to see.

ardecila

Jan 28, 2011, 3:25 AM

I think the station closures make sense, but only if CTA can handle their closures well and mitigate the problems caused in each affected neighborhood.

Foster - Noyes should be closed instead, it's the less busy station. Plus, Foster acts as a secondary station for DT Evanston.

South Blvd - OK, but the second exit from Main should be at Washington and not Madison.

Jarvis - OK, but CTA needs to help the businesses relocate.

Thorndale - OK, but the Hollywood exit needs to be on the north side of Hollywood. Either that, or Hollywood needs to be drastically traffic-calmed.

Lawrence - Nothing wrong here. Move the 81 so it stops at a new off-street bus terminal at Wilson. The kids attending concerts can walk up to the Ainslie entrance of Argyle faster than they can walk to Wilson anyway.

Also... re-orient Berwyn to face Foster and rename it so idiot tourists don't confuse it with the suburb of Berwyn. Obviously they need to keep a secondary entrance on Berwyn, but I have no idea why the station was built to face a sidestreet when the 1/2-mile street is one block away.

A heavy rail MCT would be very expensive—that the railways are being much more demanding about rapid transit separation now, and I’ve even heard that the Orange Line would be impossible to build today—and I’m skeptical of claims that it would carry more people than the Brown Line, given that the Cicero X bus only had something like 7500 daily boardings—sure heavy rail would attract more people, but not eight times as many people.

The Belt Railway north of Chicago Ave. is abandoned. UP owns it but doesn't use it for anything. UP is pretty recalcitrant with transit providers, but I'm sure they'd part with it for the right price, and then there'd be no worry of separation from freight.

South of Chicago, you'd need to move the alignment over to Cicero (elevated or subway) to make effective transfers with the Green and Blue Lines.