I'm sure retrofitting and instillation would bump up the cost a LOT more then that but at those prices you quote it would be a relative bargain and much needed in my opinion.

Exactly. Basically line they plan to do to the 9th st. station and what the D.C. Metro Orange Line has running through the highway median in Virginia is all that would be needed. Just a brick or cement barrier that would at least direct or absorb the exhaust smoke/noise upwards and outward.

And a real barrier that would keep the stations even just 5-10 degrees warmer in the winter by blocking the wind and making the heat lamps much more efficient/effective by having a quasi-cocoon trapping at least some of the heat.

Again, a very shortsighted move not including such aspects in the Blue Line rehabilitation plans.

I doubt it. They might need an annual cleaning, but similar walls have been installed in cold climates before - there's one on the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee, it's never looked awful.

Yeah the one in MKE always looks good. They kind of remind me of hockey dasher boards

Open Gangways
 

Why doesn't the CTA do this?

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8365805/open-gangways

are you kidding me? people claim their precious little spot near the train car doors and do not want to move, period. even with the newly configured cars with plenty of overhead bars and straps to hold onto, i'm still pushing past passengers who do not want to move further in (due to their precious little spot near the door).

why would this work any better when you'd have to beg and struggle to get people to move out of your way in order to get someplace where there is more space? i don't know about europe, but here, i'd say good luck.

CTA historically has been very conservative in the engineering and design of railcars. Over the decades, that has meant we seldom had the sexiest looking rolling stock—but it's also avoided a lot of big headaches with fancy prima donna equipment built by aerospace companies who thought the transit market would be easy to get into.

It's also seemed important for all lines to use the same equipment pool, which can be maintained at the same shops, which have pits and transfer tables the size of a married pair. And a lot of the network was running two-car trains until fairly recently, so not much point in ordering equipment that can't easily be broken down that far.

ok, the two car train thing makes sense... and if it is only two cars, the benefit is negligible...

While open gangways may have been a whizbang technology 20 years ago, it is not anymore. It is a very mature technology. Light rail vehicles here in the US have been using it for a very long time.

That phrase to me says that this may be the right time to start looking at open gangways.

Notwithstanding, you could still place an order for X 4-car trainsets and Y 2-car trainsets. That gives the flexibility of building trains to basically any length. The benefits of 2-car open gangway trainsets are not as great as that of larger sets, but they are not entirely negligible.

One thing I wonder is why the specifications used for bidding for railcars in the US tend to be so prescriptive. Maybe the agencies own the designs and hope to save money. But I think they would save even more money by giving manufacturers more flexibility, thus allowing then to bid with more off-the-shelf equipment.

I will acknowledge that the CTA will absolutely need stainless steel due to the proliferation of freeway median lines and the inevitable impacts of salt spray, which I suppose disqualifies many existing designs so maybe that plays a role, but I still think giving manufacturers some leeway would result in better vehicles and more competition.

^But where would you repair these new four-car trainsets? The wheels have to be trued every few weeks, so you'd need new four-car pits at Skokie, 54th, Midway, and possibly Forest Park.

Such agency-specific bid requirements are a pretty understandable reaction to history. After the industry declined so much in the 1960s and 70s, with the loss of Budd and Pullman, there were periods of entire years when no carbuilder had any orders booked, so they couldn't keep the plants open. Then during the Energy Crisis, UMTA/FTA tried to push for standardization and screwed up big time (the White Book bus disaster, or SOAC). Right on the heels of that came the bad experiences many agencies had with the rather naïve aerospace companies like Rohr and Boeing-Vertol and Grumman—and that in turn was compounded by the Buy America requirements and then state and local agency "buy local" requirements that ensured fragmentation of the industry and more work for the spec-writers than the shot-welders.

Operating agencies end up with the headaches of running equipment for many decades after the departure of the politicians who handed over the big fake check or broke ground for the local assembly plant. The wisest agencies have learned to protect themselves, by being extremely picky about acceptance or by gaming the specs to exclude companies they've been disappointed with.

The CTA doesn't need articulated train sets. It needs tracks, signals, traction power, and trains in a good state of repair plus fixing a few kinks that will enable shorter headways.

Fortunately they seem to be largely focused on that in recent years.

....So with Rahm being reelected, is he going to ram the Ashland BRT system through now?

The Cta will consider open gangway trains after they are literally the last transit agency on the planet not already using them. So coming Spring 2050 "NEW innovative walk through L cars with fancy high tech plug doors!!!"

Good point given that it wasn't until the 1950s that they let the conductors stand inside the trains.

with rahm being re-elected he will probably attempt privatizing the entire system.

New topic for discussion - managed toll express lanes
 

Roughly 578,000 people travel into Chicago's central area for work each day. Roughly half of those people take transit. Roughly half of the remainder must drive.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/cit...sportation.pdf

Given that those numbers are for Chicago's entire central area, I'd estimate that roughly 150,000 workers drive into Chicago's core central area - i.e. Loop/East Loop/West Loop/River North/Streeterville - every day.

Here's my question for the forum. On any given day, how many of those 150,000 workers would be willing to pay $30 for access to a tolled, managed express lane that would guarantee them savings of roughly 30-40 minutes round trip compared to congested public lanes? I'd guess roughly 10%, or 15,000 commuters. In other words, on an average workday, I'd guess there are 15,000 core central area commuters willing to pay a toll of $30 if that would cut their round trip drive by 30-40 minutes. Would there really be that many people on a daily basis? I think so. Think rich executives and law firm partners who would use the lane regularly. Even if they took the lane every day, it would cost them about $7,500 annually, which is a drop in the bucket for professionals who charge $1,000 for one billable hour. And non-rich folks would take the lane one way for $15 occasionally as well - think of workers who are running late or who have emergencies.

That's a potential revenue stream of roughly $112 million annually. ($30 x 15,000 x 250 days) And that rough guess is based only on revenue from downtown workers on their commuting trips. Express trips to the airports could offer a substantial additional revenue stream. Personally speaking, I would pay $15 one way to cut 30-40 minutes off a rush hour cab ride to O'Hare. And, these days traffic sucks on the weekend too. How many suburbanites would pay a sizable toll to get into an express lane to get to downtown shopping, restaurants, or theaters?

So, my best guess is that tolled/managed express lanes on Chicago's expressways could generate more than $150 million annually in revenue. I'd guess roughly $200 million. There is at least one American example of a managed toll lane generating significant revenues. The SR-91 managed toll express lane in Orange County generated $43 million in annual revenue in 2009.

http://www.trforum.org/journal/downl...upancyToll.pdf

That's just one toll lane, on one road, serving an area of the country that doesn't have the concentration of traffic and wealth that the Loop does.

So, how much annual revenue do you think tolled/managed lanes on each of Chicago's major freeways could generate?

I have some creative ideas on how express lanes could be added to Chicago's expressways in a cost-effective manner, but first I wanted to see what the forum thinks about how much revenue could be generated by such lanes.

Man this conversation really takes a toll.

Honestly, the easiest way to get suburbanites out of their cars when they come into the city is better Metra service.

Improving the Metra lines to run every 30 minutes during off-peak hours would really increase their utility for those who are at least partially traveling during non-peak hours. UP-N, Rock Island, and Metra Electric would be really easy to do considering those lines have little to no freight.

That's a much better idea than spending money to rebuild the expressways to add a couple toll lanes, and it's also a lot more equitable.

Considering the way things are really ran here, I doubt we'll see toll lanes or more Metra service at all.

His supporters in the wards it runs through have come out against BRT, so he might hold off .

The new 35th ped bridge is moving along pretty well now. Last night they had LSD down to one lane in each direction and were both putting up the steel for the new bridge and removing the old one. As of about 1AM the beams for the eastern span were up, and the old western span was on a truck.

Sorry about the blurry image.
04/11/15

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/

http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a5...D720/ry%3D480/