[VivaLFuego]

Different service patterns associated with each infrastructure alternative are indeed being identified and scored with respect to operating costs and rider impact (travel time, walk time, transfer time, etc.). However, those are only made more concrete as part of the Draft EIS (next step), not as part of the preliminary scoping (current step). As Beta notes, there's a pretty well-defined process to go through vis-a-vis advancing the technical work in concert with public involvement, but these things are definitely being studied.

[ardecila]

^^ Good to know. Thanks.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-0221-20110220,0,2409533.column

Proposal would link airport with Union Station, points downstate

Jon Hilkevitch

Getting Around

4:46 p.m. CST, February 20, 2011

In the future, one of the carriers serving travelers at O'Hare International Airport may be Amtrak.

Gov. Pat Quinn has asked Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman to conduct a study examining what it would take, logistically and financially, to commence fast, nonstop passenger rail service between Chicago Union Station and O'Hare, your Getting Around reporter has learned.

The governor envisions the proposed rail line, which at this point is strictly conceptual, as offering a more extensive reach than the O'Hare branch of the CTA Blue Line, which runs between the Loop and the airport, and Mayor Richard Daley's plan for premium "Airport Express" service between the uncompleted Block 37 "super station" downtown and O'Hare.

Quinn's plan certainly would not resemble the impractical idea for a bullet train to O'Hare that Daley toted home last year after he rode a magnetic levitation train in Shanghai. The Shanghai Transrapid maglev train must start braking shortly after reaching its top speed of 268 mph, and it doesn't even go into downtown Shanghai.

But Quinn does see opportunities to build a synergistic connection between O'Hare, which serves tens of millions of air travelers each year, and state efforts to draw customers to the 110 mph passenger rail corridors it is constructing, beginning with the 284-mile route between Chicago and St. Louis.
Downtown Chicago and O'Hare represent the two largest employment centers in Illinois, creating a perfect setting for a premier trains-to-planes service that would attract new employers and riders, Quinn said.

"This connection would also provide better access to downstate cities and significantly boost ridership" outside the Chicago area, the governor wrote in a letter to Boardman this month.

"Advancing this connection would also establish O'Hare as a central — and connected — component of the nine-state, 110-mph Midwest Regional Rail System," the Quinn letter said.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association already has supported an express rail link connecting O'Hare and Union Station. The association also has proposed that the higher-speed routes planned for the Midwest be linked directly to O'Hare to accommodate Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana travelers who will be able to ride trains to and from O'Hare.

The governor asked Boardman to complete the study this summer. The initial questions he wants answered include how quickly service could be introduced, where Amtrak would accommodate the airport trains at Union Station, where the O'Hare station might be located on airport property and "how we would make rail-air ticketing and baggage connections seamless for passengers."

One of the biggest problems is developing a route to O'Hare from tracks Amtrak uses. Metra's North Central Service to Antioch operates limited weekday-only service from Union Station with stops at the O'Hare Transfer Station, which is on the fringes of the airport near Economy Parking Lot F and the Cell Phone Lot. Metra uses the Wisconsin Central Railroad tracks, which are owned by the Canadian National Railway. One reason Metra has not increased its North Central Service schedule is that CN has refused to expand the commuter railroad's track privileges, officials said.

The Amtrak study that Quinn requested will include discussions with CN/Wisconsin Central and Metra, said John Webber, a spokesman for the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Another potential setback for the rail link is that the Chicago Department of Aviation has at least temporarily shelved plans for a western airline terminal under the city's O'Hare Modernization Program. In addition to providing aircraft gates, the western terminal was envisioned as including facilities for rail connections to Metra and the Blue Line, as well as to a proposed extension of the People Mover airport transit system that would link the western terminal to the main terminal complex.

Despite the hurdles, Amtrak officials are enthusiastic about exploring the proposal, said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari.

"We know that on several of our routes, downstate people hop off the train at Joliet or Naperville to take taxicabs to O'Hare or Midway Airport," Magliari said.

Noting that the number of airline flights in Illinois outside the Chicago area has decreased and airfares have increased, Magliari said, "If there were a way to get more people downstate connected with air, it would strengthen our already strong ridership."

Amtrak provides more than 150,000 rides each year on its Hiawatha service from Chicago Union Station to General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee. Amtrak also shares a station in St. Louis with light-rail trains serving Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

Trains-to-planes partnerships have become common between rail operators and airlines in Europe and other parts of the world. Such collaborations offer the most efficient and pleasant way to travel on trips of 500 miles or less.

It's begun to slowly catch on in the U.S. For instance, on the Continental Airlines website, travel can be booked from Philadelphia to Lyon, France. The trip begins at Philly's 30th Street rail station, where passengers board an hourlong train to Newark Liberty International Airport. The rest of the trip is via air.

Contact Getting Around at jhilkevitch@tribune.com or c/o the Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Read recent columns at chicagotribune.com/gettingaround
click on link

[the urban politician]

^ I'm fine with it as long as downtown Chicago remains the hub of the midwest hsr system.

If all rails lead to O'Hare, downtown Chicago loses its infrastructure advantages

[Wright Concept]

Different service patterns associated with each infrastructure alternative are indeed being identified and scored with respect to operating costs and rider impact (travel time, walk time, transfer time, etc.). However, those are only made more concrete as part of the Draft EIS (next step), not as part of the preliminary scoping (current step). As Beta notes, there's a pretty well-defined process to go through vis-a-vis advancing the technical work in concert with public involvement, but these things are definitely being studied.

Speaking of that process (with Los Angeles dealing with a number of these studies as we speak) there's one alternative that is missing from the list which they need to start thinking about to solve the problem of Clark Junction which is the basis for most of this in the first place.

What happens if you have the Brown Line trains go underground between the Belmont and Southport stations? Would that solve the problem or make matters worse? Could this be done at a far smaller cost than the full tunnel two track tunnel or even the rebuild four track elevated? The point in all this is that in order to get a iron-tight EIR this option needs to be studied and evaluated as early as possible.

[the urban politician]

So how does having 'Mayor Rahm' as opposed to 'Mayor Chico' affect Chicago's prospects for mass transit improvements? Thoughts?

[ardecila]

Speaking of that process (with Los Angeles dealing with a number of these studies as we speak) there's one alternative that is missing from the list which they need to start thinking about to solve the problem of Clark Junction which is the basis for most of this in the first place.

What happens if you have the Brown Line trains go underground between the Belmont and Southport stations? Would that solve the problem or make matters worse? Could this be done at a far smaller cost than the full tunnel two track tunnel or even the rebuild four track elevated? The point in all this is that in order to get a iron-tight EIR this option needs to be studied and evaluated as early as possible.

Assuming CTA chooses an elevated alternative, the problem of Clark Junction can be solved easily by building a rail flyover for the northbound Brown Line track.

It's probably cheaper to go up, since the flyover can span over the existing 4 tracks easily without a column in the middle. This introduces a fairly tall visual blight (http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/queensplaza/qblvd.trestle.jpg) to the neighborhood and a potential noise problem. It's also possible to go down, building a fly-under track at or close to ground level. This would, of course, close off School Street and require the rebuilding of the whole 4-track elevated structure for about 2 blocks.

IIRC, Viva said awhile back that CTA has indeed looked into the Clark Junction issue when they did the Brown Line rehab, and it turned out to be a few hundred million. It might be possible as part of a multi-billion Red/Purple project, but it was just too expensive for the Brown Line project budget, which was only $530 million. Under the Bush administration, that 20% was easily the difference between getting the money and not. Cost-efficiency is slightly less important now under Obama's USDOT.

EDIT: found the quote.

My understanding is that, when they were scoping out and initiating the project back in the 90s, they looked at what would be required to add a flyover for the northbound brown line just north of Belmont. Aside from huge land acquisition issues for obvious reasons, the thing could never have passed an Environmental Impact Study because of noise and visual pollution and the sheer number of properties that would have to be acquired and destroyed in the course of staging and constructing it.

Long story short, cost estimates for the Clark Junction flyover were in the $100 million ballpark (!!!) and it was deemed politically unfeasible even if there was a way to get the money for it.

[ardecila]

So how does having 'Mayor Rahm' as opposed to 'Mayor Chico' affect Chicago's prospects for mass transit improvements? Thoughts?

None of the candidates seemed to think much about transit until they were pressed by various journalists and bloggers, so I wouldn't look forward to a new golden age for the CTA. That said, Rahm was definitely the best choice.

The fact that Chico didn't form an official policy position on transit, even AFTER being pressed, speaks volumes about his commitment to quality transit (or lack thereof).

del Valle also had a decent transit platform, although he was adamantly opposed to major investment downtown. I think this was misguided... all of CTA's recent major projects have been in the neighborhoods, including major rebuilds of the Brown, Green, Pink , and south Red Lines. CTA's current expansion plans are also way out in the neighborhoods... extensions of the Red, Orange, Yellow Lines, the Red/Purple Line, Circle Line, etc. If anything, the downtown area is overdue for transit investment.

His policy statement specifically said "NO Downtown Circulator", which is a bit odd - it's not like anybody else is pushing for a downtown circulator, either. I'm assuming this refers to the dormant Carroll Avenue busway, unless he's opposing a dead 20-year-old light rail plan.

[CTA Gray Line]

So how does having 'Mayor Rahm' as opposed to 'Mayor Chico' affect Chicago's prospects for mass transit improvements? Thoughts?

The Gray Line Project Presentation has already been submitted through Rahm's State St. Campaign Office; I will be following up immediately to see if he can attend the first Public Meetings of H I S CDOT's now-in-progress South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/12456386/348792632/name/PT_South+Lakefront_FEB4+PAC_FINAL.pdf

I think his connections in Washington, D.C. will greatly benefit any and all Transit and Transportation Projects in the Chicago Area.

[CTA Gray Line]

None of the candidates seemed to think much about transit until they were pressed by various journalists and bloggers, so I wouldn't look forward to a new golden age for the CTA. That said, Rahm was definitely the best choice.

The fact that Chico didn't form an official policy position on transit, even AFTER being pressed, speaks volumes about his commitment to quality transit (or lack thereof).

del Valle also had a decent transit platform, although he was adamantly opposed to major investment downtown. I think this was misguided... all of CTA's recent major projects have been in the neighborhoods, including major rebuilds of the Brown, Green, Pink , and south Red Lines. CTA's current expansion plans are also way out in the neighborhoods... extensions of the Red, Orange, Yellow Lines, the Red/Purple Line, Circle Line, etc. If anything, the downtown area is overdue for transit investment.

His policy statement specifically said "NO Downtown Circulator", which is a bit odd - it's not like anybody else is pushing for a downtown circulator, either. I'm assuming this refers to the dormant Carroll Avenue busway, unless he's opposing a dead 20-year-old light rail plan.



Ever notice that besides me and my long-time obsession, NOBODY ever mentions improving/providing CTA Rail Transit to the SE Side.

[ardecila]

I dunno what you mean by improving... Metra just sank a ton of money into rebuilding all the stations on the South Chicago Branch. Service frequencies are still crappy, but you can't say they haven't invested in the area.

[CTA Gray Line]

I dunno what you mean by improving... Metra just sank a ton of money into rebuilding all the stations on the South Chicago Branch. Service frequencies are still crappy, but you can't say they haven't invested in the area.


I said improving/providing Chicago Transit Authority Rail Transit ('L' service - fare structure interconnected with the rest of the CTA system) - I lived on the Southeast Side for MANY years, and the in-city Metra Electric services DO NOT fit into the Transit Spectrum for MOST of the residents.

Why do you think ALL the BRAND NEW South Chicago Branch Stations (and trains) you mentioned are _ C O M P L E T E L Y _ E M P T Y _ most of the time - EXCEPT for having many riders O N L Y during the am and pm Weekday Rush Hours.

i.e.: If you are going from 71st & Jeffrey to Loyola University on Devon & Sheridan, or to Stroger Hospital on Harrison & Damen - What good does the MED do you??? (are you going to pay TWO separate Transit Fares)

[ardecila]

i.e.: If you are going from 71st & Jeffrey to Loyola University on Devon & Sheridan, or to Stroger Hospital on Harrison & Damen - What good does the MED do you??? (are you going to pay TWO separate Transit Fares)

How will this situation will be better with a CTA-operated "Gray Line"? There's still no connection between the Metra Electric and the rest of the CTA rail system, and there's no good place to add one.

[CTA Gray Line]

How will this situation will be better with a CTA-operated "Gray Line"? There's still no connection between the Metra Electric and the rest of the CTA rail system, and there's no good place to add one.

Please read "Access and Transfer Information" 3/4 down on the left side of the "Welcome to the Gray Line Website" Home Page: www.Grayline.20m.com

Does this answer your question ardecila; and I also wonder how E V E R Y B O D Y manages to miss, or misinterpret this information - when I have had it posted clearly for many months now???

[sammyg]

Please read "Access and Transfer Information" 3/4 down on the left side of the "Welcome to the Gray Line Website" Home Page: www.Grayline.20m.com

Does this answer your question ardecila; and I also wonder how E V E R Y B O D Y manages to miss, or misinterpret this information when I have had it posted clearly for many months???

aside from the atrocious use of punctuation and caps, all you're saying is that your hypothetical rider should pay less than someone taking the bus, despite the fact that they're taking the same exact train they've been taking for 40+ years. How does adding another layer of bureaucracy help?

[CTA Gray Line]

aside from the atrocious use of punctuation and caps, all you're saying is that your hypothetical rider should pay less than someone taking the bus, despite the fact that they're taking the same exact train they've been taking for 40+ years. How does adding another layer of bureaucracy help?

I lived for years at 7761 South Shore Drive, and worked near Loyola U. on Devon Ave. Since using the Metra South Chicago Branch 2 blocks away cost about $2.00 to get Downtown, and then I'd have to pay another about $2.00 CTA fare to get on the Howard 'L' to Rogers Park ($4.00 for the total trip) - I never used Metra.

MANY times I had to wait (in 10 degree weather) sometimes 45 minutes for a Westbound 79th St. bus to the Red Line at State St. (a 30 minute trip) - now I've spent 1 hour and 15 minutes, and I have NOT moved ONE FOOT toward downtown.

Then give the Red Line train about 45 minutes (or more) to get from 79th St. to the Loyola 'L' Station.

So now it's taken me approx. 2 HOURS to get to work, but I only had to pay about $2.00.



With the Gray Line trains coming every 10 minutes I could be downtown at Randolph & Michigan within 40 minutes, and then a 2 short block (FREE) walking transfer to the Red Line Lake Station for a 25 minute 'L' trip to Loyola (instead of STILL WAITING there 45 minutes later on the corner of 79th & South Shore Drive - or being on Bus #3 of a Bus Bunch somewhere along E. 79th St.)

A 1 hour 5 minute work trip would seem better than a 2 hour work trip (for the same $2.00 price) - but I guess that's just me.

[jpIllInoIs]

What is Metra's motivation for operating the MED stops? And btw I completely get your argument about converting the MED to CTA rather than extending the Red Line. Solid argument. But tell me why Metra plays ball with this? Does the CTA pay them 100% of operating? We all know that transit operates at a deficit.

[Nowhereman1280]

Maybe you shouldn't live at 7700 south and commute to 6500 North? Just a suggestion...

[lawfin]

I said improving/providing Chicago Transit Authority Rail Transit ('L' service - fare structure interconnected with the rest of the CTA system) - I lived on the Southeast Side for MANY years, and the in-city Metra Electric services DO NOT fit into the Transit Spectrum for MOST of the residents.

Why do you think ALL the BRAND NEW South Chicago Branch Stations (and trains) you mentioned are _ C O M P L E T E L Y _ E M P T Y _ most of the time - EXCEPT for having many riders O N L Y during the am and pm Weekday Rush Hours.

i.e.: If you are going from 71st & Jeffrey to Loyola University on Devon & Sheridan, or to Stroger Hospital on Harrison & Damen - What good does the MED do you??? (are you going to pay TWO separate Transit Fares)

You know I am not sure it is such a good idea to come on here and utilize such childish flaming techniques. I mean think about it; you are on a site where you more than likely will find a audience that is probably more sympathetic to your cause than the general population. SSP'r at least in the Chicago forums tend to be highly pro-transit.

So coming on here and writing in this style just makes you look SHRILL & STRIDENT. (See what I mean) It diminishes your argument.

[ardecila]

Maybe you shouldn't live at 7700 south and commute to 6500 North? Just a suggestion...

Don't be so snarky... One of the advantages of living in a dense city is the ability to move easily from one end of the city to the other without a car.

CTA already provides this hypothetical commuter a fast option in the form of two express buses (the 14 and the 147) with a transfer at Congress.

This only works in rush hours, but the rest of the time, the hypothetical person can still get to his job at Loyola with only one transfer - this time at the 79th St Station on the Red Line. Other good options exist as well.

[wrab]

.....(C)oming on here and writing in this style just makes you look SHRILL & STRIDENT. (See what I mean) It diminishes your argument.

Right - the use of ALL CAPS is like shouting in a library.

[manrush]

If the red and purple lines are to be buried, it would be possible to use rolling stock that is both longer and with a wider loading gauge than the El trains.

[ardecila]

If the red and purple lines are to be buried, it would be possible to use rolling stock that is both longer and with a wider loading gauge than the El trains.

Longer, maybe. Wider is tricker. The State Street Subway, according to Mr. Downtown, was designed to accommodate BMT/IND-sized cars, but I don't know if the North Side Main Line has track spacing wide enough for these, and the platforms at all Red Line stations would need to pull back a few inches.

In a similar vein, though, I was wondering today about the possibility for automating the Blue Line, like Paris' Line 14. It would save a ton of money by cutting out the operators, potentially allowing for higher service frequencies. The Blue Line is isolated from the rest of the network, so it would be easy to change the technology.

The precision of the automated computer would allow the train to berth at exactly the same place every time, so CTA could install platform doors in the Kennedy-median stations and make them much more pleasant for riders.

[Nowhereman1280]

Don't be so snarky... One of the advantages of living in a dense city is the ability to move easily from one end of the city to the other without a car.

CTA already provides this hypothetical commuter a fast option in the form of two express buses (the 14 and the 147) with a transfer at Congress.

This only works in rush hours, but the rest of the time, the hypothetical person can still get to his job at Loyola with only one transfer - this time at the 79th St Station on the Red Line. Other good options exist as well.

Yes, but the entire reason cities exist in the first place is that people prefer to live as close to their jobs, entertainment, and other services as possible. So living on the far side of a massive city from your job is a terrible idea.

Besides there are really only two directions in Chicago, towards downtown and away from downtown. The N-S commute through downtown is better than most, but its still an incredibly inefficient route.

[CTA Gray Line]

Maybe you shouldn't live at 7700 south and commute to 6500 North? Just a suggestion...

When one has been UNemployed for 3 months - one takes what ever effin' job one gets offered - no matter how far away it is!!

[CTA Gray Line]

"The hypothetical person can still get to his job at Loyola with only one transfer - this time at the 79th St Station on the Red Line. Other good options exist as well".

To lawfin, wrab, sammyg, etc., etc.... The above statement demonstrates exactly why I am SHRILL & STRIDENT (and use CAPS - like shouting in a Library).


When somebody tells me that it's "OK", and a "good option" for ME (and others like me in the same South Shore neighborhood) to spend an Hour And A Half of time - and still be stuck somewhere on 79th St. - I want to set off a _ P I P E _ B O M B _ in the Library, so shouting isn't too bad by comparison (and yes, you are correct - I am C R A Z Y).


It's like while the rest of the City of Chicago has fine Dom Perignon Champaign in a Waterford Crystal Flute; the Southeast Side has mud in a broken tin cup - but that's "OK", and a "good option" for us because........???


AND if you think MY solution (purchase-of-service) stinks, Rep. Jack Franks has a M U C H better idea; DISSOLVE all the separate Transit Boards, and have just ONE Transit Board presiding over 3 Operating Divisions.

This would also end up with the South Chicago Branch operating as an integrated part of the City Transit System, but it seems much more Draconian to me.

[sammyg]

I Since using the Metra South Chicago Branch 2 blocks away cost about $2.00 to get Downtown, and then I'd have to pay another about $2.00 CTA fare to get on the Howard 'L' to Rogers Park ($4.00 for the total trip) - I never used Metra.

...
So now it's taken me approx. 2 HOURS to get to work, but I only had to pay about $2.00.
...
A 1 hour 5 minute work trip would seem better than a 2 hour work trip (for the same $2.00 price) - but I guess that's just me.

When somebody tells me that it's "OK", and a "good option" for ME (and others like me in the same South Shore neighborhood) to spend an Hour And A Half of tim

You want the CTA to spend millions of dollars because you don't want to spend 2 extra dollars for an 18 mile commute? How many people actually take that commute?

Trying to get some kind of common ticketing system between the CTA and all Metra lines could be something useful, converting one line to save a very small portion of the population a very small amount of money (even working 365 days a year would save you $730) is ridiculous.

[Mr Downtown]

If the red and purple lines are to be buried, it would be possible to use rolling stock that is both longer and with a wider loading gauge than the El trains.

I don't see how. The trains through a new subway would both start and end on the existing L.

[Via Chicago]

This is why we are rapidly approaching second rate status as a nation, nobody can see anything past 2 year political cycles.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-englewood-flyover-20110224,0,5291253.story

Solution to South Side rail bottleneck threatened by U.S. cuts

Funding is in jeopardy for construction of a major rail-bridge system to ease at least some of the freight and passenger train congestion in the Chicago region, officials warned Thursday.

The argument against building the Englewood flyover bridges on Chicago's South Side at one of the nation's busiest railroad junctions has nothing to do with the merits of the project.

Instead, the long-planned bridge is among billions of dollars worth of infrastructure improvements that are being threatened by the battle playing out in Congress over the soaring national debt...

[Beta_Magellan]

In the Republicans’ defense, they’re working from a complete ignorance of macroeconomics (or hell, even microeconomics), having all paid for their houses in cash or something. Anytime I see a politician talking about the deficit or debt (which are constantly conflated) I have to stifle an angry rant that invariably ends with me denouncing anyone with a law degree, which isn’t fare, but as someone with some experience in both economics and geophysical modeling my tolerance for conservative think tanks and Republican lawmakers is constantly hitting rock-bottom, and then dropping though another layer of the Earth’s mantle.

Although I know CREATE is a pretty forward-thinking program, there have to be other public-private freight railway investments earmarked around the country. I wonder if they’ve been affected in the same way or if there’s any correlation between the partisan makeup of the region and how much was cut. If there were a stronger Republican Party presence in northern Illinois, this might not have happened. And of course, all this comes with the caveat that this was by the House in the hope of forcing a government shutdown, so at this point no one knows how everything will pan out. I cant help but agree with Robert Longworth (http://globalmidwest.typepad.com/global-midwest/2011/02/a-budget-chop-for-the-midwest.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheMidwesterner+(The+Midwesterner:+Blogging+the+Global+Midwest)) here: “whatever our representatives in Congress are doing, they aren't earning their pay.”

Still, this has a sick irony for anyone who knows American history. Although I couldn’t find it online, I’ve seen versions of the map below that were used as nineteenth-century Democratic political propaganda about how the Republicans sold our country’s bounteous agrarian future to the greedy railroad industrialists:

http://railroads.unl.edu/documents/jpeg/medium/rail.str.0239.01.jpg

[CTA Gray Line]

You want the CTA to spend millions of dollars because you don't want to spend 2 extra dollars for an 18 mile commute? How many people actually take that commute?

Trying to get some kind of common ticketing system between the CTA and all Metra lines could be something useful, converting one line to save a very small portion of the population a very small amount of money (even working 365 days a year would save you $730) is ridiculous.

Have you ever lived in South Shore or South Chicago?

[ardecila]

You have a point, but I think the problem is simply that the Southeast Side doesn't have the clout to demand increased Metra service. If South Works, Lake Meadows, and the various Hyde Park projects all go through as planned, I think Metra will magically have a change of heart.

[Mr Downtown]

I don't think you make a lot of friends by discussing the equity issue rather than the transportation value of the Gray Line. Anecdotal arguments about the horror of someone having to spend a little extra time or pay two (already heavily discounted) fares to travel from one obscure location to another obscure location 20 miles away aren't very convincing. Yes, as a matter of policy, we should have fare integration between all parts of the RTA system, but so long as Metra is paid for entirely by suburbanites, their interest in in-city service will be limited.

Journeys-to-work from South Shore and South Chicago are served pretty well by express buses, which have the advantage of door-to-door service for many. I don't think it's at all obvious that those patrons, particularly women, would prefer to walk to a rail station and end up east of Michigan Avenue, far from most downtown jobs, just to have a slightly faster ride along the lakefront.

There is an intrinsic appeal to the idea that the IC, which once functioned as the south lakefront's rapid transit line, should again serve that function. So let's study the Gray Line idea as part of the South Lakefront study—but I don't think the result is a foregone conclusion.

[Beta_Magellan]

There is an intrinsic appeal to the idea that the IC, which once functioned as the south lakefront's rapid transit line, should again serve that function. So let's study the Gray Line idea as part of the South Lakefront study—but I don't think the result is a foregone conclusion.

Living in this corridor and working northwest of downtown via the Blue Line, I could see a lot of the issues I see solved by just better bus management and some signal priority to help schedule adherence. In Hyde Park at least, bunching’s a major problem at rush hour. The afternoon commute also has major capacity problems, with a lot of buses between 4:00 and 6:30 being crush-loaded and coming at irregular intervals. Although rail would be nice due to increased capacity and better reliability from having an exclusive ROW (if I worked in the main office five days a week I’d definitely get a link-up pass and walk a couple of extra blocks to Millennium Station), I agree—a Gold/Gray Line-style solution isn’t the only option available.

Journeys-to-work from South Shore and South Chicago are served pretty well by express buses, which have the advantage of door-to-door service for many. I don't think it's at all obvious that those patrons, particularly women, would prefer to walk to a rail station and end up east of Michigan Avenue, far from most downtown jobs, just to have a slightly faster ride along the lakefront.

South of 47th Street on the South Shore branch, most stations have multiple entrances, so you don’t lose that much accessibility by going to rail. This is purely anecdotal, but from what I’ve seen a lot of downtown trips in this corridor are skewed towards the east. Whenever I take the X28 to Union Station the vast majority of people are gone by the Dearborn stop. And while I find having a direct link to Union Station nice, I only see it really utilized is around holidays.

[CTA Gray Line]

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cta-tattler/2011/02/cta-traffic-simulated-on-animated-map-on-typical-commuter-day.html#comments

[VivaLFuego]

Fare integration seems like a logical first step to check the relative demand for services, since right now the lack of integration provides a relatively arbitrary impediment to a certain level of use on the ME for those making multi-link trips. With integrated fares, the magnitude of this could be assessed, and a better transit operating plan for the entire corridor could be evaluated. At this point, the ME most closely approximates the #6, with the #14 and #X28 serving more distinct markets.

Part of the challenge is the inherently "commuter" nature of the route --- from 23rd to 47th, nearly 3 miles, there is basically nothing generating any transit trips. Rapid transit routes are at their most effective serving a corridor with lots of short trips interspersed among downtown commute trips, and the ME route doesn't have that. A route dominated by long trips is generally less suitable for a flat fare rapid transit fare structure, and better suited for a commuter-style distance based fare (which can be still be applied at improved headways of course: see WMATA and BART). Regardless, regional fare integration seems to be the most logical and crucial first step before any discussions of new intergovernmental agreements, major union labor rule changes, and so on. There are also some low hanging fruit like rescheduling the route** to improve the perceived level of service, which shouldn't be such a challenge since the ME and SS operate exclusively on the Main Line tracks in this area.

**An obvious pet peeve born of living in Hyde Park for ~17 years is that despite having 2 off-peak trains per hour, they are scheduled within 10 minutes of each other and thus basically provide a 50-minute headway, rather than 30-minutes. This made sense when the focus was on timed transfers between branches, but I'm not convinced there's any sizable demand for these transfers that couldn't be much more effectively met by the CTA bus network.

[CTA Gray Line]

Fare integration seems like a logical first step to check the relative demand for services, since right now the lack of integration provides a relatively arbitrary impediment to a certain level of use on the ME for those making multi-link trips. With integrated fares, the magnitude of this could be assessed, and a better transit operating plan for the entire corridor could be evaluated. At this point, the ME most closely approximates the #6, with the #14 and #X28 serving more distinct markets.

Part of the challenge is the inherently "commuter" nature of the route --- from 23rd to 47th, nearly 3 miles, there is basically nothing generating any transit trips. Rapid transit routes are at their most effective serving a corridor with lots of short trips interspersed among downtown commute trips, and the ME route doesn't have that. A route dominated by long trips is generally less suitable for a flat fare rapid transit fare structure, and better suited for a commuter-style distance based fare (which can be still be applied at improved headways of course: see WMATA and BART). Regardless, regional fare integration seems to be the most logical and crucial first step before any discussions of new intergovernmental agreements, major union labor rule changes, and so on. There are also some low hanging fruit like rescheduling the route** to improve the perceived level of service, which shouldn't be such a challenge since the ME and SS operate exclusively on the Main Line tracks in this area.

**An obvious pet peeve born of living in Hyde Park for ~17 years is that despite having 2 off-peak trains per hour, they are scheduled within 10 minutes of each other and thus basically provide a 50-minute headway, rather than 30-minutes. This made sense when the focus was on timed transfers between branches, but I'm not convinced there's any sizable demand for these transfers that couldn't be much more effectively met by the CTA bus network.


I agree 10,000% - Fare integration would be a very appropriate first step; BUT THAT IS _ N O T _ E V E R _ GOING TO HAPPEN (There will be a Star Trek [TransPorteR] available to everybody right there in your own Living Room - L O N G before there is any kind of UFC).

Since there is N E V E R going to be a UFC (due to Extremely Childish 3rd Grade Inter-Agency C R A P) - I came up with another viable way to utilize the MED as part of CTA.

[M II A II R II K]

Chicago to build electric car charging network


25 Feb 2011

By Todd Woody

http://www.grist.org/i/screen/new/grist_logo.gif

Read More: http://www.grist.org/article/chicago-to-build-electric-car-charging-network

First Chicago gets Rahm Emanuel, now electric cars. Well, at least an electric car infrastructure. In a move that indicates electric cars won't just be a phenomenon of Greater Portlandia, utility Exelon and the city will roll out 280 charging stations across Chicagoland by year's end. Two stations will even be solar-powered. It's part of a smart grid demonstration project, partially funded by the federal government, to get a jump-start on the potential impact on the electric system if Chicagoans start buying battery-powered vehicles in big numbers.

Windy, snow-swept Chicago doesn't exactly pop to the top of the list as an EV epicenter. But former Mayor Richard M. Daley made greening the second city a priority, and according to a spokesperson for Exelon -- which owns Chicago utility ComEd -- Illinois ranks in the top 10 when it comes to hybrid car ownership. "ComEd is preparing now for what may be a large influx of PHEVs in the market and managing its impact on the grid," Kerry Kelly-Guiliano, the Exelon spokesperson, said in an email, referring to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. "And they are putting in place the charging infrastructure to demonstrate that Chicago is plug-in ready."

.....




An electric car charging station next to a gas station in Lake Oswego, Ore.

http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/chargingstation-flickr-toddmecklem.jpg&w=307

[Pandemonious]

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't get how it is practical to charge the vehicle at a gas station. Will you just sit at the gas station for a few hours while it charges? Ok, in Chicago or certain other places you could walk somewhere while it charges, but in many areas that isn't a reality.

[Onn]

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't get how it is practical to charge the vehicle at a gas station. Will you just sit at the gas station for a few hours while it charges? Ok, in Chicago or certain other places you could walk somewhere while it charges, but in many areas that isn't a reality.

You obviously can't do that. I think there is something called "quick charge", or something to that effect.

[CTA Gray Line]

Is anyone else on this Board attending this Workshop?

http://www.tflex.org/default.asp

[CTA Gray Line]

Is anyone else on this Board attending this Workshop?

http://www.tflex.org/default.asp


Is anybody out there??

[emathias]

Is anybody out there??

It sounds interesting, but I won't have time to do it.

[denizen467]

Looks like the new Metra 35th Street station will be open in a couple weeks, in time for the Sox opener.

[denizen467]

Between having a Dem governor (unlike states with R governors cancelling rail projects) and the Chicago axis in the White House, things really are lined up for IL to become an early leader in (quasi-) high speed rail in the US.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-illinois-can-vie-for-24-billion-in-rail-cash-20110311,0,3115845.story

Illinois can vie for $2.4 billion in high-speed rail cash
By Jon Hilkevitch Tribune reporter
4:15 p.m. CST, March 11, 2011

Illinois and other states with high-speed passenger rail programs will be allowed to compete for $2.4 billion in federal funds that Florida turned down when its governor killed a fast-trains project between Orlando and Tampa, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced today.

It will provide the second opportunity for Illinois to pick up federal high-speed rail funds relinquished by other states. In December, Illinois was awarded about $42 million after the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio scuttled the rail programs in those two states. Wisconsin gave up $810 million and Ohio lost $400 million.

Illinois had previously received $1.2 billion in federal grants to upgrade tracks and signals for 110 mph Amtrak service on the Union Pacific Railroad route between Chicago and St. Louis. Amtrak trains currently are limited to 79 mph on the route.

...

Applications for the funding will be due on April 4, officials said.

...

[Baronvonellis]

The metra northside bridge repair project is going to start back up again this spring. They aren't going to disrupt the schedule this time and are going to keep the space for a potential third track by rebuilding a retaining wall on the west side. It's supposed to be completed in 2019 which is incredible for rebuilding 2.5 miles of track. At that rate it would take 100 years to build a high speed rail to St. Louis. I don't get how they completely rebuild the Dan Ryan in a couple years but it takes a 8 YEARS to replace a couple tiny rail bridges.

[Beta_Magellan]

^^^ Source? If they’re keeping the extra space, it’s great news.

I’m not worried about the timescale of the project—rebuilding the bridges is more to benefit trucks than riders, and while I think trucking is definitely underrated by most urbanists (it’s a pretty efficient way to get a lot of goods from one part of an urban area to another), as Aaron Renn noted this really shouldn’t be Metra’s biggest priority. I think the timeline has more to do with the financing structure than anything else.

[denizen467]

... It's supposed to be completed in 2019 which is incredible for rebuilding 2.5 miles of track. At that rate it would take 100 years to build a high speed rail to St. Louis. I don't get how they completely rebuild the Dan Ryan in a couple years but it takes a 8 YEARS to replace a couple tiny rail bridges.
Mind you it's like 25 rail bridges. Still, the timeframe seems ridiculous, unless it's a financial issue like B_M just said.

If it is going to be accomplished with no disruption, does that mean they are effectively building a 3rd track before reconstructing either existing track? If so, that's fantastic.

[ardecila]

I think the timeline has more to do with the financing structure than anything else.

No, the timeline is because Metra can't disrupt the train schedule. It's amazing how long construction takes when the users of the line refuse to shoulder any of the burden. Just look at the Second Avenue Subway.

I'm guessing the retaining wall has to do with construction staging. Metra was pretty clear earlier that they don't see the need for a third track. If building a retaining wall allows for a third track, that's just a side effect.

Metra's failure was one of communication, not one of poor engineering. They failed to let passengers know that their service WOULD be adjusted and schedules WOULD be changed. I rode the UP-N line pretty much every day over the summer, and Metra's only announcements were small pieces of printer paper tacked to the walls in stations.

If Metra had launched an all-out media blitz with big colorful signs (how about taking over some of that ad space?), conductor announcements, and flyers, it would have worked much better, and they could have saved a ton of money on re-engineering and project delays.

[denizen467]

^ I'm not sure about that, ardecila; the trains were (reportedly) overly crowded and poorly spaced. They wouldn't cancel a year's work just because pampered passengers needed more easing-in to the new regime. After all, just repeating the experiment this spring will not yield better results without actually changing the construction program, no?

Anyhow, how about a source on this, so we can actually see what the plans are? This link just says "coming soon": http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/about_metra/capitalprojects.html

[k1052]

There were a lot of problems with the new scheduling and it wasn't running right, but that should have been expected. Metra was always going to have to adjust the plan to minimize the disruption but that couldn't happen until they saw how it would run.

That said Metra did a TERRIBLE job telling people on the line what was going to happen and urge them to find alternatives. One thing the CTA did right was scare the crap out of people when Fullerton and Belmont were being rebuilt and bluntly (and repeatedly) telling riders that they need to use alternatives.

[Mr Downtown]

They . . . are going to keep the space for a potential third track by rebuilding a retaining wall on the west side.

Are you sure? I thought Metra was too shy to challenge UP's absurd standards for track centers. After all, you never know when two oversize nuclear containment vessels might need to pass each other at Roscoe Street while there's a full construction crew with front-end loader in between the tracks. Space on the embankment for a theoretical third track does no good if all the through-girder bridges are placed for two tracks.

[Beta_Magellan]

^^^I’ve also heard it’s to allow UP trains more room in case if they derail because they find allowing a certain number of derailments to be less expensive than proper track maintenance, though I’d expect Metra to shoulder a lot of that burden.

Too bad Metra wasn’t able to just buy the lines it needed from C&NW outright back when it went under.

[ardecila]

That said Metra did a TERRIBLE job telling people on the line what was going to happen and urge them to find alternatives. One thing the CTA did right was scare the crap out of people when Fullerton and Belmont were being rebuilt and bluntly (and repeatedly) telling riders that they need to use alternatives.

Bingo. If you look at recent megaprojects by IDOT or CDOT, they get the word out. They notify the newsradio stations and TV stations, post massive signs, create a dedicated website with information and suggested reroutes, etc.

The Wacker Drive project, and the recent Eisenhower rebuilding project, have gone remarkably well.

Are you sure? I thought Metra was too shy to challenge UP's absurd standards for track centers. After all, you never know when two oversize nuclear containment vessels might need to pass each other at Roscoe Street while there's a full construction crew with front-end loader in between the tracks. Space on the embankment for a theoretical third track does no good if all the through-girder bridges are placed for two tracks.

I don't understand... there's no freight service on the UP-N line (at least within Chicago). There is a small amount of freight that moves on the UP (there is that little yard at Lemoyne) but it must be a tiny amount, and I think it all comes and goes via the Northwest line.

[Mr Downtown]

^That's what makes it so absurd for UP to insist on the same track centers they like to have through Nebraska ranchland.

C&NW never "went under," Beta. UP simply bought it in 1995.

[Baronvonellis]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-metra-up-north-20110311,0,1072777.story

^^^ Here's the link to the story guys.

[ardecila]

C&NW never "went under," Beta. UP simply bought it in 1995.

Yeah, from what I understand it was mostly motivated by C&NW restricting UP's access to the hugely lucrative Powder River Basin.

C&NW was one of the most "responsible" railroads in the country... they were perfectly fine continuing to operate commuter service - it had always been a cornerstone of their business. They built their physical plant to last, and kept it that way through pretty routine maintenance. For example, they used granite for ballast instead of limestone - kinda like paving roads with concrete instead of asphalt, it has a higher initial cost but a much longer lifespan.

They were sorta like the Midwest's version of the PRR - definitely the premier railroad in the upper Midwest (which had a very crowded field of competitor railroads).

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-metra-up-north-20110311,0,1072777.story

^^^ Here's the link to the story guys.

Metra: New UP North plan won't change schedule
Rebuilding bridges will cost $40 million more than original plan

By Richard Wronski, Tribune reporter
7:51 PM CST, March 11, 2011

Metra officials Friday unveiled their new plan to replace century-old bridges on the Union Pacific North Line, avoiding the train schedule changes that stirred up a rider revolt last year.

The revised project, now pegged at $215 million, will cost $40 million more than originally estimated, however, because new retaining walls will be built along the western edge of the tracks on Chicago's North Side.

The new plan will allow Metra to keep two tracks in service while the bridges are reconstructed, unlike the single-track scheme attempted last year, which prompted an uproar among commuters.

Running 70 trains a day through a single set of tracks proved a scheduling nightmare. Commuters complained, and UP North ridership dropped 10 percent in September, forcing Metra to scrap the plan.

Metra Chairwoman Carole Doris said staffers "went back to the drawing board," and she was optimistic the new plan would succeed.

...

The bridges date as far back as 1898, with abutments built out of limestone blocks. Although the line is owned by the Union Pacific Railway, which operates the commuter trains, Metra must pick up the tab for the project, officials said.

Metra awarded the contract to Walsh Construction Co. last year.

The rail right-of-way once contained three sets of tracks, and the new plan leaves room for replacement of the third track, although there are no plans or money to do so, officials said.

UP North riders, railroad experts and at least one board member, James LaBelle, had criticized the original plan for not including room for the third track.

[ardecila]

I hope they can keep the limestone abutments. Those are great, and they last far longer than concrete. Look at the concrete at the Rogers underpass - it's crumbling, while the limestone at other underpasses is still going strong.

The limestone is unsightly - most of the limestone abutments were whitewashed, which then stained from runoff from the rusty bridges. But this should be fairly easy to clean with some sandblasting, and they won't re-stain since the bridges are being replaced.

[Beta_Magellan]

C&NW never "went under," Beta. UP simply bought it in 1995.

Ah, didn’t realize that—whenever I hear about a defunct railroad I usually just assume it went out of business. Thanks for the correction.

[ardecila]

Metra 35th Station

For some reason, this shot seems very Dutch to me... looks like it could be in Rotterdam or something (if they could build sunken highways in Rotterdam). I can see why Koolhaas saw potential in the area.

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/6358/superdutch.jpg

Courtesy of Steven Vance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/5432398241/in/set-72157625098731262/lightbox/)

[bnk]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/4369884-418/daley-pushes-plan-for-high-speed-train-to-ohare.html


Daley pushes plan for high-speed train to O’Hare

BY FRAN SPIELMAN

City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com


Last Modified: Mar 18, 2011 05:01AM


Chicago is taking the first concrete step toward realizing Mayor Daley’s dream of building a fast train from downtown to O’Hare Airport — privately financed and operated and priced at a premium.

...

The solicitation will be issued after Daley and a delegation of civic and business leaders return March 30 from a 12-day trip to China to market Chicago as a destination for Chinese tourists and business investment.

But Daley plans to use the trip to five Chinese cities, including Hong Kong and Beijing, to pitch a project he hopes will someday be his transportation legacy to Chicago.

“The high-speed train from O’Hare to downtown Chicago would be the first of its kind in America. That’s to rebuild our commercial and residential market downtown,” the mayor said.

“You arrive at the airport and come downtown in 20 minutes. Same thing with tourists. Instead of taking two hours, three hours to get out to the airport sometimes, you’re out in 20 minutes.”

Daley said the 17-member committee chaired by industrialist Lester Crown has “interviewed many sovereign funds” and is “moving very rapidly” to line up financing “alternatives.”

....

“We should not be worried about foreign investments. They are investing in our country. They are investing in business. They are investing in our work force. They are not buying our country. America has invested in the rest of the world. They were welcome investments. And we have to welcome investments from China.”

Citing interest already expressed by investors from China, Japan and the Middle East, Daley gave Crown a mandate that “no city money’’ be used to build or operate the “separate private system.’’

...

Is the mayor now convinced that the project will actually be built?

...

In London, air travelers pay $25 for the Heathrow Express.

Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino refused to speculate on the possible cost of a Chicago fare.

She simply called it a “better service” targeting business travelers.

[Beta_Magellan]

Does it really take two-three hours to get out to the airport from downtown? It’s never taken me that long from Hyde Park, though I’ve never taken transit or a flight during rush hour. Even so, way to promote the city! :rolleyes:

Also, isn’t it a little late for Daley to be pushing for a big “transportation legacy” project? Although I definitely agree that he could have done more, having accomplished the Green, Cermak/Pink, Dan Ryan, and Brown Line rebuilds isn’t too bad of a legacy either, even if it doesn’t land him a big “Daley line” on the map (and he would have been able to add some preliminary BRT, too, had he not shot himself in the foot over parking and the transit union negotiations, plus the useful-to-many X-buses, which were lost in the union pay shuffle).

Anyway, I’m of two minds about the airport express project. On the one hand, if we have a real HSR network, a link to O’Hare would probably be worthwhile: SNCF had an O’Hare link in its big midwest study (pdf) (http://http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/sncf/Midwest.pdf), and the Midwest HSR analysis (http://www.midwesthsr.org/mhsra-bullet-train-proposal) found that an O’Hare link would be a major boost to a Chicago-St. Louis 220-mph project. However, both of those would be part of a larger system—I don’t know if there’s enough demand for a separate service. It’s also worth noting that the only two airport HSR links I can think of off the top of my head are the Satolas-Saint/Lyon Saint-Exupéry station, which has disappointing ridership but notable architecture, and the Narita Shinkansen, which is the only unfinished (and now likely never to be finished) Shinkansen route. However, parts of its ROW are now used by the Keisei Sky Access Line, which is a 100-mph service—I think this is the sort of thing we’re most likely to see here, and they’re only using HSR as shorthand for “faster than your average Amtrak.”

There’s also the issue of constructing the line—if they’re not able temporally separate freight, they’ll either have to use heavy FRA equipment or build their own tracks—the first option would likely mean kissing profitability goodbye, the second would make it near-impossible to finance without public aid (they should be able to operate alongside Metra, though—Caltrain’s FRA waiver stated that the new, lighter EMUs could operate alongside diesel-powered, FRA-compliant Caltrain sets, just not freight).

So, count me as a skeptic about this line for now. Hope it’s able to be done competently and in a manner that could allow it to link up with a larger HSR network later, but if that’s not possible it shouldn’t be done at all.

[emathias]

...
So, count me as a skeptic about this line for now. Hope it’s able to be done competently and in a manner that could allow it to link up with a larger HSR network later, but if that’s not possible it shouldn’t be done at all.

I'm a little skeptical, too, although I'd love to see it.

I think something like this would be a nice long-term place. The downtown portion would be all run in deep subways.

RED = tunnels downtown, tunnels or surface routes outside of downtown

BLUE = solid blue would be two stations, one in the West Loop to serve the central business district, one near Watertower to serve the abundance of hotels in that area, plus the businesses and high-end residences there. Dotted blue spots are potential stations for a circulator that would use the same tracks. Potentially, a third main stop could be added at Millennium Park, although I don't think it would be strictly necessary given the circulator.

GREEN = HSR station and tracks

Routing would be for every other train to run either clockwise or counter-clockwise around the underground loop. Travel time to the first stop would be about 15 minutes, to the second stop, about 20 minutes, so anyone could take either one without having to wait or take much longer, or they could wait for one that goes direct during high-frequency times. Dedicated loop shuttles would use the tracks running every 5 minutes or so as circulators between downtown stops. I show the cross-loop leg going under Adams, but it could reasonably cross under any of the streets from Monroe to Congress. if it were a deep tunnel it wouldn't need to use the ROW under Monroe if other routings were preferred. The western side of the loop could have transfer stations with a Clinton Street subway running above it, and when that's built, the western portal from the Dearborn Subway could be built out to accomodate a routing the Green Line into the subway to make use of that transfer point under Block 37 instead of being on the elevated Loop.

All together, if worked as part of an overall downtown business-oriented transportation plan, in 20 years you could end up with radically better downtown transit with high-speed links to O'Hare, interfaces with the "L" system, and interfaces with an HSR system. And the potential for a eastern side of the new Loop serving as part of a lake-front rail line to support new lakefront development on the south side. HSR couldn't use the looping portion of the tracks, but I think airport high-speed trains could be built to work with the tighter corners needed, as long as they weren't as tight as current "L" corners.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5052/5540629785_fde6031838_o.gif

[Jenner]

I'm getting confused with a mixture of ideas coming in, that I'm not sure how they would coalesce into one plan.

The High speed rail thread has a discussion where a 220mph train would have dedicated tracks going to St Louis. This originates in Chicago somewhere, my guess would be Union Station. Assuming dedicated tracks for the whole project, these tracks would be elevated in the city and suburbs.

Ardecila mentions in that thread a possibility of adding a high speed rail station at McCormick. Why is this needed? Are the transit options lacking in any way? With HSR, I would think you would need fewer stations. Would an outer loop connecting the Union/Olgalvie stations with Navy Pier and McCormick place be better?

The western loop mega station would combine Olgalvie and Union stations with a Blue line subway stop (thus rerouting the Blue line). This massive station would also host a high speed transfer station. If everything is funneling into Union, wouldn't the station require a massive amount of reconfiguration? Is the space available to do so? Assuming HSR goes into this station, the tracks would slope from elevated to ground/below ground level into the station, then back to elevated again.

Emathius' idea for O'Hare high speed would use the current Blue line track along 90/94, whereas the O'hare thread would use the MD-W and North Central tracks. Would this high speed train use its own dedicated tracks?
The high speed idea for O'hare seems tied into other high speed train projects, where the train would then continue to Milwaukee, or General Mitchell Airport. Should the Milwaukee line continue from Union, and leave the O'Hare part separate? This option wouldn't need a massive transfer-through station at O'Hare, and O'Hare would just be an endpoint.

There's also the CTA Gray line (which might impact a HSR McCormick station), some ideas for a CTA outer loop subway, as well as the circular track.

I'm just trying to see how everything jives together. :gaah:

[emathias]

I'm getting confused with a mixture of ideas coming in, that I'm not sure how they would coalesce into one plan.

The High speed rail thread has a discussion where a 220mph train would have dedicated tracks going to St Louis. This originates in Chicago somewhere, my guess would be Union Station. Assuming dedicated tracks for the whole project, these tracks would be elevated in the city and suburbs.

Ardecila mentions in that thread a possibility of adding a high speed rail station at McCormick. Why is this needed? Are the transit options lacking in any way? With HSR, I would think you would need fewer stations. Would an outer loop connecting the Union/Olgalvie stations with Navy Pier and McCormick place be better?

The western loop mega station would combine Olgalvie and Union stations with a Blue line subway stop (thus rerouting the Blue line). This massive station would also host a high speed transfer station. If everything is funneling into Union, wouldn't the station require a massive amount of reconfiguration? Is the space available to do so? Assuming HSR goes into this station, the tracks would slope from elevated to ground/below ground level into the station, then back to elevated again.

Emathius' idea for O'Hare high speed would use the current Blue line track along 90/94, whereas the O'hare thread would use the MD-W and North Central tracks. Would this high speed train use its own dedicated tracks?
The high speed idea for O'hare seems tied into other high speed train projects, where the train would then continue to Milwaukee, or General Mitchell Airport. Should the Milwaukee line continue from Union, and leave the O'Hare part separate? This option wouldn't need a massive transfer-through station at O'Hare, and O'Hare would just be an endpoint.

There's also the CTA Gray line (which might impact a HSR McCormick station), some ideas for a CTA outer loop subway, as well as the circular track.

I'm just trying to see how everything jives together. :gaah:

First of all, there are almost zero official, solid plans for any of those things. All of my suggestions fall into the "if I were King, this is what I'd have done" category. I can't speak for other people's ideas.

My post immediately before yours was pretty self-contained and, I should point out, while it follows the same general route from the West Loop to O'Hare, it is NOT my suggestion to use the Blue Line tracks (neither map shows a route that is directly aligned with the Blue Line routing so I'm not sure how you could have confused that). I never said that anywhere. I merely combined a secondary suggestion into the description of the maps, describing how the airport express could interface with (which is different from "use the same tracks as") other parts of Chicago transportation both as it currently stands and how it could be reconfigured.

I don't mean any disrespect, but is English your first language?

[ardecila]

Ardecila mentions in that thread a possibility of adding a high speed rail station at McCormick. Why is this needed? Are the transit options lacking in any way? With HSR, I would think you would need fewer stations. Would an outer loop connecting the Union/Olgalvie stations with Navy Pier and McCormick place be better?

The McCormick station is just a possibility, because the Metra Electric/IC line runs along the lakefront, and it can be converted to HSR very easily - it has lots of room, wide curves, and it's already electrified. If Illinois builds a 220mph line, it will probably use the IC tracks to reach Union Station at high speed (no slowing down around commuter trains, freight, or tight curves). The IC happens to run beneath McCormick Place, where many business travelers go during conventions, so some planner decided to pitch the idea for a McCormick Place station.

The western loop mega station would combine Olgalvie and Union stations with a Blue line subway stop (thus rerouting the Blue line). This massive station would also host a high speed transfer station. If everything is funneling into Union, wouldn't the station require a massive amount of reconfiguration? Is the space available to do so? Assuming HSR goes into this station, the tracks would slope from elevated to ground/below ground level into the station, then back to elevated again.

Yeah, cramming rapid transit, HSR, Amtrak, buses, and 8 Metra lines into the West Loop area will be very challenging. For ease of construction, the West Loop Transportation Center will probably NOT connect into the Blue Line... building the underground junctions with existing tracks is very very expensive. The current plan is to re-route the Red Line into the West Loop, which is a longer project but possibly easier to build. I've seen bits and pieces of the WLTC plans... I'm pretty confident that it can be built, but I don't think two tracks is enough for 10 million Chicagoans.

Maybe we should take a page out of the 1930s playbook and build a massive new China-style station in Riverside Park at 18th, combined with a massively dense new development.

[nomarandlee]

Also, isn’t it a little late for Daley to be pushing for a big “transportation legacy” project? .
What I am wondering is if him and Quinn are passing ships in the night on this issue. It seems that rather predictably there seems to be a different vision and agenda by the two on how and who should get airport express service implemented.

Would Daleys plan, like Quinn, also involve Amtrak? Is Daley still hoping to get foreign funding and partnership for his own version of a city run airport express?
However, both of those would be part of a larger system—I don’t know if there’s enough demand for a separate service.
If it was part of its own separate service I think it would be wise to try to get such a system to code share with Amtrak and perhaps the Airlines to include a reduced price express ride incorporated into a passengers ticket. All the southern and western HSR/Amtrak train passengers will be stopping through Union anyway so directing them to an express train that leaves say every 20 minutes wouldn't be much of a minus.

My gut is that an independent service could be successful even without such tie-ins but obviously it would be a coup to partner up.
It’s also worth noting that the only two airport HSR links I can think of off the top of my head are the Satolas-Saint/Lyon Saint-Exupéry station, which has disappointing ridership but notable architecture, and the Narita Shinkansen, which is the only unfinished (and now likely never to be finished) Shinkansen route.
The Frankfurt Airport service has ICE service to Cologne leaving right from the airport. The Frankfurt Airport HSR station is incredible as well. I would be stoked for O'Hare to get 1/3 of an opulent inter modal station.

There’s also the issue of constructing the line—if they’re not able temporally separate freight, they’ll either have to use heavy FRA equipment or build their own tracks—the first option would likely mean kissing profitability goodbye,
I was thinking that running the DMU cars that were going to be bought for the STAR line could perhaps suffice. I thought I read somewhere that it was the Bombardier Talent train sets that were being looked at as a possible choice for STAR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(train)

[k1052]

Yeah, cramming rapid transit, HSR, Amtrak, buses, and 8 Metra lines into the West Loop area will be very challenging. For ease of construction, the West Loop Transportation Center will probably NOT connect into the Blue Line... building the underground junctions with existing tracks is very very expensive. The current plan is to re-route the Red Line into the West Loop, which is a longer project but possibly easier to build. I've seen bits and pieces of the WLTC plans... I'm pretty confident that it can be built, but I don't think two tracks is enough for 10 million Chicagoans.

Maybe we should take a page out of the 1930s playbook and build a massive new China-style station in Riverside Park at 18th, combined with a massively dense new development.

As more of CREATE is completed Metra will be able to realign some service to LaSalle St. Station (which is already underused and has room to add at least a couple more platforms if Metra) to create some breathing room at Union.

Some sort of CTA heavy rail integration with Union and Ogilvie is a must for the future. To address the lack of HSR track and platform space I don't think anything is preventing a vertical solution or creating a 2nd set under Canal.

[CTA Gray Line]

Like the TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS already WASTED on Mayor Daley's Airport Express idea at Block 37
(his motivation being a Big Green Cash Cornucopia for all his connected Consultants, and Construction Companies);
it is "The Emperor's New Clothes" all over again - where nobody D A R E tell His Honor "That Won't Work" Sillyhead.

Unless it is an Air Terminal-to-Downtown Multi-Billion Dollar Mag-Lev System, it won't attract either Investors,
or very many Passengers (like this one in Shanghai doesn't): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqAJemM6xYs&feature=related

Gov. Quinn had a better and cheaper idea of integrating such a service into existing Amtrak and Metra Rail Infrastructure.

[denizen467]

High speed is not critical for the airport link. Reliability is what is first and foremost necessary.

If a passenger downtown can be 99% sure of arriving at ORD at a specified time -- regardless of whether it's 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or even 40 minutes away -- it makes the CTA decision more of a no-brainer.

So what is necessary to launch the service are some bypass tracks to nearly eliminate the question of delays.

The second-most important factor would be having a dedicated, clean railcar, preferably with a reconfigured interior with more comfortable seats and space for luggage. Also preferably with plenty of soundproofing (especially for the tunnels).

The mere fact that tired passengers can avoid the constant opening/closing of doors, crowding by miscellaneous commuting passengers, gushing of frigid or hot air, and also not worry about having to rush off the train carrying suitcases during the 30 seconds it is stopped at their destination stop, will make the airport link a natural choice for people.

Beyond all that, one day upgrading it to high-speed is just gravy, if it is actually financially feasible.

[Jenner]

First of all, there are almost zero official, solid plans for any of those things. All of my suggestions fall into the "if I were King, this is what I'd have done" category. I can't speak for other people's ideas.

As it is, all of these projects are just ideas. However, many are being spoken with some seriousness, as there is a huge push for high speed rail as well as a proposed high speed rail going from downtown to O'Hare. Since there seem to be many proposals on the table, some appear to have conflicting resources, and I was merely suggesting that all plans need to take each other into account so that a master plan of sorts can be created.

I'm very skeptical that the ridership of any of these proposals justify the cost. However, the uninterrupted rail line from downtown to O'Hare may have enough ridership to eventually break even or produce a profit, assuming $15 a ticket. I haven't taken a taxi ride for a while, but I'm guessing that $15+ is about the price of a taxi ride going from O'Hare to downtown. I'm sure that someone here can provide a more accurate fee. Limo rides would be more expensive. And, I agree that this line wouldn't need to be tied to other HSR projects.

My post immediately before yours was pretty self-contained and, I should point out, while it follows the same general route from the West Loop to O'Hare, it is NOT my suggestion to use the Blue Line tracks (neither map shows a route that is directly aligned with the Blue Line routing so I'm not sure how you could have confused that). I never said that anywhere. I merely combined a secondary suggestion into the description of the maps, describing how the airport express could interface with (which is different from "use the same tracks as") other parts of Chicago transportation both as it currently stands and how it could be reconfigured.
I misspoke and assumed facts regarding your interpretation. I should have probably said "Emathius' O'Hare HSR plan appears to follow the blue line corridor going into O'Hare".

I don't mean any disrespect, but is English your first language?
I feel slighted at the question, and yes, English is my primary language.


The current plan is to re-route the Red Line into the West Loop, which is a longer project but possibly easier to build. I've seen bits and pieces of the WLTC plans... I'm pretty confident that it can be built, but I don't think two tracks is enough for 10 million Chicagoans. Wow. I thought the red line stops in downtown perform very well for that line. I'm not sure why they would want to re-route it if this project comes to fruition. Having Union/Ogalvie tie into the CTA would be great. Maybe an outer loop circulator would be better?

[ardecila]

As more of CREATE is completed Metra will be able to realign some service to LaSalle St. Station (which is already underused and has room to add at least a couple more platforms if Metra) to create some breathing room at Union.

Some sort of CTA heavy rail integration with Union and Ogilvie is a must for the future. To address the lack of HSR track and platform space I don't think anything is preventing a vertical solution or creating a 2nd set under Canal.

LaSalle is underused, but it doesn't have room for expansion unless they start tearing down adjacent buildings. It's also an absolutely crappy station. It has one tiny room for waiting, and the rest of the station is outdoors and unsheltered. The station really only exists at the whim of the Chicago Stock Exchange that it wraps around.

Hopefully Metra can bring in some architects and make LaSalle into a proper station. SOM did a tremendous job making Millennium Station into a dignified place.

At Union, Metra can re-arrange the layout to bring a fourth track into the north side and add a second through track along the river. The problem is that because of the station layout, the platforms will have a kink in them (or two, actually). That doesn't meet modern standards, and potential high-speed trains will be quite long.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4707/cusdiagram.jpg

[the urban politician]

So when do the hoes come out?

ie, when do we get to see some action?

[lawfin]

I haven't taken a taxi ride for a while, but I'm guessing that $15+ is about the price of a taxi ride going from O'Hare to downtown. I'm sure that someone here can provide a more accurate fee. Limo rides would be more expensive. And, I agree that this line wouldn't need to be tied to other HSR projects.

Its considerably more than $15; closer to 40 or more esp in traffic.

[ChiPsy]

(Sorry for the double-post.)

[ChiPsy]

Yeah; based on recent trips, I'll second that cost estimate, with tip (at least in the traffic I experienced going there). Because of that (and because auto traffic to O'Hare varies so wildly, you have to build in a giant, time-wasting safety margin), I'd gladly pay $50 to get to O'Hare if the service was fast and reliable, and I'd pay significantly more if it was really fast.

Btw, my time is probably worth less than half of the money many Loop workers earn (and theoretically would value) on a per-hour basis. So others theoretically should be willing to pay even more.

[Beta_Magellan]

This discussion brings to mind something that was written at Human Transit (http://www.humantransit.org/2010/10/midweek-quickies.html):

Demand for airport service is always much lower than its political popularity. Every voter can imagine that rail to the airport would be cool and that they'd use it occasionally. But strong all-day ridership comes from serving airport employees, many of whom don't work at the main terminal.

This also has the corollary that a lot of people who fly very often (i. e. upper business class) are more likely to have some pull on (or overlap with) the political class. That’s why I’d like to see a special airport train (i. e. one that doesn’t work as well with an ordinary commute) piggybacked onto another project, and if we don’t want to wait for a big HSR line than something smaller like improving the North Central Service and providing space for an airport express might do. It would also have the advantage of improving commuter rail service, so even if a private airport service folds any public money put into the infrastructure would still be put to good use (I’m surprised improving the NCS isn’t a higher priority—that corridor seems like it could sustain Milwaukee District levels of service and have a strong reverse commuter base too).

What I am wondering is if him and Quinn are passing ships in the night on this issue. It seems that rather predictably there seems to be a different vision and agenda by the two on how and who should get airport express service implemented.

Would Daleys plan, like Quinn, also involve Amtrak? Is Daley still hoping to get foreign funding and partnership for his own version of a city run airport express?

I’d guess that the private project will mostly die when Daley leaves, perhaps belching out an overoptimistic report before it expires. Rahm’s stated transit preferences—the northern Red Line rebuild and southern extension—are the top two in CMAP’s list of priorities for the CTA, so it looks like he’ll have a more technocratic approach to transit with fewer vanity projects like the Circle Line or Block 37 Airport Express. This attitude would seem to lend itself more to Quinn’s Amtrak-partnering proposal, which has a clearer path towards implementation than Daley’s proposal. It’s also worth noting that in Daley’s scheme the mayor would be the brunt of all political risk, whereas bringing the state and Amtrak into the picture helps spread that risk around.

[ardecila]

I’m surprised improving the NCS isn’t a higher priority—that corridor seems like it could sustain Milwaukee District levels of service and have a strong reverse commuter base too.

Well, Metra already spent upwards of $200 million to double-track the line all the way from Schiller Park to Antioch. I'd say that qualifies as a big improvement.

It's a little weird - the double-tracking was set up to allow Metra trains to use one track and CN the other, rather than using them directionally.

Still, as part of the EJ&E acquisition, CN plans to dramatically reduce freight traffic on the NCS line. They haven't done this yet because they haven't finished their mitigation on the EJ&E, so the Feds won't allow them to increase the trains on that line yet.

[Beta_Magellan]

:previous: In their Go To 2040 project evaluation, CMAP only listed that double tracking as a “first phase” of the project, though—they estimated another $300 million would be necessary for “full service.” Although they’ve taken down their big list of proposed projects, ones affecting the northern suburbs can still be found here:

http://www.nwmc-cog.org/Transportation/Documents/MajorCapitalProjectsNWMCArea.aspx

[schwerve]

LaSalle is underused, but it doesn't have room for expansion unless they start tearing down adjacent buildings. It's also an absolutely crappy station. It has one tiny room for waiting, and the rest of the station is outdoors and unsheltered. The station really only exists at the whim of the Chicago Stock Exchange that it wraps around.

Hopefully Metra can bring in some architects and make LaSalle into a proper station. SOM did a tremendous job making Millennium Station into a dignified place.

At Union, Metra can re-arrange the layout to bring a fourth track into the north side and add a second through track along the river. The problem is that because of the station layout, the platforms will have a kink in them (or two, actually). That doesn't meet modern standards, and potential high-speed trains will be quite long.

I don't understand your hatred of LaSalle. It's nothing special but as a basic, clean, usable commuter station, perfectly fine. It's complete covered and only needs a small waiting room as most people walk directly onto scheduled trains. It can take Southwest and potential Southeast Metra service and do well, but shouldn't be used for much more than that. It can use some upgrades such as a direct connection to the LaSalle blue line station or more seating in the waiting room but other than that, serves its purpose effectively.

[ardecila]

:previous: In their Go To 2040 project evaluation, CMAP only listed that double tracking as a “first phase” of the project, though—they estimated another $300 million would be necessary for “full service.” Although they’ve taken down their big list of proposed projects, ones affecting the northern suburbs can still be found here:

http://www.nwmc-cog.org/Transportation/Documents/MajorCapitalProjectsNWMCArea.aspx

AFAIK, the only capital spending required for the NCS is a reconfiguration of platforms at certain stations, a purchase of new locomotives/cars, and possibly change to the signaling system.

Those three things could easily add up to $300 million (the majority is the new rolling stock) but not a whole lot of actual construction.

EDIT: apparently Metra only double-tracked up to Mundelein. Further up to Antioch there is only one track, and the CN freight will not be moving away from this segment.

I don't understand your hatred of LaSalle. It's nothing special but as a basic, clean, usable commuter station, perfectly fine. It's complete covered and only needs a small waiting room as most people walk directly onto scheduled trains. It can take Southwest and potential Southeast Metra service and do well, but shouldn't be used for much more than that. It can use some upgrades such as a direct connection to the LaSalle blue line station or more seating in the waiting room but other than that, serves its purpose effectively.

It's embarrassing. The access is fairly awkward and has no major gateway feature - if you don't know where the two entrances are, you won't find them. They're hidden inside the Stock Exchange office building. Apart from the one small cramped room, there is no place to wait for trains, and the surrounding neighborhood is dead, so it's not like there are places nearby either. In a city with bitterly cold winters, the platform area is very open and windswept. Perhaps if I remembered the shithole that LaSalle was before the early 90s, I might feel differently, but that's not an excuse. (I do remember, but only very very vaguely - as a toddler taking the Rock in from Beverly)

The new bus terminal and south entrance are great, but it's sad that it took this long.

Too bad they demolished the train shed during the Depression.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/94/lasalle6.jpg

[Godwindaniel]

Hey love this megabus. It is very useful for metro area.

[k1052]

LaSalle is underused, but it doesn't have room for expansion unless they start tearing down adjacent buildings. It's also an absolutely crappy station. It has one tiny room for waiting, and the rest of the station is outdoors and unsheltered. The station really only exists at the whim of the Chicago Stock Exchange that it wraps around.

Hopefully Metra can bring in some architects and make LaSalle into a proper station. SOM did a tremendous job making Millennium Station into a dignified place.

At Union, Metra can re-arrange the layout to bring a fourth track into the north side and add a second through track along the river. The problem is that because of the station layout, the platforms will have a kink in them (or two, actually). That doesn't meet modern standards, and potential high-speed trains will be quite long.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4707/cusdiagram.jpg

If you take a look at the the lines where they pass over Polk, specifically the bridge abutments it looks like they envisioned more track space and there is is some leftover space between the station and LaSalle St.

But yea, the station facilities are basically non-existent. Hopefully if Metra moves more service over there they will improve that situation.

To get HSR into Union Station itself 222 S Riverside would have to go so they could build the long platforms needed and reposition the concourse above platform level.

[schwerve]

It's embarrassing. The access is fairly awkward and has no major gateway feature - if you don't know where the two entrances are, you won't find them. They're hidden inside the Stock Exchange office building. Apart from the one small cramped room, there is no place to wait for trains, and the surrounding neighborhood is dead, so it's not like there are places nearby either. In a city with bitterly cold winters, the platform area is very open and windswept. Perhaps if I remembered the shithole that LaSalle was before the early 90s, I might feel differently, but that's not an excuse. (I do remember, but only very very vaguely - as a toddler taking the Rock in from Beverly)

The new bus terminal and south entrance are great, but it's sad that it took this long.

Too bad they demolished the train shed during the Depression.

I simply don't get the emotional response. This is not to say the critiques are wrong, but these are design standards that aren't necessary. LaSalle is designed for its use, a pass through terminal commuter station to the loop that serves a single line. It's not Union or Ogilvie, both deal with much higher passenger loads and multiple lines with different frequencies. A full train shed and large waiting room are irrelevant to 95% of users as nobody waits for trains in the station, most walk directly onto the next scheduled train and wait there. The waiting room is sized for the people using it, riders purchasing tickets and off-peak users (I've never seen it full outside of after the occasional weekend festival in the city). Southern access will be nice, but until recently most people would never actually go south of van buren. The station is boring, innocuous, and completely competent to its task.

[nomarandlee]

LaSalle is underused, but it doesn't have room for expansion unless they start tearing down adjacent buildings. It's also an absolutely crappy station. It has one tiny room for waiting, and the rest of the station is outdoors and unsheltered. The station really only exists at the whim of the Chicago Stock Exchange that it wraps around.
Are we sure LaSalle station couldn't be expanded? It seems from looking at bing maps that there is room for another platform, perhaps two, if it expanded towards S.LaSalle St. Perhaps one more track could be built towards Finacial Place.

To bad that the old train shed was knocked down years ago, it looks like in its hayday it was pretty grand.

[nomarandlee]

Too bad they demolished the train shed during the Depression.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/94/lasalle6.jpg

A bit OT....Why did the railroads have no issue having train shed even with diesel train exhaust? If we did it back then would it theoretically be any less doable to reconstruct them today to house over diesel trains or would it be deemed a health hazzard.

[ardecila]

The old train sheds were built in the steam era, so they got pretty smoky. From what I understand, they worked great for diesel trains. The problem was that they were difficult to maintain, so they often sprung leaks. This is why Chicago stations tore down numerous train sheds and replaced them with lower canopies.

It's perfectly possible to build a modern train shed... I'm guessing the air quality would be better than it currently is at Ogilvie or Union, since the warm exhaust would rise to the top and exit through vents. If designed properly the shed uses natural convection to refresh the air.

They've built plenty of train sheds in Europe. My favorite is in Dresden, where Norman Foster's shed ties seamlessly into the Beaux-Arts station.. There are also lots of modernist sheds that aren't barrel-vaulted, like Lisbon's Gare do Oriente (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_do_Oriente).

[Mr Downtown]

I could be wrong, but I actually have the impression that smoke exhaust worked better (in relative terms) with steam locomotives than with diesels because the steam locomotives had taller smokestacks that were just a few inches below the smoke slots. That's one of the reasons Union Station's trainsheds were so low, requiring a novel cross-section. That could also be one reason for the demise of the high balloon trainshed at LaSalle Street. The smoke was highly corrosive and the structural members would have significant deterioration after a few years.

For the Daily News building, extensive tests were done with a mockup structure in the CB&Q yards, and Holabird & Roche eventually developed a technique of using an expansion chamber directly above the slots where the smokestacks exhausted. The air from that expansion chamber could then be drawn up and out at the roof by mechanical fans and the stack effect.

[ardecila]

I could be wrong, but I actually have the impression that smoke exhaust worked better (in relative terms) with steam locomotives than with diesels because the steam locomotives had taller smokestacks that were just a few inches below the smoke slots. That's one of the reasons Union Station's trainsheds were so low, requiring a novel cross-section. That could also be one reason for the demise of the high balloon trainshed at LaSalle Street. The smoke was highly corrosive and the structural members would have significant deterioration after a few years.

Right, that's my point. The balloon trainshed was ill-suited to steam power and the low trainsheds were/still are ill-suited to diesel power. The Rock Island made a poor choice tearing down their balloon trainshed, because the implementation of diesel power only a few years later rendered the steam issue moot.

While we're on the subject of rail terminals, it's aggravating to me that Metra has not rebuilt the baggage platforms at Union Station for passenger use. They are wider than the passenger platforms, and more importantly, free of columns. Using both sets of platforms at the same time would greatly reduce congestion. Alternatively, the baggage platforms could be demolished and the tracks moved closer together, creating wider platforms spaced every two tracks.

For the Daily News building, extensive tests were done with a mockup structure in the CB&Q yards, and Holabird & Roche eventually developed a technique of using an expansion chamber directly above the slots where the smokestacks exhausted. The air from that expansion chamber could then be drawn up and out at the roof by mechanical fans and the stack effect.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8903/cdnk.jpg
Popular Mechanics, August 1928 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0d8DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA229&dq=popular%20mechanics%20holabird&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20holabird&f=true)

[Beta_Magellan]

Pretty off-topic, but I was walking from Wabash and Congress to Wabash and Washington this afternoon and never had to stop walking—every light was green as I crossed each street. I’ve read about the possibility of calibrating signals so as to match pedestrian flows rather than traffic flows in downtown areas, although typically in a speculative, just-throwing-it-out-there kind of way. I doubt that the lights on Wabash were timed to accommodate walking (and my typical pace is somewhat brisker than your average Chicagoan, anyway), but is there a reason for the timing on Wabash to be so favorable to a speed that wouldn’t be so quick for car traffic, or is it just a side effect of timing of the lights on the east-west streets?

[MayorOfChicago]

^ I can actually almost always walk from Wacker to State Street along Randolph and hit only green lights. I have to walk at my fast speed though, if I get behind a bunch of slow moving cows it screws everything up. I think it's just the timing of lights. I randomly know when and where I'm going to hit red lights when I do my usual routine during the day.

[ardecila]

Yeah, same. I need to be walking briskly but it is possible to go continuously down Randolph. It's weird, because running doesn't help; you'll just hit a red light and waste time waiting.

[Hayward]

Pretty off-topic, but I was walking from Wabash and Congress to Wabash and Washington this afternoon and never had to stop walking—every light was green as I crossed each street. I’ve read about the possibility of calibrating signals so as to match pedestrian flows rather than traffic flows in downtown areas, although typically in a speculative, just-throwing-it-out-there kind of way. I doubt that the lights on Wabash were timed to accommodate walking (and my typical pace is somewhat brisker than your average Chicagoan, anyway), but is there a reason for the timing on Wabash to be so favorable to a speed that wouldn’t be so quick for car traffic, or is it just a side effect of timing of the lights on the east-west streets?

Walking at a slightly brisk and constant speed, you can get lights on Michigan Avenue to be all green when crossing from Wacker to Chicago. Chicago Avenue always ruins everything. And if you miss the signal, you wait for eternity.

[Mr Downtown]

For decades, CDOT has ensured that signals in the Loop were set to accommodate pedestrians.

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, while the lights are synchronized for all E-W and N-S streets, I do believe the cycles are timed to basically be a multiple of average walking speeds. I forget the precise number, but if you set the right pace (somewhere around 3.5mph, I think) you should hit nothing but green.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Not sure of the date on this, but a pretty cool picture I found of the wacker drive project here http://wackerdrive.net/Photos/

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt1/JMTUNGSTEN/wacker-progress-01.jpg

[ardecila]

Holy crap! These are the first photos I've seen of the river tunnels since they closed in the 1950s! The tracks and cobbles are still intact! So cool...

I wonder if they'll get into the Van Buren tunnel when they get down to that section in 2012.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7582/wackerprogress06.jpg
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9182/wackerprogress07.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

I'm not clear why the Wacker rebuild involves the streetcar tunnel at all. The roof of the tunnel should be at least 4-5 feet below the new Lower Wacker slab. I think the "Van Buren" tunnel is even deeper.

[Nexis4Jersey]

what are they doing to the Tunnels?