[denizen467]

No evidence when I rode the UP North 2 weeks ago.

However, they still need to prepare construction drawings for the revised plan. That can take 18 months or more, and Metra only canceled the former plan last August. I imagine that, with the increased neighborhood impact of the new plan, Metra has to work through all the city politics as well.
There was some news a couple months back similar to the following:

http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/utility_landing/newsroom/newsroom/up_north_bridge_projecttoresumewithtwo-trackoperationnoschedulec.html

Metra Home / Newsroom

UP North bridge project to resume with two-track operation ...
03/14/2011

Metra will resume work in April on a major project to replace 22 aging bridges along the Union Pacific North line on the north side of Chicago, as well as to build a completely new Ravenswood Station.

...

the new approach will cost up to $42.2 million more, bringing the total cost of the project to $215 million. That’s because keeping two tracks open will require a new track to be built closer to the western edge of the right of way, which in turn will require extensive and expensive retaining wall work to support the new track. ...

...

Their replacement will be done in two phases of 11 bridges each. The first phase, which will cost $112 million and take until November 2015, will cover bridges over Balmoral, Foster, Winnemac, Lawrence, Leland, Wilson, Sunnyside, Montrose, Berteau, Irving Park and Grace. Construction of the new Ravenswood Station, the only stop in the construction zone and the busiest stop on the UP North line, will also be done in the first phase.

...

[CTA Gray Line]

No evidence when I rode the UP North 2 weeks ago.

However, they still need to prepare construction drawings for the revised plan. That can take 18 months or more, and Metra only canceled the former plan last August. I imagine that, with the increased neighborhood impact of the new plan, Metra has to work through all the city politics as well.

In other commuter-rail construction news, they've started work on the 130th/Torrence project. The included pedestrian bridge (in red) is awesome. :tup: I'm guessing it's intended to provide pedestrian/bike access from Hegewisch to the Ford plant gates and possibly the Red Line when they build it out to 130th.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9991/130thfull.jpg


The Red Line Extension to 130th St. would end immediately adjacent to the West side of the Bishop Ford Expressway, about 2 miles West of the 130th & Torrence Ave. intersection in the above illustration.


The Gray Line Conversion would provide a new CTA Hegewisch Shuttle from Kensington (operating over the South Shore Line tracks) with a 130th & Bishop Ford Expy. CTA 'L' Station to serve Atgeld Gardens, a 130th & Torrence Ave. CTA 'L' Station (just above the Blue Truss Bridge in the image shown above) to serve the Ford Assembly Plant - with the 'L' Shuttle service ending at a new CTA 'L' Terminal addition to the present Metra/South Shore Hegewisch Station.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Haven't checked the transit thread in a while, so does anyone know if they are making wells a 2 way street north of the river? There are lights going up for northbound traffic now.

[emathias]

Haven't checked the transit thread in a while, so does anyone know if they are making wells a 2 way street north of the river? There are lights going up for northbound traffic now.

Are there lights going up, or are the lights from when it was 2-way still up? As far as I know, they never removed some of the northbound lights.

[J_M_Tungsten]

O maybe that could be. What would be the north bound side of the road is torn up though, so not entirely sure.

[jc5680]

O maybe that could be. What would be the north bound side of the road is torn up though, so not entirely sure.

They have been doing utilities type work/maintenance on that stretch of Wells for weeks now.

[M II A II R II K]

Chicago Pedestrian Plan: City strives to be more pedestrian-friendly city


http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/traffic/ct-met-getting-around-0620-20110619,0,6145100.column

Work begins this week on the first-ever comprehensive pedestrian plan for Chicago, coming fresh off a tragic reminder that city efforts so far have yielded unexceptional results in safeguarding people walking across streets. A brown street sign marking Honorary Martha Gonzalez Place went up in East Pilsen last week on what would have been the Chicago woman's 38th birthday, almost two years after she was sprawled dead in the street, the victim of a hit-and-run driver who is still on the loose.

.....



http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2011-06/62607630.jpg

[M II A II R II K]

Kirk unveils plan to ease transit privatization


Read More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-kirk-to-unveil-plan-to-ease-transit-privatization-20110620,0,7495123.story

Republican Mark Kirk today unveiled a plan designed to make it easier for governments to lease public transportation assets or enter into partnerships with private companies to build them. In presenting the details of his--which runs counter to proposed legislation from Sen. Dick Durbin--said the plan could produce $100 billion for public-private partnerships on highway, mass transit, aviation and rail projects.

- "Our roads, rail, transit and airports are facing unprecedented funding shortfalls,” he said. “We should not further burden working families with higher gas taxes. Instead, we should look to our own economic history to find a solution.” The measure would "eliminate barriers for innovative funding options,'' he said. Joining Kirk at the announcement at the Union League Club were U.S. Reps. Randy Hultgren, a Winfield Republican, and Dan Lipinski, a Democrat from Western Springs.

- The initiative to loosen the reins on privatization, coming at a time of record federal and state deficits and the prospect of declining government spending on public infrastructure, runs counter to legislation that Democrat Durbin introduced Friday. It also follows controversial privatization deals in Chicago, including former Mayor Richard Daley's long-term leases of the Chicago Skyway and the city's parking meters. Daley also approved an agreement, which subsequently fell apart, to lease Midway Airport.

- In the case of the Skyway and Midway, the city spent hundreds of millions of dollars rebuilding both the elevated toll road to Indiana and the Southwest Side airport before putting them on the block. Chicago business owners and residents led by Little Village community activist Raul Montes Jr. called Sunday on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to end the city's lease of the tollway. "It's an infamous deal," Montes, 36, said. "When we sell Chicago's assets to alleviate budget concerns, it's pretty much fiscally irresponsible."

.....




http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/media/alternatethumbnails/story/2011-06/62613947-20063950.jpg

[ardecila]

This seems to be the big debate now... personally, I'm fine if brand-new facilities are built privately, but existing assets paid for with tax money should not be sold off.

[Beta_Magellan]

The main benefit of PPPs are that, done right, they shield the taxpayer from risk—less-than-expected demand or higher-than-expected maintenance costs in the case of leased-off existing infrastructure, or construction risk in the case of existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, a lot of them don’t do either and are merely giveaways, too often to politically-connected parties. Personally, I think most of the concessions are too long as well—30-40 years should be the maximum, not 99 years.

Still, I definitely think they have their place—Europe and Japan have both seen extensive private investment in infrastructure—but PPPs are tools to help get infrastructure built and maintained, not a panacea that will solve all of our infrastructure issues because it involves the magical private sector. Unfortunately, I get the impression that most Republicans at the federal level think the latter—witness Mica’s NEC privatization plan. While I think NEC privatization can be done well, he seems to assume that if SNCF or DB were to get rights to the corridor they’d be able to make improvements without much public money, whereas every report either group’s done about HSR in the US has emphasized the need for steady federal investment. Private sector involvement doesn’t take the government completely off the hook.

Back on topic, I’ve heard that Elgin-O’Hare might be finished by a PPP—anyone else heard anything about this?

[ardecila]

Back on topic, I’ve heard that Elgin-O’Hare might be finished by a PPP—anyone else heard anything about this?

The Elgin-O'Hare planning process is incredibly transparent, especially for an IDOT project. You can read all the meeting agendas and view the presentations at the official website (http://www.elginohare-westbypass.org/SitePages/Home.aspx). The Advisory Council has several different committees exploring financing, aesthetic design, engineering, diversity, and community impacts.

To answer your question, a PPP is being considered. Financial projections say that the expressway can't pay for itself purely through new tolls - tolls on existing highways would have to be raised.

In addition, the Advisory Council is looking to drastically reduce the cost of the project (by up to 40%). The hope is that much of this savings can be achieved by turning to a private company to build the road... private corporations can use non-union labor, they can leverage economies of scale, they have easier access to credit so they are more flexible in responding to cost-saving opportunities, etc.

[Nowhereman1280]

The contract for CREATE's Englewood Flyover was signed today. Completion of the project is all but inevitable now. Should be starting work soon with completion some time in 2013.

Thank God the backassward republicans in the house weren't able to succeed in killing this critical piece of infrastructure.

[ardecila]

From the latest Elgin-O'Hare study (http://elginohare-westbypass.org/TierTwoProjectFinancingWorkingGroup/110615_ME_CH_IDOT_P3Memo_F.pdf) (emphasis/annotation is mine):

[Full build-out] construction cost is estimated at $3.57B, however this analysis only considers the proposed initial construction phase... which includes upfront construction costs of $2.2B and toll rates at $0.20 cents per mile escalating at 3% [per year]. In addition, it is assumed that... the public sector procures the project through a competitive process resulting in market or below market pricing, and that a $140M earmark and $35M publically-funded match will be available as an upfront subsidy.

Despite the [$175 million] subsidy and aggressive tolling, it appears that a Concessionaire would be unable to self-finance the entire project solely through the currently forecast toll revenues. In addition, should the public sector decide to retain the tolls and instead commit to make a long-term series of availability payments to the concessionaire, the gap between such payments and expected toll revenues accruing to the public sector would be substantial. However, more detailed traffic and revenue forecasting work would be appropriate before drawing firm conclusions.

In other words, even the initial phase of the project can't be fully funded through a public-private partnership. The tolling rates are set, I believe, to maximize revenue (any higher and they would see diminishing returns). The remainder of the cost that can't be funded through a PPP would have to be supplied by the government, either by using revenue from the existing Illinois Tollway system or by using state/federal highway funding. Also, as the engineering work progresses, there may be opportunities to reduce the cost.

Complicating matters is the fact that the Tollway doesn't really have any extra revenue to spend from their existing toll plazas. Whatever future toll revenue that isn't going towards debt service on the big "Congestion Relief Program" they just completed, will go towards the impending reconstruction of the Northwest Tollway and the new interchange at 294/57. There isn't really any money left over for "nice-to-have" projects like the Elgin-O'Hare, the 53 extension, the Illiana, or the Prairie Sprawlway.

Actually, the Illiana and/or Prairie Parkway might be a better fit for a PPP. They run through flat rural areas where land is relatively cheap and construction staging is easy. In contrast, the Elgin-O'Hare must be carefully threaded around other major pieces of infrastructure like the O'Hare flight paths, cargo facilities, railyards, arterial roads, water reclamation, etc.

[ardecila]

Oakton Construction Updates

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6959/oakton1.jpg

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6792/oakton2.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3220/oakton3.jpg

[emathias]

Anyone know why the CPD and CTA decided to close down the Belmont Red/Brown station today right in the midde of the Pride Parade? It caused quite a lot of chaos and was very inconvenient, too. It seemed like the CTA wasn't running nearly as many trains as it should have been, too. Friday's New York marriage announcement plus beautiful weather forecast for Sunday should have been plenty of notice to get a working train plan in place.

[ardecila]

I dunno... but weren't Wellington and Addison enough to handle the load?

[emathias]

I dunno... but weren't Wellington and Addison enough to handle the load?

Maybe you enjoy walking a half mile out of your way on a lame foot with no notice and for no reported reason, but I think the least the CTA could do is provide an explanation for shutting down a major station in the middle of one of the largest annual events the city provides.

Or they could have put signs up that Belmont was closed along routes people would be walking so, for example, they could choose to walk to Southport for the Brown Line instead of walking additional distance south of Belmont from Addison.

Seriously, the no notice and no explanation stuff is simply unacceptable. This is the sort of reason why I don't have a monthly pass with the CTA. This sort of occurance is exactly why I'm a lot more prone to take taxis or simply walk than I am to use the CTA even though I'm usually a strong advocate of them when the issue of transit comes up. But truth be told, when it comes to voting with my dollars, the CTA simply isn't getting my "vote" nearly as often as it could if it were more reliable and/or explained itself better when it failed to be reliable.

Sometimes I think they're improving in that regard - and I think they improved their communications a LOT under Huberman - but since he left, I feel like it's sliding back into its previous information blackout habits.

[ardecila]

Why Southport? That's nowhere near the parade.

[OhioGuy]

Why Southport? That's nowhere near the parade.

My assumption is that he was watching the parade up closer to Addison, wanted the brown line & opted to walk to Belmont to catch it there (rather than deal with a transfer), only to arrive and find the station closed. Considering where he was watching, had he known Belmont was closed, it might have been closer to walk to Southport to catch the brown line than where he presumably ended up catching the brown line (Wellington). It's just one of those situations where had the station closure been known, people (including emathias) might have altered their plans on where to catch a train.

[orulz]

There’s been talk of adding a third track to the Rock between LaSalle and somewhere on the south side (74th? 79th? 87th?) in conjunction with eventually letting the Southwest Service on their tracks—that might help simplify traffic patterns. Unfortunately, I don’t see how they’d be able to fit one in or around this station.

Resurrecting an old question that never got answered.

The Englewood Flyover, now funded, will include three tracks for the RI lines. As noted above, there are plans for a significant increase in the number of trains going to Lasalle Street (with SWS and SES), so a full third track from 89th (where SES branches off) all the way in to Lasalle would likely be necessary in the future. However, the new station at 35th street only has two tracks. Can anyone confirm if/how they plan to accommodate a future third track through the new station?

The western (southbound?) platform is wider than the eastern (northbound?) one, which might leave room to narrow the SB platform and add a third track to the west. This would turn the current southbound track into a center express track (with no platform). This is just based on observation, I have no idea whether this is the real plan or not.

[MayorOfChicago]

I took the train from Belmont yesterday around 5pm and it was open - although PACKED.

They said the number of people at the parade this year was nearly 750,000, which is hundreds of thousands over the previous record of around 550,000.

You could barely get near the Belmont station at 5pm. All of Belmont, Clark, Halsted, everything was totally shut down and wall to wall people. I'm guessing the station was horribly overcrowded and they weren't running enough trains to clear the platforms.

I was reading how the city activated the office of emergency management due to uncontrollable crowd levels up and down Halsted and Belmont. The last 50 floats/participants actually had to turn right from Halsted and go down Clark Street directly to the end of the parade route - they never even made it past the staging area. Belmont station was reported to be closed down because platforms were at capacity and the situation was spinning out of control. People were crashing through barricades and crawling up fences to try to escape along Halsted. Police had to be called in from multiple surrounding districts after people started fighting and jumping on parked cars along Belmont. Areas around Diversey were also swamped, with thousands of people blocking streets and trying to exit the area. The ABC broadcasting booth at Halsted and Belmont was almost overrun at many points.

One of the big problems was thousands of people trying to exit trains at Belmont and Addison as thousands more were trying t get on. From a lot of the stories out there it looks like it was right at the breaking point all across the neighborhood for awhile - but the crowds and police were able to hold it together.

Like they said though, most people, including myself, probably didn't even realize anything was afoot except it was busy. It was an event set up to handle around 500,000 people - and 750,000 showed up. Many of them really drunk as well.

[ardecila]

Can anyone confirm if/how they plan to accommodate a future third track through the new station?

They won't. The majority of trains will stop at 35th the way Metra Electric trains stop at Roosevelt and Van Buren, and UP-Northwest/North trains stop at Clybourn. If you don't have a need for passing, then two tracks is enough for both the Rock Island and SouthWest Service. However, I believe that once the Englewood and 75th St projects are done, Metra will increase service sharply on the SWS. The travel times for SWS should drop by about 15 minutes from Wrightwood to downtown.

I really don't even know why they need a third track at all. My guess is that if community groups push for infill stations in Englewood or Washington Park (already one planned for 79th), Metra can run occasional local trains while sending the majority of trains up the express track.

Part of the reason for the third track in my mind (the only reason, really) is to allow for trains to be moved to the coach yard at the Rocket House (south of 47th). I don't know the extent of Metra's plans, so I can't say whether two tracks is enough... but the capacity of two tracks is a lot more than you might think, once freight trains are removed from the equation.

[orulz]

I imagine a third track would be less about absolute capacity, and more about preventing delays on one line from propagating to others.

Lasalle Street Station will eventually be the terminus for 4 lines (SWS, SES, RI Mainline, and RI Suburban line). Departures from Lasalle Street can be orchestrated so there's no conflicts, but an extra northbound track would help keep delays or disturbances on one line from affecting all the others.

Consider this scenario. A RI suburban line train is scheduled to arrive at Lasalle at 8:30 AM and a SWS train is scheduled at 8:40. For whatever reason, the RI train is delayed by 10 minutes. Hey, it happens. So they both enter the main line at the same time. With two tracks, the following train has to stop and wait for the leading train, potentially several times, for every time that the leading train makes a stop. So instead of one delayed train, you now have two. A third track allows both trains to proceed unimpeded to the terminus at Lasalle.

After the Englewood Flyover improvements, the only obvious obstacles to adding a third track from Lasalle to 89th (where the SES will split off), are:
1. The diamonds at the St Charles Air Line. This goes away when the CREATE project at Grand Crossing is built, allowing the SCAL to be deactivated.
2. The two-track bridges at Archer and 69th-72nd. This can be rectified by building another bridge to accommodate a third track.
3. The station at 35th street.

[ardecila]

Okay, but even in the event of a delay, you still don't need three tracks continuously from 75th to LaSalle.

If you have trains operating at different speeds on a line, then there's a need for passing and therefore a third track makes sense. The best example is BNSF, where heavy freight traffic, Amtrak, and a dense Metra schedule all fit onto only three tracks without conflict because of well-planned scheduling and crossovers.

In the case of the Rock Island, I still don't see why a 3rd track is necessary. There are no stations between 75th and LaSalle except for 35th, and all trains will stop at 35th. Therefore, all trains will have the same average speed along the corridor.

As I mentioned above, the increased utilization of the tracks in the LaSalle terminal may require Metra to store more of their trains at the Rocket House during midday. The yard moves from LaSalle to the Rocket House will not move at the high speeds of a standard passenger run, and so they might justify a third track as far south as 47th.

[orulz]

At least the aerial images on Google Maps show that, when those images were taken, there is already a third track (albeit sometimes disconnected from the mainline) from:
Lasalle to 15th: 3 tracks
15th-24th: 2 tracks (bridge at Archer, diamonds at SCAL)
24th-33rd: 3 tracks
33rd-35th: gap (35th street station)
35th-43rd: 3 tracks
43rd-53rd: >3 tracks (yards)
53rd-59th: 3 tracks


With the reconstruction involved in the flyovers at 63rd and 75th, that will probably in effect result in the corridor being triple-tracked from 59th to 75th as well.

If all the traffic is the same speed and follows the same stopping pattern on a single line, then you're right, you can handle a lot of traffic. The potential for delays comes when you have trains from four different branches (SWS, SES, RI Mainline, RI Suburban), and a train from one branch arrives at the mainline too close to another train. They could devise a schedule so that trains will leave their endpoints such that they will arrive at the mainline with enough padding between them, but some delays and disturbances are a fact of life. Especially if the frequency of the branch lines increase, then the padding will be reduced, and the probability of reaching the mainline at the same time as another train from a different branch increases.

In any case a third track probably won't really be needed right away, I guess as a transit nerd, and given that the infrastructure for the 3rd track is mostly already in place (and that even more of it will be in place after the flyovers at 63rd / 75th), they should at least keep the option open. Anyway that's all I have to say on this.

[ardecila]

If Metra is acting to preserve a third track on the Englewood Flyover (the third track must add to the cost tremendously) then that tells me they are open to the possibility of more inner-city stations.

Metra's management has historically been opposed to serving Chicago neighborhoods at a higher service level, but now the Ravenswood station is busier than any of the suburban stations on the UP-North line, and Metra management is starting to take note, allowing plans to go forward for new urban stations at 79th on the Rock Island and Peterson on the UP-North. They are also rebuilding Ravenswood to be more like a rapid-transit station, with a full canopy, a concessionaire, and multiple access points, as well as a station agent (finally!)

[orulz]

If Metra is acting to preserve a third track on the Englewood Flyover (the third track must add to the cost tremendously) then that tells me they are open to the possibility of more inner-city stations.From the CREATE P1 Fact Sheet (http://www.createprogram.org/factsheets/P1.pdf):
This project will build a rail-rail flyover to carry the north - south Metra Rock Island line over the east-west NS/Amtrak line. The project will construct bridges that will accommodate 3 tracks to carry Metra operations over the four tracks of NS and a possible future fifth track for a high speed intercity passenger rail connection to points east and/or south.


Metra's management has historically been opposed to serving Chicago neighborhoods at a higher service level, but now the Ravenswood station is busier than any of the suburban stations on the UP-North line, and Metra management is starting to take note, allowing plans to go forward for new urban stations at 79th on the Rock Island and Peterson on the UP-North. They are also rebuilding Ravenswood to be more like a rapid-transit station, with a full canopy, a concessionaire, and multiple access points, as well as a station agent (finally!)
Great to hear about more in-town stations on Metra. How about one more on the UP-N at Addison? Would there be any demand for a transfer to the Brown Line, and how much demand would there be for a faster trip to the (west) Loop?

[ardecila]

The Ravenswood ridership stats are a bit of a blip... they were inflated somewhat by people from Ravenswood and Uptown who avoided the Brown Line during the rehab project.

However, if I understand correctly, most of the ridership at Ravenswood comes from reverse commuters who bike or take the Lawrence bus to Metra, or walk. (I believe that section of Ravenswood has attracted lots of urbanites who work in the suburbs; these people have only a short walk to the station.)

The chances of an Addison station are pretty slim, I think. Metra doesn't want to deal with the rowdy Cubs fans, who always manage to overwhelm the platforms at Irving Park. So many regular riders have complained about the behavior of Cub fans that Metra has occasionally set aside a special car for them, which is closed off until Irving Park. You'd probably see a station at Belmont before one at Addison, I think, simply to discourage the Cub fans somewhat.

Other than the stations I already mentioned at Peterson/Ridge and Auburn Park/79th, I think several things will happen in the next 10-15 years:
Rebuild of Clybourn with longer platforms and ADA (this was delayed by CTA's Circle Line planning, which proposed shifting Clybourn to North)
Access improvements and additional service at Jefferson Park
Kedzie gets closed and shifted to Western (once the A2 interlocking is moved)
27th Street is closed, shifted to 31st and/or 35th
59th Street is rebuilt

If the city and Metra can ever work together, then we could see more improvements backed by TIF dollars that are coordinated with some sort of strategic plan. We'll see if Emanuel and Klein can convince Metra of the benefits of improving city service. There are lots of changes I'd make to the existing Metra network... lots of their urban stations don't make sense. Case in point: Mayfair and Grayland. I'd consolidate the two into a single station on Irving Park, which would cut in half the walking distance to Six Corners and provide for convenient transfers to the frequent Irving Park bus. A higher-quality station there might attract a decent number of reverse commuters to Old Irving, or conversely, encourage employment growth in that area. Plus, consolidating the stations would speed up Metra service and reduce their operating costs while increasing the ridership.

[jpIllInoIs]

The chances of an Addison station are pretty slim, I think. Metra doesn't want to deal with the rowdy Cubs fans, who always manage to overwhelm the platforms at Irving Park. So many regular riders have complained about the behavior of Cub fans that Metra has occasionally set aside a special car for them, which is closed off until Irving Park. You'd probably see a station at Belmont before one at Addison, I think, simply to discourage the Cub fans somewhat.

Ardecila, how can you say that Metra doesn't want to deal with rowdy Cubs fans and then point out that Metra provides an additional car. Actually Metra does a remarkable job in providing special trains and additional cars for major Chicago events...Taste, Bears games, Fireworks, Cubs games, a new station for Sox fans...

But I do agree that a combined station on the UP North line at Irving and/or Addison would be great. But just don't take away the Grayland station on the Milw Dist North line, that is the station that I use for Cubs games .;)

[oshkeoto]

I haven't seen this written about here, but I wrote a blog post about the CTA's revamped BRT plans--they're starting with Jeffery from downtown to 103rd and a Western-Ashland corridor from Howard to 95th. It's exciting they're doing this--I think this is the future of transit expansion in Chicago, given that we're not likely to get much L expansion other than on the fringes any time soon--but they're really half-assing it. Dedicated lanes only during rush hour, etc. Anyway, the post starts out with an explanation of BRT that I'm sure everyone here would be familiar with, but the details of the plans are about halfway down.

Sexy bus transit in Chicago (http://wp.me/phx7y-19)

[ardecila]

Ardecila, how can you say that Metra doesn't want to deal with rowdy Cubs fans and then point out that Metra provides an additional car. Actually Metra does a remarkable job in providing special trains and additional cars for major Chicago events...Taste, Bears games, Fireworks, Cubs games, a new station for Sox fans...

Yeah, and Metra often has to hire private security guards to police the drunk sports fans, break up fights, kick the non-paying riders off the train, etc...

Sports fans and visitors to downtown events will take the train because there's no other option... the city simply doesn't contain enough parking or have enough road space to meet the extreme demand of large sporting events and festivals. Metra doesn't have to encourage these riders or market itself to them... these riders will just show up.

But I do agree that a combined station on the UP North line at Irving and/or Addison would be great. But just don't take away the Grayland station on the Milw Dist North line, that is the station that I use for Cubs games .;)

An Irving Park station on MD-N would be just as good, especially if you could pick up a rapid bus on Irving that would get you to Clark in half the time. :tup: Addison isn't wide enough or fast enough for express service.

[sammyg]

An Irving Park station on MD-N would be just as good, especially if you could pick up a rapid bus on Irving that would get you to Clark in half the time. :tup: Addison isn't wide enough or fast enough for express service.

You mean my beloved, belated X80 Irving Park express? When I lived in Lakeview I'd see hundreds of Cubs fans taking it back to the Irving Park Metra stop. (literally hundreds, CTA had 3 or more busses waiting at the end of games to fit all of them)

I think it's good - it shows that public transit is gaining popularity among suburbanites, and they'll be more willing to support funding from the state and county.

[lawfin]

If Metra is acting to preserve a third track on the Englewood Flyover (the third track must add to the cost tremendously) then that tells me they are open to the possibility of more inner-city stations.

Metra's management has historically been opposed to serving Chicago neighborhoods at a higher service level, but now the Ravenswood station is busier than any of the suburban stations on the UP-North line, and Metra management is starting to take note, allowing plans to go forward for new urban stations at 79th on the Rock Island and Peterson on the UP-North. They are also rebuilding Ravenswood to be more like a rapid-transit station, with a full canopy, a concessionaire, and multiple access points, as well as a station agent (finally!)

I've spoken to Harry Osterman re the Peterson station on several occasions. Osterman was the former state rep for the area and the current 48th ward alderman. I've known Harry for a long time and I like him and think he is a good guy but i disagree with him on the peterson station idea for Metra.

I expressed the idea that the area surrounding peterson is one of the more pedestrian un-friendly parcels on the north side lake front area....if not the out right worst.

That a station there would not be easily walkable for much of the neighborhood just given the awkward positioning of the parcel; the fact the a near full 1/4 circle in a radius extending say 1/4 mile from said station is literally dead people who have a tendency not to use transit.

I suggested to him as did some other to put the station at Devon instead....this could help the west ridge business strip and the emerging strip near clark / devon....as well as their being a rather large undeveloped parcel that has set fallow for decades on the south of devon, across from S&C ( a natural ridership driver who currently uses LUnt...Devon actually would probably be more convenient for S&C actually).

I also suggested to have the Lunt stop moved to Howard.....this would affect me directly as Lunt is my Metra stop.

It just seemd to me the Peterson stop is going to be a clusterfuck of an already clusterfuck....with little ancillary benefit to any business strips...versus the realignment to Devon and to Howard (not to mention a tie in to Redline /Yellow / Purple lines).

He actually thought these suggestions were a good idea....but in his words he was more concerned with the traffic passing through his ward.....ie the traffic passing via ridge, and to lesser extents hollywood and bryn mawr....ie where northwest siders and near suburbanites barrel down peterson / ridge through edgewater. And that Devon was not his ward so he wasn't that concerned about it.....that was irritating.


I have also written to Jan Schakowsky (sp??) re ths.

[ardecila]

At first glance, I like your idea. The Metra-CTA transfer at Howard would be a long one, but I made that trip frequently last summer and usually took the frustrating Metra-Purple-Red, or occasionally walked from Lunt Metra to Morse on the Red Line.

[ardecila]

You mean my beloved, belated X80 Irving Park express? When I lived in Lakeview I'd see hundreds of Cubs fans taking it back to the Irving Park Metra stop. (literally hundreds, CTA had 3 or more busses waiting at the end of games to fit all of them)

I think it's good - it shows that public transit is gaining popularity among suburbanites, and they'll be more willing to support funding from the state and county.

Better than the X80, actually. Irving Park is one of the few east-west streets on the North Side to have 4 traffic lanes (Peterson does also).

That makes Irving Park an ideal candidate for median bus lanes, or as I suggested earlier, a light-rail line from Harlem-Irving to the lakefront. The express buses or light-rail trains would stop every 1/2 mile with occasional 1/4-mile stations at major traffic generators.

[emathias]

At first glance, I like your idea. The Metra-CTA transfer at Howard would be a long one, but I made that trip frequently last summer and usually took the frustrating Metra-Purple-Red, or occasionally walked from Lunt Metra to Morse on the Red Line.

Wouldn't it be better in the long term to just extend the Red Line to Linden, as is already planned, for the (much easier) transfer at Davis?

[ardecila]

Wait... since when is CTA planning this? Current plans have the Purple Line running as a full-time "express" service to the Loop, with a few new intermediate stops at Loyola and Wilson. Red Line service will continue to terminate at Howard, because that's where the loop track and yards are.

Getting from a local North Side station (say, Berwyn) to the Metra UP-N line should be a one-seat ride. The facilities to turn around North Side local trains exist at Howard, so they can't go further north than that without overloading the Purple Line. Howard is where the Metra station needs to be.

An enclosed connection would be great (they could build a passageway between the buildings along Howard, and the south side of the yard). However, even a basic sidewalk widening on Howard would do the trick; Howard's sidewalks are currently uncomfortable and narrow, and that (along with the obvious crime issues) are keeping the area depressed.

[emathias]

Wait... since when is CTA planning this? Current plans have the Purple Line running as a full-time "express" service to the Loop, with a few new intermediate stops at Loyola and Wilson. Red Line service will continue to terminate at Howard, because that's where the loop track and yards are.
...

The subway alternative, which I think makes the most sense for a variety of reasons, would run the Red to Linden.

[ardecila]

How long are the platforms at Belmont and Fullerton? One of the sketches in the RPM display boards showed a renovated Berwyn/Foster station with two entrances and a ten-car Red Line train in the station.

Assuming all the stations from Addison-Howard are rebuilt, how easy would it be to introduce ten-car service on the Red Line? Can Belmont, Fullerton, and the subway/Dan Ryan stations support longer trains?

[emathias]

How long are the platforms at Belmont and Fullerton? One of the sketches in the RPM display boards showed a renovated Berwyn/Foster station with two entrances and a ten-car Red Line train in the station.

Assuming all the stations from Addison-Howard are rebuilt, how easy would it be to introduce ten-car service on the Red Line? Can Belmont, Fullerton, and the subway/Dan Ryan stations support longer trains?

Fullerton and Belmont were designed so that the current platforms are 8-car platforms, but the tracks were laid such that the platforms can be extended to accommodate 10-car trains without the tracks being changed.

[jpIllInoIs]

Gary Post Tribune link (http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/6284079-418/south-shore-line-weighs-munster-dyer-expansion.html) By Chelsea Schneider Kirk cschneider@post-trib.com July 2, 2011 8:42PM

The operator of the South Shore Line is renewing talks of extending its commuter rail service.

A challenge is finding local funding to help sustain new lines.

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District officials plan to build a rail line south to Munster and Dyer as the first phase of its West Lake Corridor project. Earlier plans for the corridor called for the line to extend to Lowell and for a second rail line to run to Valparaiso.

While those aren’t off the table, NICTD wants to first implement service to the Munster and Dyer area because an analysis shows the extension meets a critical guideline to qualify for federal funding. The federal New Starts money helps state and local governments implement capital transportation projects, and NICTD is positioning its project to go after it.

“Technically what we’re able to show for half the cost we capture maybe 90 percent of the projected ridership,” NICTD General Manager Gerald Hanas said. “Rather than going all the way to Lowell, it makes sense to do this.”

But to receive federal funding, NICTD must find local revenue to help operate the system and pay for construction costs federal funding doesn’t pick up.

That step led NICTD to canvass Northwest Indiana leaders last month with the goal of drumming up support for the project.

Fares are expected to cover at least $4.2 million of the estimated $14 million in operating costs, but local dollars would need to cover the rest. NICTD plans to ask the federal government to fund half of the estimated $464 million in capital costs leaving a $232 million gap.

“We are seeing certainly the cities and towns that are in the corridor are still enthusiastic about the project,” Hanas said. “They still believe it has economic benefits for their communities. They are very supportive of this effort. We’re putting our heads together in how we can meet the mandate of the local share.”

Next step, local funding

Community leaders who met with NICTD say no specifics were discussed on a plan to obtain local funding.

An answer, or at least a tool to secure those dollars, may come at next year’s Indiana General Assembly where public transit is expected to become a big issue in the off-budget year. In the upcoming session, a central Indiana group is planning to make a push for lawmakers to authorize county referendums for the purpose of dedicating funds to transportation projects.

“If they think that tool legislatively works for them, certainly we want not to be left out or have that option available to us whether it will work or not,” Hanas said. “We hear from various elected officials as they do polling that transportation and this commuter railroad question polls very high even if it involves local financing.”

The majority of transit-orientated referendums ask for a dedicated portion of the sales tax, Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority Executive Director Ehren Bingaman said. Other than a sales tax, an income tax is another highly considered option. Vehicle registration fees fund some transportation initiatives, but very few, if any, use the gas tax, Bingaman said.

“I don’t know what the Legislature’s approach may be. Obviously, I work for CIRTA, and I would like to see our organization come out with something that benefits the region,” Bingaman said. “We want to see the whole state win, too; by win, have the tool available to them. All we are talking about is creating a tool.”

Yet, Hanas doesn’t know if a referendum is the right tool for the NICTD project. An earlier referendum attempt to create a Regional Transportation Authority with the ability to raise funding for transportation projects was soundly defeated, but that initiative wasn’t well-coordinated, Hanas said.

NICTD isn’t limiting itself to a referendum strategy; public-private partnerships or local improvement districts are also options, according to the proposal..........more

[ardecila]

Wow, I could have swore that the project was dead. I'm relieved to see that it's still foremost in the minds of NW Indiana planners. The new approach with the smaller project is probably for the best.

Interestingly, the original proposal wanted to use dual-mode locomotives. I imagine that, if they move fast, they can probably get a decent deal by piggybacking onto NJTransit's order from Bombardier.

It occurs to me that this proposal will directly compete with Metra's SouthEast Service... the favorite stepchild boondoggle of the Will County politicians and Jesse Jackson Jr (after Peotone, of course).

[ardecila]

Quinn signs bill promising 'universal fare card,' free WiFi on CTA, Metra and Pace (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&uid=1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35c&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a7482ee83-74d2-4b8a-93a1-06f922e597d1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Posted by Greg H. at 7/7/2011 11:25 AM CDT on Chicago Business

How about a universal fare card: one piece of plastic good on Metra and Pace and the Chicago Transit Authority? Or free WiFi for your morning commute on every public transit line in town?

Gov. Pat Quinn Thursday promised just that in signing legislation that orders Chicago's often-feuding transit agencies to quit squabbling and actually develop a universal fare system and work to develop free WiFi service on transit vehicles.

Under House Bill 3597, the Regional Transportation Authority, which funnels state and local subsidies to transit operators, is ordered to honcho development of a transfer policy by Jan 1, 2013.

Then, by Jan. 1, 2015, it must develop and implement a system in which customers can use credit or debit cards, or contactless credit cards, to buy a ticket good for all fares and all transfers on all three transit systems.

Beyond that, the law requires that the RTA conduct a study of the feasibility of providing free WiFi on every bus and train by Jan. 1, 2012. Metra actually is required to implement the system by then, provided it can do so at no cost to itself.

One other customer-friendly change: The bill orders that by Jan. 1, 2012, each agency provide arrival data — for instance, is my train on time? — on the Internet for all vehicles. The CTA now offers a somewhat similar, partial system known as Bus Tracker.

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is a huge step forward. Hopefully we can have a system as good as London's Oyster.

London figured out that they could allow for free transfers without a physical connecting passage by adding "touch-out" validation machines at the two stations to be linked. In Chicago, that would really come in handy linking State/Lake to Lake, or Polk to Medical Center, etc... There's no money and not much will to build connector passages, but a properly-designed card system could allow for this kind of stuff.

[emathias]

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is a huge step forward. Hopefully we can have a system as good as London's Oyster.
...

All well and good, but I'm exceptionally annoyed that the State is levying even MORE requirements on the RTA while failing to pay hundreds of millions of money owed.

Quinn should find ways to fund existing operations before he starts throwing new requirements at the agencies.

[Beta_Magellan]

I’d have to agree with emathias—although there are good ideas in the bill, it’s a bit too specific, especially on the side of the universal fare card. The legislature should have simply mandated coordination of fares, not requiring a universal fare card. Although based on the Crain’s article it sounds like Raoul and Burns (my former senator and rep/alderman, both of whom I’m probably 90+% in agreement with on most issues) seem to generally know what they’re talking about, if a farecard’s done wrong—imagine some custom, one-of-a-kind deal from a not-great vendor instead of just going with one of the standard Asian systems—it could be a big money drain on the RTA. And a smartcard’s just assumed to be the right choice—there’s no looking into whether unified fares with paper tickets and inspectors might actually be more cost-effective. Sure, tickets and inspectors seems more primitive, but if big German and Swiss cities—which I’m sure have higher mode shares and just as crowded vehicles at peak—have stuck with them, there must be some advantage. Saying we need a farecard is just self-flattery—it makes Chicago seem like a transit powerhouse along the lines of Tokyo, HK or London, when in reality we’re more comparable to Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides)

So, in short universal fares are good, but specifying exactly how to achieve that’s unnecessary (this rant inspired by Alon Levy’s post on New York (http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/new-york-provincialism-and-the-mtas-flawed-smartcard-report/)).

I don’t have as much of a problem with the realtime data requirement. The CTA already does it, and I think would be great for Pace but if it’s an unfunded mandate I don’t see how they could manage it. I’m not sure how necessary it is for Metra—requiring them to do clockface schedule, which they already have or get pretty close to having on their lines—would be just as good, if coupled with some kind of requirement about disclosing delays.

[ardecila]

Yeah... as a daily Metra commuter, I'm having difficulty envisioning how a smartcard system would work.

Unless there's also fare integration, whereby I can have a discounted transfer from Metra to CTA, it doesn't really make sense. It's really not any more convenient to carry one unified card vs. a Metra monthly pass and my Chicago Card. In fact, it's more convenient to carry both - if I misplace one, I still have the other one to get me where I'm going via a less-convenient route.

[Haworthia]

I think a smart system would work if Metra had its conductors use a handheld device which calculated the cost of the fair. It could work like a Chicago card where proximity is sufficient to read it. I could then print a receipt. UPS uses something like this right now. They might be able to re-purpose something like that.

I would find this very convenient. For instance, I have two rides left on a 10 ride Zones B-F. I would love to use that money for the CTA or to go B->A. As it is, this ticket will go to waste.

[emathias]

...
UPS uses something like this right now. They might be able to re-purpose something like that.
...

UPS's are old and clunky and fairly limited in capability. There are better systems available. Heck, for maybe a quarter million dollars, the RTA could probably have a custom Android app developed that would use whatever sort of android device they wanted to use and connect back to a backend tracking system via whatever wireless vendor gave them the best deal.

[emathias]

What transit projects in Chicago are linked to the "Back to Work Illinois" infrastructure bill that the Illinois Supreme Court just affirmed as legal? I could only find vague, non-specific mentions in my online searches.

[ardecila]

What transit projects in Chicago are linked to the "Back to Work Illinois" infrastructure bill that the Illinois Supreme Court just affirmed as legal? I could only find vague, non-specific mentions in my online searches.

They're vague, non-specific grants. Presumably, each RTA agency will use it for regular capital spending rather than system expansion.

$500 million was promised about a year ago. Greg Hinz enumerates (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3A96b89189-19c0-4b0b-b526-e37958a54e40&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com#ixzz1RpU0SxMP):
The CTA will get $253 million, funds it says it will spend to upgrade ventilation systems on the Red and Blue lines, replace ties and track on the Loop el, and rebuild the 63rd and Ashland station. In addition, extensive work is to be done on the Red Line south and on the Evanston Purple Line el, where crumbling viaducts will be renovated or replaced.

Metra gets $157 million. It will use some to buy 30 new cars for its south suburban Electric Line, and the rest to rehabilitate stations in Flossmoor, Hazel Crest, Cicero, Naperville, Fox River Grove, Geneva and Elmhurst and at 79th Street in the city.

Pace will receive $32 million for buses, with $58 million to go Downstate.

CTA specifically has not prioritized their capital needs (Viva, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) so the projects that get money are decided on a pretty ad-hoc basis. The ventilation system seems to be in direct response to last year's Red Line fire, for example.

[denizen467]

work is to be done on the Red Line south and on the Evanston Purple Line el



Did they not mean Red Line north? The Dan Ryan branch was just redone. Unless they're referring to Congress thru the Chinatown portal or something.

[k1052]

Did they not mean Red Line north? The Dan Ryan branch was just redone. Unless they're referring to Congress thru the Chinatown portal or something.

Half the Dan Ryan branch is under track slow zone orders.

[schwerve]

Did they not mean Red Line north? The Dan Ryan branch was just redone. Unless they're referring to Congress thru the Chinatown portal or something.

The previous Dan Ryan Red Line project did not involve any track work, just station rehabilitation and upgraded electrical systems.

[ardecila]

The previous Dan Ryan Red Line project did not involve any track work, just station rehabilitation and upgraded electrical systems.

No, it did involve track work. They just didn't rebuild track on the northern section of the line due to budget constraints. Now they have to go back in and finish the job.

The "crumbling viaducts" in Evanston are actually a sloped embankment, which doesn't need rebuilding. They simply need to replace a few of the bridges over streets (like the Metra UP-N project in Chicago) which is far, far cheaper than what is needed in Chicago, where the retaining walls holding the embankment up are failing.

CTA's already replaced quite a few bridges in Evanston already (probably 1/3 of the total). The one at Main has some really unusual brickwork.

[schwerve]

No, it did involve track work. They just didn't rebuild track on the northern section of the line due to budget constraints. Now they have to go back in and finish the job.

my mistake, there was some, the most detailed description of the work done in the previous project I've found was here:

http://www.chicagonow.com/cta-tattler/2011/01/further-details-on-ctas-earlier-dan-ryan-red-line-project/

I don't know if that's what was in the original project scope or refined scope after budget constraints.

[Beta_Magellan]

I think a smart system would work if Metra had its conductors use a handheld device which calculated the cost of the fair. It could work like a Chicago card where proximity is sufficient to read it. I could then print a receipt. UPS uses something like this right now. They might be able to re-purpose something like that.

I would find this very convenient. For instance, I have two rides left on a 10 ride Zones B-F. I would love to use that money for the CTA or to go B->A. As it is, this ticket will go to waste.

On Chinese buses there were roving fare collectors with card readers strapped around their neck, so it's not improbably.

However, this won't be any quicker than having someone check your ticket--might even be a bit slower. And having to rely on a card system means the vendor will take a nice cut of fare revenue. The only advantage would be that Metra could continue to not have vending machines at a number of their stations (which is a pet peeve of mine--I just moved from Hyde Park, where stations have machines, to just south of the Clybourn stop, which does not, meaning I have have to go through the old-timey railroad ticket buying routine whenever I ride Metra).

[Mr Downtown]

Hey, just count yourself lucky that Metra now takes that newfangled paper money.

[Chicago Shawn]

Yeah... as a daily Metra commuter, I'm having difficulty envisioning how a smartcard system would work.

Unless there's also fare integration, whereby I can have a discounted transfer from Metra to CTA, it doesn't really make sense. It's really not any more convenient to carry one unified card vs. a Metra monthly pass and my Chicago Card. In fact, it's more convenient to carry both - if I misplace one, I still have the other one to get me where I'm going via a less-convenient route.


The Docklands Light Railway in London does not have turnstiles either, you just have to find the location to tap in and tap out of the stations at the entrance/exit. Took me a while to find it the first time I rode the DLR. I'd imagine Metra could do a similar set up with a tap-in attached to a vending machine that could print a validation receipt. This would work for pay-per-use, 10 ride or Monthly. This is also how all transportation in Frankfurt Am Main, Germany is set up.

[BorisMolotov]

For instance, I have two rides left on a 10 ride Zones B-F

I'll take it off your hands for you

[Beta_Magellan]

Metra gets $157 million. It will use some to buy 30 new cars for its south suburban Electric Line, and the rest to rehabilitate stations in Flossmoor, Hazel Crest, Cicero, Naperville, Fox River Grove, Geneva and Elmhurst and at 79th Street in the city.


Is this referring to the 79th Street infill station on the Rock Island line or rebuilding the 79th Street Metra Electric staion?

[ardecila]

It's the one on the Rock Island. Metra hasn't shown any signs that they want to rebuild local stations on the Metra Electric, especially if the South Lakefront Corridor Study comes back with a recommendation for a CTA-ization of the local service. In that case, complete responsibility for rebuilding of the stations would fall on CTA.

A large part of it is a lack of organization in the communities along the Electric line. Auburn-Gresham Community Development Corp has been pushing hard for the Rock Island station for nearly 10 years now.

[OhioGuy]

CBS Chicago: CTA Puts Yellow, Orange Extensions On Hold (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/11/cta-puts-yellow-orange-line-extensions-on-hold/)

The Chicago Transit Authority is putting two proposed rapid transit extensions on hold as it tries to cope with its latest financial crisis.

“What we need now is a state of good repair,” he [Forrest Claypool] said. “We have slow zones now on the Red Line, south side, that are 15 miles an hour. The slow zones north? You get cattle cars because of that.

CTA officials have said that they have unmet capital repair and reconstruction needs that approach $10 billion.

He said the Orange Line and Skokie Swift extensions are not dead. Rather, he said, planning will continue so they can “be taken off the shelf” if finances improve.

[ardecila]

Well, this just confirmed what we've all known for quite some time now... CTA will prioritize the Red Line projects over everything else.

It's a smart move, really... the Yellow Line was controversial and it's not like the residents of Ashburn and West Lawn are clamoring for more rail transit. Meanwhile, the south Red Line brings rail transit to a vast, dense, unserved swath of the city, and the north Red Line will improve conditions for hundreds of thousands of choice riders, as well as the city's densest areas.

[spyguy]

Rendering of the Loyola CTA station renovation
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6658/picture2uxz.jpg

[ardecila]

Is this going on the east or west side of Sheridan?

I love the bus shelter, but it doesn't fit with the red-brick Loyola-esque McDonalds.

[Mr Downtown]

^West side of Sheridan.

[ardecila]

Ah. I was hoping it might replace the service drive for Fordham.

Still, this is a huge improvement over the crappy McDonalds/Brunos building that's there right now.

[denizen467]

So is this all being developed by CTA (seeing as this is the transit thread)? If so, is there any talk it will actually happen in the next decade or so, or is the plan just vaporware right now?

[ardecila]

^ Are you referring to the Loyola project? I believe Loyola itself is paying for that, as a component of the "Loyola Station" redevelopment. It doesn't look any more ambitious than the North/Clybourn renovation, which cost $4 million.

Presumably, the cost of station renovations will be defrayed by the rent that McDonalds is paying... a prime spot across from a college campus probably commands a high rent. Proceeds from The Morgan will probably be spent as well.

[sammyg]

According to Bombardier, the CTA ordered the production of the 706 5000-series cars.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/idUS158255+20-Jul-2011+HUG20110720

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^ I read up a bit on those new cars. Apparently aisle facing seats? Like the ones in DC? Are they going to be quieter though, or is that more of a track issue? Also what lines will these be put on? I would imagine the top 3: red, blue, and brown.

[oshkeoto]

^ I think they're mostly going to the Blue Line, which has the oldest cars in the system at the moment.

[ardecila]

^^^ I read up a bit on those new cars. Apparently aisle facing seats? Like the ones in DC? Are they going to be quieter though, or is that more of a track issue? Also what lines will these be put on? I would imagine the top 3: red, blue, and brown.

CTA has 1168 railcars in service. The total number of 5000s on order is 706, which means that over half of CTA's fleet will be replaced.

It's hard to say where the cars will be placed in service. The Blue Line is currently running the oldest, most failure-prone cars, so those will be taken out of service and probably replaced with 5000s. After that, the 2400s on the Purple and Green Lines need replacement, but CTA may shuffle some less-old 2600s or 3200s to those two lines, and place the new 5000s onto the Red/Brown Lines where the additional standing room is needed.

Apparently, since the new cars run with AC motors that accelerate differently than all of CTA's current DC fleet, they can't be mixed into trains with older cars. This will limit CTA's flexibility in introducing the new cars.

[electricron]

CTA has 1168 railcars in service. The total number of 5000s on order is 706, which means that over half of CTA's fleet will be replaced. Cars will go to the Blue Line first, followed by the Purple and Green Lines, followed by the Red Line.

The Brown Line will probably be one of the last lines to see 5000-series railcars, if ever, since it already has relatively-new 3200-series cars that still look pretty spiffy.

Apparently, since the new cars run with AC motors that accelerate differently than all of CTA's current DC fleet, they can't be mixed into trains with older cars.

How many 3200 series railcars do they have? The break even point would be 462. If less than that, and all other older railcars are decommissioned, that would be a decrease in the total number of railcars.

[ardecila]

^^ The 2600s will remain in service for the forseeable future, along with the 3200s. Since that means an overall increase in CTA's fleet, it gives CTA some wiggle room to change service patterns (either by increasing the train frequency or expanding the system) if money becomes available.

[ardecila]

The next cycle track will go in on Jackson between Damen and Halsted, according to a CDOT press conference today. I'm assuming it will omit the block between Ashland and Laflin through the Jackson Boulevard historic district (Jackson along that block is too narrow).

I wish they would extend the cycle track to Desplaines St in order to preserve the "feeling of safety" across the Kennedy.

[VivaLFuego]

While I haven't heard of any final plans yet, one of the constraints with the 5000s is that apparently they're very finicky about having all their wheels balanced --- meaning that, at least in the near-term, upon delivery all the new cars should have easy access to a wheel truing machine (lathe) or operate on a line that doesn't rack up many car-miles per assigned railcar, on average. At the moment, I believe such wheel truing lathes are located only at Skokie Shops and 54th, with one being installed (or maybe recently installed, not sure) at Midway.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^ would the tracks be causing excessive wear?

[ardecila]

^ Interesting. That means the 5000s will probably go to Red/Yellow/Purple, Pink, or Orange. My money's on Purple and Red, then... Emanuel and Claypool seem to be really pushing this "Your Red" initiative. Placing the new railcars there seems to jive with the extensive expansion/rehab projects.

Speaking of which, I noticed this in the corner of my eye on a placard at North/Clybourn today... CTA seems to be keeping it relatively quiet.

Open house: August 2, 2011
(http://www.transitchicago.com/redeis/)
You’re Invited to Join the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) at an Open House on The Red Line Extension:

Tuesday, August 2, 2011
6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
St. John Missionary Baptist Church
211 E. 115th St
Chicago, IL 60628

This location is accessible to people with disabilities and is served by CTA bus routes #34, #111 and #119, and Kensington Station on the Metra Electric District.

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing to extend the Red Line from the 95th Street Station to the vicinity of 130th Street, subject to the availability of funding. The proposed 5.3-mile extension would include three new intermediate stops near 103rd, 111th, and 115th streets, as well as a new terminal station in the vicinity of 130th Street. Each new stop would include bus and parking facilities. This project is one part of the Your Red Program to extend and enhance the entire Red Line.

I'll be there. Can anybody else make it?

[CTA Gray Line]

^ Interesting. That means the 5000s will probably go to Red/Yellow/Purple, Pink, or Orange. My money's on Purple and Red, then... Emanuel and Claypool seem to be really pushing this "Your Red" initiative. Placing the new railcars there seems to jive with the extensive expansion/rehab projects.

Speaking of which, I noticed this in the corner of my eye on a placard at North/Clybourn today... CTA seems to be keeping it relatively quiet.



I'll be there. Can anybody else make it?

I will be there, and I am trying to get Sen. Martin Sandoval and Rep. Cynthia Soto to attend also -
to point out to them exactly how the $1.4 Billion RLE would extend and entrench CTA's wasteful competition with Metra.
(Part of the reason for the newest "Fare Increases and Service Cuts" Doomsday).

I will also be at their Hearing this coming Friday, can anyone else attend:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/newspaper/opinion/ct-edit-metra-20110725,0,3067633.story

[ndrwmls10]

Has light rail ever been considered to connect neighborhoods?

[the urban politician]

Has light rail ever been considered to connect neighborhoods?

^ Light rail?

OH MY GOD! That thought never crossed our mind!

I'm calling Mayor Emanuel right now

[emathias]

Has light rail ever been considered to connect neighborhoods?

A less sarcastic answer is that Chicago used to have the largest streetcar system in the world, but tore it all out and replaced it with buses. Sometimes when they do construction on the streets, you can see the remnant rails still embedded in the streets under pavement.

In the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was a downtown lightrail Circulator proposed that would have run through and around the Loop to connect the West Loop and the Michigan Avenue area. When I first moved here in 1995, there were still posters in the Presidential Towers talking about the plan. That went nowhere for a variety of reasons, including that having light rail in one of the densest areas in North America wouldn't have really added much value.

Finally, in general light rail wouldn't add much, if any, value over either a regular bus line or a Bus Rapid Transit implementation. In the few places it would, heavy rail (like the "L") might be the better choice simply from a system integration standpoint. Grade-separated lightrail would likely cost nearly as much as new "L" service to implement and wouldn't be able to be integrated with any other existing "L" lines. Street-running lightrail would be relatively cheap to implement but would be slower than buses in nearly every case. The places where it might be most interesting to add, such as through Lincoln Park (the actual park, not just the neighborhood), or along the Boulevards system, would create safety issues or run into opposition because it would take some park land.

In general, improvements to the existing bus service would be cheaper and probably more effective than anything light rail could add. Even in the American city most famous for light-rail, Portland, it provides a mix of service that Chicago's "L" already provides, or when it runs through downtown on surface streets is often slower than buses running parallel routes.

[Illithid Dude]

A less sarcastic answer is that Chicago used to have the largest streetcar system in the world


Ah-hem. Actually, L.A. had the largest rail system in the world, at over 1000 miles. But anyways, carry on.

[emathias]

Ah-hem. Actually, L.A. had the largest rail system in the world, at over 1000 miles. But anyways, carry on.

I said "streetcar", so I stand by my assertion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_railway#Largest_tram_systems)

Your claim is only really true if you include the entire SoCal area, including interurban lines. Counting only the tram-style streetcars within a defined city (or even within a contiguous collection of cities), LA proper never had that many miles of trackage comparable to Chicago's. The fact that one company ran the streetcars in all the SoCal communities doesn't mean that they were comparable to Chicago or Buenos Aires.

To be comparable to Chicago, since the 1,000 mile number for SoCal includes interurbans, and multiple towns, you'd have to include Chicago's interurban lines that went as far north as Milwaukee and as far west as South Bend. And you have to add in all suburban streetcar lines in the Chicago area. You might even want to add in the "L" routes, since early on the "L" was quite literally streetcars running on elevated tracks. And since you said "rail" you'd also have to include all the commuter rail routes in Chicago.

[ardecila]

Grade-separated lightrail would likely cost nearly as much as new "L" service to implement and wouldn't be able to be integrated with any other existing "L" lines.

Actually, a light-rail subway is significantly cheaper than a heavy-rail subway, because the platforms are so much shorter and you usually don't need to build a mezzanine (people can cross the tracks at grade).

Using light-rail also lowers your costs overall because the trains can move to grade level once they move outside of congested areas.

This is why both LA and Toronto are pursuing light-rail, even though they both have massive congestion and existing heavy-rail systems.

[Mr Downtown]

a light-rail subway is significantly cheaper [because] (people can cross the tracks at grade).

Can you name a place where that's ever actually been done? Even thinking about the pre-metro portions of Brussels or Cologne or Dallas, any time it's in subway you're not permitted to cross the tracks.

[ardecila]

Queens' Quay, Toronto

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2327/5798575556_4cd262cd10_z.jpg
flickr/sniderscion (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sniderscion/5798575556/)

[Illithid Dude]

The problem with Light Rail is that most implementations of it are nothing more then glorified buses, and when it is built grade separated then it becomes Light Metro and just as expensive as heavy rail. I never got the Light Rail boosters, Heavy Rail is always so much better.

[emathias]

Can you name a place where that's ever actually been done? Even thinking about the pre-metro portions of Brussels or Cologne or Dallas, any time it's in subway you're not permitted to cross the tracks.

Is there any place in the underground portion of Boston's Green Line you can cross tracks?

[nomarandlee]

Actually, a light-rail subway is significantly cheaper than a heavy-rail subway, because the platforms are so much shorter and you usually don't need to build a mezzanine (people can cross the tracks at grade)..

Also theoretically in Chicago's case the places where LRT potentially could run below or above grade (Carol St, Grant Park bus way, St. Charles Air Line, Bloomington Line) already exist and I think would be much easier to adopt to LRT lines compared to reconfiguring such lines/routes to heavy rail.

Subway cars aren't even a theoretical option to run on Carol Street or the Grant Park bus way. In the Bloomington/St.Charles such lines could be reconfigured as part of L routes I suppose but you would eventually have to hook them into expensive or logically impossible new below/above routing infrastructure anyway.

[lawfin]

I said "streetcar", so I stand by my assertion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_railway#Largest_tram_systems)

Your claim is only really true if you include the entire SoCal area, including interurban lines. Counting only the tram-style streetcars within a defined city (or even within a contiguous collection of cities), LA proper never had that many miles of trackage comparable to Chicago's. The fact that one company ran the streetcars in all the SoCal communities doesn't mean that they were comparable to Chicago or Buenos Aires.

To be comparable to Chicago, since the 1,000 mile number for SoCal includes interurbans, and multiple towns, you'd have to include Chicago's interurban lines that went as far north as Milwaukee and as far west as South Bend. And you have to add in all suburban streetcar lines in the Chicago area. You might even want to add in the "L" routes, since early on the "L" was quite literally streetcars running on elevated tracks. And since you said "rail" you'd also have to include all the commuter rail routes in Chicago.

I really wish there was a google map overlay with the old CSL route map on it....Just to get a better idea of the coverage and the ability to zoom down to intersections would be cool.

any of the map whizzes on here interested in doing that?

[emathias]

I really wish there was a google map overlay with the old CSL route map on it....Just to get a better idea of the coverage and the ability to zoom down to intersections would be cool.

any of the map whizzes on here interested in doing that?

I have a 1940s maps of it on my living room wall, and just based on that there are way too many routes for me to volunteer to do that!

[sukwoo]

Is there any place in the underground portion of Boston's Green Line you can cross tracks?

Sure, at Park St station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_by_laurence/3446652102/)

[ardecila]

I have a 1940s maps of it on my living room wall, and just based on that there are way too many routes for me to volunteer to do that!

The problem is that, just like the bus routes of today, the streetcar alignments tended to be fairly complex, zigging and zagging up various different streets. Drawing a map that only showed streetcar LINES (tracks) but not actual routes, would be easier.

The routes tended to change over the years, so you'd need to pick a given year if you wanted to make a map.

[ardecila]

Is there any place in the underground portion of Boston's Green Line you can cross tracks?

Actually, the first example that came to mind for me was Copley in Boston, but I must have been confusing it with Park Street.

Copley doesn't have a mezzanine, but it doesn't have a pedestrian crossing either. There's no free way to switch directions.

Park Street is a weird place... I'm surprised they allow the at-grade crossing, since the tracks are curved and the sight lines to approaching trains are very short.

[emathias]

The problem is that, just like the bus routes of today, the streetcar alignments tended to be fairly complex, zigging and zagging up various different streets. Drawing a map that only showed streetcar LINES (tracks) but not actual routes, would be easier.

The routes tended to change over the years, so you'd need to pick a given year if you wanted to make a map.

This is more or less the maps I have - I think mine is a couple years different, but it's largely the same:

Chicago-L.org map (http://www.chicago-l.org/maps/route/maps/1946map.jpg)

[Mr Downtown]

Chicago streetcar map here. (http://chicagoinmaps.com/chicagostreetcars.html)

[ndrwmls10]

I was thinking about something like the streetcar map. Much less, more of a circulator and connector to each neighborhood. I know that it would never happen, but would it be a good idea and would it spur economic development?

[Hayward]

Chicago streetcar map here. (http://chicagoinmaps.com/chicagostreetcars.html)

Occasionally, I'll see some roadwork dig really deep and you'll see the old streetcar lines. Some were almost 10" below the surface. Currently a set of tracks are exposed on Halsted while the road substrate is rebuilt for the bridge approaches. I have some awful phone photos.