Any thought on if there will be any type of enhanced connection between the BRT and the Blue Line Station at Division? I suppose the buses could loop around the Triangle there: https://www.google.com/local?q=1200+...60642&t=h&z=18 Or maybe they could put the Bus Terminal off-street within the Triangle connected to the 'L' Station.

I’m guessing, besides just a nicer bus station in the median, there won’t be any changes—based on the cost of rebuilding the Red Line subway stops, it could easily cost $50-100 million.

I don’t believe I’ve seen any rebuild for division mentioned in any sort of long-term planning—a shame, since it’s the busiest of the subway stations along Milwaukee Avenue and there’s new construction going up on the corner of Ashland and Division—it’s a good candidate for the sort of modernizing Clark/Division is getting right now (plus it’s the CTA station I most frequently use, so of course it’s a priority :D ).

I would expect that if these work, the CTA will also install some E/W BRT routes. North could be a candidate, as would Chicago and Belmont and Lawrence/Wilson on the north side, and Roosevelt, 79th and maybe 35th on the South Side.

I vote for Irving Park instead. It's actually got the roadway width.

I don't think there will be much in the way of improvements at Division. Buses will probably use existing curbside stops and turn around via Blackhawk/Paulina/Milwaukee. We still don't know what type of BRT stations CTA will push for, or what kind of access control they will use. Ventra should speed up boarding across the system, so to deliver an improvement over this, CTA will have to use the honor system or fully-sealed stations like Curitiba.

Oh those Crazy Midwestern Fanners

• Video Link

Any conjecture on what the CTA will want for the 7000-series cars?

Maybe with a current station indicator that doesn't look like it's 1991?

Btw the current station LED maps are terrible for us color blinded people. Thankfully I don't need a map to get around the city

How about Toronto Rockets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Rocket

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c6yk4HJHds

Other's with more insight into the CTA's operations have always insisted that the CTA's operations can't accommodate long integrated sets like that. But since they run married pairs it seems like they should be able to figure out how to service fixed-pair sets with articulation. Doing that would increase capacity somewhat, too, since currently the space between cars is wasted.

It would be really nice to see a completely new design, something with modern finishes like you'd see in Europe or Asia, but I think part of the problem is that Chicago's tight curves and relatively narrow requirements limit some options. Doors that open on the outside (Barcelona uses this sort of setup on at least some trains) instead of being pocket doors seem like they'd improve some configuration options, too. If the Clinton Subway were ever created, it could be built to accommodate wider, modern trains, and then maybe the Dan Ryan branch and the local tracks on the North Side could be converted to accommodate wider trains, with the express tracks using current rolling stock. That would allow much higher ridership on what is now the Red Line to serve the jobs in the West Loop and connect to the Metra stations, without having to do a huge-scale change to the entire system. It would mean the Red Line couldn't share with other lines anymore, but in the long term it might be good for ridership and save the CTA some money (or be neutral) if the new route allowed them to piggy-back orders off of other agencies that run wider trains (New York or LA or even Toronto for example).

There's just almost too much here to contradict. First off, why should there be something different? The design of Chicago 'L' cars is based on proven configurations: place the entrance/exit doors at the quarter point, length and width is governed by operational capabilities, married pairs and no articulation are most advantageous.

A wider trainset??? Back in the 1930's Chicago's initial subways were designed for a 9 ft 6 in wide car. That never came to be. Chicago has three basic routes: one running through the State St. subway, one running through the Milwaukee/Dearborn subway, and the ones running over the LOOP 'L'. You cannot get from one route to another without running over the Loop 'L' so give up thoughts of a wider train set.

Doors on the outside??/ Why? Perhaps there is a good reason why our doors operate protected in a pocket....it's called WINTER.

There is no advantage for articulation and most integrated trainsets like Toronto's Rockets aren't articulated....there are trucks at both ends of the cars.

Face reality....Chicago's transit designers have succeeded in evolving a design that fits the operating liabilities of our system quite well. Now about those $#@!&%$# center facing seats.

David Harrison

I'd just be satisfied with a front end that doesn't look like it is from 1980. Hell, even the old Pullman cars had a more "updated" look than what we have rolling now. I've referenced this a long while back, but the comparable example that I can think of would be Berlin's HK class U-bahn cars:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...aureihe_Hk.jpg
wikipedia

Hey David,

Current CTA cars are basically still just a modestly upgraded 70 year-old PCC rapid transit design. It hasn't evolved nearly as much as rolling stock on other systems in the same timeframe.

First of all, winter has nothing to do with doors that slide out. If you had traveled at all, you'd know there are many, many examples of doors in cities that have winters comparable to Chicago that slide outward, including such sunny spots as Prague and Oslo. There are a lot more wintery examples, but I'm not going to re-do my homework when you've done none.

Second of all, "articulated" may have been the wrong word, but I think most people understood that to mean integrated, continuously open throughout the trainset, which does have an advantage both for additional standing room and for evening out the distribution of passengers across a certain area.

Finally, you really need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I explicitly stated that "It would mean the Red Line couldn't share with other lines anymore" as well as laid out an operating pattern that would enable such a change. It wouldn't be the sort of thing you could do overnight, but it certainly wouldn't be as difficult as building an entirely new system, and you'd end up with much higher capacity. Many other cities run different equipment, and while I'm sure it does simplify some of Chicago's operations, given their overall cost structure I'd be surprised if it really saved Chicago much to run the same cars on all lines. Given that the current Red Line is (by a wide margin) the busiest line and has access to yards at both ends (and with the build-out of the south extension a potentially much larger yard there), it's the best candidate to potentially move into dedicated trainsets running a different standard for carriages. It does depend on a Clinton Street subway, but that's something that would be very useful to current job and residential growth patterns and has been talked about for quite a while now.

Certainly there are problems created by doing that. But to claim there are not problems solved by doing it is to ignore a number of facts. All changes have pluses and minuses, and improving capacity for the system's biggest line (and one that is still gaining ridership) while also improving passenger comfort - for a fraction of the cost of an entirely new line - isn't something to be dismissed out of hand based only on "it's not the way we've always done it".

And imagine that - doors on an elevated, exposed-to-the-elements train that slide out to open in a city with a snowy winter climate.

First, we all have to admit that "beauty is......" That, to me is one of the ugliest designs. But that is my opinion and you can surely have yours. I certainly would not want to operate with all that glass in front of me. It's an "open invitation" to every would-be baseball pitcher. Plus there is no access from car to car, desirable in the way in which CTA trains operate.

David Harrison

There was nothing wrong with your use of the word "articulated." In fact most people believe that these trainsets without bulkheads at the ends of the cars are articulated when most are not. I am disagreeing that Chicago needs to change its rail-car style just "to change....because....to be different....because the current style is...". I find the style of the 3200s and the 5000s to be excellent.

Regarding the lack of capacity in present Red line trains, I propose an experminent that can be conducted without much cost whatsoever. I hear over and over about trains so overtaxed in rush periods that passengers are unable to board on a daily basis. For one rush period, Identify this one way movement of trains in a given overtaxed time slot and assign only 5000 series trains to move through that time slot. Identify if the trains in that slot are southbounds, turned at Howard or are yard put-outs. The turned trains would run from the opposite end of the line, go back in the day's schedule and insert 5000 series so that they come up in order. By the time of implementation the CTA should have on hand at least ten trains worth of 5000s to see the real impact that that car design can have. All this as opposed to the random appearance of 5000 series cars in the schedule presently.

Also we agree that no final word on car design and appearance cab be reached between two individuals. I'll respect your feeling, you'll respect mine. To me a 70 year old PCC looks great,

David Harrison

I can't believe they went with a full map indicator in the first place, what a terrible idea. No flexibility whatsoever.

Wise up already and adopt the same signage that MTA has on their new cars.

http://www.subwaynut.com/rollingstock/r160/r160int1.jpg

It's all been said before at some point. IIRC a train with longer rolling stock could run from Howard to 63rd after curve easings at Sheridan, Indiana and 63rd, plus modifications to yards and turnaround facilities.

However, this ignores platform length constraints in the subway, which would probably cap your trains at 6 long cars. Plus, curve easings requires some thorny eminent domain. Seems easier and probably the same cost to run 10 cars on the Red Line, which will become feasible as soon as CTA finds a technical solution to predictably berth the train in the subway.

Maybe this would help?

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/83/E58E92...5C994B7DBD.jpg

[QUOTE=ardecila;6006577]It's all been said before at some point. IIRC a train with longer rolling stock could run from Howard to 63rd after curve easings at Sheridan, Indiana and 63rd, plus modifications to yards and turnaround facilities.

However, this ignores platform length constraints in the subway, which would probably cap your trains at 6 long cars. Plus, curve easings requires some thorny eminent domain. Seems easier and probably the same cost to run 10 cars on the Red Line, which will become feasible as soon as CTA finds a technical solution to predictably berth the train in the subway.

Maybe this would help?

Sometimes I believe some people write things because they have nothing else to do. I am glad you agree that a ten-car train is the simplest answer to overcrowding. However what "berthing" problems???? I am a retired CTA subway motorman. One would berth a ten car train at the "10" mark. Subway platforms can accomodate 12 car trains. Curvature in the subway would limit any rail car to 64 ft.

Historically, one might ask why a station was ever put in between the two curves at Sheridan Road station in the first place. In 1900, when the north side "L" was built, the station was only four cars in length. I imagine no one ever forsaw longer trains. Ten car trains would bring back into question a need for two-person operation due to the length of the train. I believe New York has state legislation mandating conductors on trains over a certain length.

But more precise, why do people keep insisting on longer rail cars that would limit system flexibility. As I said before, no movement from one line to another takes place in Chicago without travelling over the Loop 'L' tracks.

David Harrison

I'm not insisting on anything, just discussing possibilities to increase capacity without the expense of a whole other line. It's not like CTA has the runaway ridership growth of BART or the DC Metro, so these improvements aren't immediately necessary. Chicago hasn't expanded the system in 30 years, so growth only comes from existing stations. But it will need additional capacity in the future. How should CTA achieve this without spending mega-billions on a new subway?

Regarding the conductors; isn't there a technological solution? They're just monitoring doors, right? Issues with disabled access should be solvable through platform reconstruction.

I thought the Orange line was built in the 90s?

He had already talked about running from Howard. Trains from Howard DO pass Sheridan but they don't pass Indiana and there is no problem at 63rd St. You wonder, do they really still live in Chicago.




Thanks Vlajos. He's forgotten the Pink Line too. Maybe it's just trying too hard to get a point across.

Conductors opened the doors, monitored, and then closed the doors and checked that all doors are closed. The distances both forward and rearward are critical. For OPTO, the end of a ten-car train would be 500 ft back.

David Harrison

30 years, 20 years... same difference

The Douglas Branch has existed for 100 years, so they dropped in a short connector and renamed service, the service has still existed since the late 19th century.

Stop with the attitude.

This is rapidly becoming pointless, but IIRC the Howard-Dan Ryan subway between Roosevelt and Cermak-Chinatown was built with tighter clearances than the original State St Subway. Therefore, a hypothetical train made of longer/wider cars would need to take the 16th St incline as trains did before 1993, and like the Red Line will do again this spring during track reconstruction. That would send the longer/wider train past tight curves at Indiana and 63rd.

I'm not arguing for wider or longer cars, but I don't think we should keep using the same basic PCC design forever into the future. Articulated cars will force CTA to change yards and operating practices, but the benefits might be worth it. The Paris Metro has the same tight curves, narrow clearances, and short rolling stock of the 'L' but RATP has been unafraid to try new ideas.

Does "PCC" refer to configuration/layout, to aesthetics, or to both?

Generally speaking it is absurd that in 2013 the CTA would still be having railcars manufactured with almost exactly the same look as they had decades earlier, where transit systems around the world have successfully explored myriad different railcar design futures. There certainly is something to be said for tradition -- maintaining a beloved icon (like many desire for the semi-dysfunctional Wrigley Field) -- but change can be a good thing too (like the Yankee Stadium replacement being embraced by diehard fans, though I'm kind of speculating on that one). I get the feeling that a contemporary el look would be accompanied by rider expectations for higher levels of service, and the CTA would rather have rider expectations stay exactly where they are.

Well all the arguments ever mounted for wider and longer cars on Chicago's CTA are null and void....Personal anguish will probably continue for decades, but the CTA has advertised for bids on the 7000 series of rail car that would begin going into service at the conclusion of the receipt and acceptance of the 706 car order of 5000 series cars. The 7000 series car order with exercised options could total 846 rail cars, completely re-equipping the CTA rail car fleet with only two series of new technology cars by 2022.

The 7000 series rail cars will be 48 ft. in length, 8 ft. 8 in. width at platform, 9 ft. 4 in. maximum, coupled as married pairs, capable of twelve car train operation, able to trainline with 5000 series, able to negotiate 85 ft. minimum curve radius. and finally operate at a balance speed of 70 MPH. In other words the 7000 series will be almost identical to the 5000 series.

David Harrison

"PCC" primarily refers to the truck design and propulsion equipment. I'm not sure how much of that is actually left in the 5000s.

Most other metro systems use equipment that's akin to mainline railroad cars, particular the use of air brakes. By contrast, Chicago's modern (since 1948) cars are in some respects descendants of all-electric streetcars, particularly the innovations developed in the 1930s for PCC cars.

Remember the Electroliners were articulated trains that ran on Chicago's 'L', and served in Rapid Transit type service on the Red Arrow Lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZzv4CdyQo

The demand profile on RATP's shorter routes also allows them to adjust capacity solely on frequency --- most routes run with 5-car consists at all times. CTA needs the ability to cut/combine consists to operate cost-efficient service at acceptable frequencies.

Supporting infrastructure costs (yard/shop reconfigurations) would be very substantial, and besides, for heavy maintenance and overhaul purposes, all cars need to be able to get to Skokie Shops.

Significant increases in peak throughput --- as much as +30% or so --- could alternatively be obtained through signal, power, and track investments.

I'm fairly certain that NYCT/MTA custom-spec'd their strip map signs to fit their exact requirements (both physical installation/mounting and the integration with their proprietary trainline communication systems).

It's not exactly plug and play, and there's always the practical cost-benefit consideration of whether the costs of a change order to retrofit cars on the assembly line is worth it, depending on the labor and engineering expenses involved. IT advancements have come a long way since the Technical Specs for the 5000s were written in 2004 and codified by contract in 2006, e.g. the availability of affordable full color LED signs which are being retrofit to replace the original amber LED destination signs.

Thanks. What do you mean by demand profile? The ratio between peak demand and off-peak?

I don't mean to imply that CTA is calcified or un-innovative; the rapid rollout of Bus/Train Tracker was revolutionary, especially with regard to the numerous ways to access the information (web portals, apps, LCD/LED screens, text service). BRT and Ventra will probably launch another revolution. It just seems odd that the railcar design has gotten so formulaic.

Forgive me if I am over-eager to import ideas from other cities; the 'L' network is unique among metro systems in a lot of not-so-obvious ways. I'm glad people like you and Mr. D have a sense of the big picture.

Is there some reason that they can't use plain old Flat Screen TV's (well protected) which can display ANY type image or color at will.

I've posted it here before and I'll post it again: the only thing the CTA or any system for the matter NEEDS can be perfectly illustrated with the model countdown clocks on the Paris Metro:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ers_-_SIEL.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ers_-_SIEL.jpg

Forget full board monitor-like displays that lead programmers to feel the need to fill and flash it with more than the necessary information (think Happy Earth Day!) and in which financially strapped systems like CTA will inevitably be tempted to sell out and flash advertisements at you in between intended information. I can also see full size monitors burning up quickly (Chicago climate being a variable) costing the CTA money they don't have to be constantly replacing them, or worse yet leaving half burnt out or "dimmed" boards for the public to decipher (think 1st generation "flip-dot" bus blinds. KISS, keep - it - simple - stupid. Avoid more than is necessary. And the Paris signage just looks badass, anyone care to differ?

Mr. "a"..I know you will agree that everyone cannot be expected to like everything. Any particular design, no matter what its source was, will have its supporters and have an equal number who despise. To me, the glass front railcar is definately "not Chicago." But while I can appreceiate your personal lists of likes and dislikes, I must admit a personal disdain whenever I hear that the Chicago 'L' should change...just to change. No, no...you find what works, you refine it, you tweek, but you keep what works. That becomes your style, your tradition. I've ridden the European systems from Spain to London, Germany, Amsterdam, Paris. I have not found anything that could out perform or be as distinctive as our PCC 6000s from the day or our present HP rail cars. We don't need any doors on the outside or coupled trainsets with no bulkheads. Maybe I can better portray my viewpoint by sharing some of my personal photography of our CTA L/Subway.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...nClarkOrig.jpg
SB Brown Line coming off the branch at Clark Tower.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...tfrancisco.jpg
SB Brown Line crossing Francisco Ave. on the surface running portion of the line. The "L" was constructed even before streets were laid out. In fact the land was owned by officers of the elevated company.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...zedTower12.jpg
24 cars of 3200 series rail cars on the Wabash Ave. side of the Loop 'L'. The 'L' was a great fit on this wide street in the downtown area.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...edOrange17.jpg
Inbound meets outbound as two Orange line trains go through the "fly-over" junction with the Green Line at 17th Street Junction.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...tMilwaukee.jpg
The telescope lens compresses a NB Blue Line train along Milwaukee Ave. with the city skyline four miles in the distance.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1040985.jpg
A NB Blue Line train stops at Damen Ave. station in a very busy and crowded area of the city.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/Harrison.jpg
Two trains at the north end of the modern replacement of the original Harrison St. "S" curves. 6 MPH replaced by 35 MPH.

David Harrison

I think CTA's conservatism in car design has served them quite well over the last 60 years. Attention to the fundamentals of mechanical and propulsion systems, and incremental adoption of proven concepts, kept CTA from having the problems encountered by other US systems who were romanced by aerospace contractors showing flashy body designs. No CTA car series has ever needed to be retired or rebuilt early because of performance issues; in fact, most have served two decades longer than initially intended.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that good design costs nothing, and hope that the carbuilders will hire some outside design help to create handsome integrated designs for the bodies and end caps that don't compromise operating or passenger comfort issues. I cringe every time I see one of the new Metra Electric or South Shore bilevels. That's design by engineering committee, and a good reminder of why the Japanese auto companies finally had to set up design studios in Southern California.

Here here, and to think that the 40+ year old Pullman IC Highliners look more modern than their replacements is a shameful and depressing statement on how American transit agencies, specifically CTA and Metra, view the importance of good industrial design. Don't get me going on how Metra's legacy operators (CNW, IC, RI...and having so much to "work with") liveries' where soooo much better to look at than Metra's cheeseball red, white and blue or their terrible logo. And ditto for the CTA. Bring back the greens please!

Oh Yeah!

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4050/4...b4c9e576_z.jpg
Flickr user Cylon8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38131534@N03/

You mean there's some shortcoming to this design? I'm sorry, I love this design and the single level South Shores too.
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1040439.jpg

Must also be why I like General Electric locomotive designs too. Here's a UP C40 Dash 8 smoking it up at Rochelle Railway Park, IL proving that inside every GE there's an ALCO trying to get out.
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...llinois033.jpg

And yes I love the two level NJT commuter cars too. I seem to take to angular, muscular, techno shapes. Maybe you folk will admit that you find centered storm doors to be the most troublesome feature that you can't live with. Post pictures of what you like and see if the storm door test proves out.

David Harrison

Well, they wouldn't use a plain old screen. The type of display you say...have in your home cannot be left on more than 14-15 hours straight. It will break, and the manufacturer will blame you. That's why companies like Samsung and LG offer commercial grade displays that can run for countless hours in extreme conditions. They are very, very expensive.

What's the minimum curve radius on the L? In both New York and Paris the minimum is 40 meters (the City Hall loop in New York, the curves next to Bastille in Paris). I get the feeling it's tighter in Chicago on the Loop, though.

Minimum radius to be negotiated by contract is 85 ft. Radius in the Loop is probably 90 -95 ft. Radius in Loop are made more critical because the turning rails go through switches and crossovers and cannot be banked (superelevated).

David Harrison

^I think it's 90 feet. I believe the Loop L curves are 100-foot radius.

Edit: best I can measure from aerial photos, the curves at Wabash & Van Buren are 88 feet radius.

For the record, I do not advocate change just to change. Every single change I suggested is rooted in a desire to improve present problems. The problems may not be big problems, but they are still problems created by present design.

Integrated trainsets allow people to move through the train, this simplifies emergency evacuations, allows crowded cars to self-distribute into less-crowded cars, which makes boarding more efficient, and reclaims the presently wasted space in between cars for additional riders.

Doors that slide out do two things, first they allow the walls of the interior to be the same depth across the entire car, which marginally allows more space, but more importantly stops the problem of the areas nearest the doors being narrowest. It's not a huge difference, but I think it creates a psychological barrier, particularly for less-frequent riders, and contributes to passengers crowding near the doors and preventing more efficient boarding processes and even distribution of passengers in the car.

Second, doors that slide out allow more windows. This is simply aesthetics, but as your photos illustrate, the fact that Chicago's cars are mostly elevated gives riders a great view of the city. Why wouldn't you want to give riders as much window area as possible to be able to enjoy the views that you clearly also appreciate?

So, please, quit patronizingly saying that calls for change are about "change for change sake" - you may not agree that the problems these changes solve are worth the effort, but they are not merely change for change sake.

When is the Dan Ryan rehab starting? I heard it's sometime in May?

I'm asking b/c I plan to go to Chicago in late March/early April I want to take that ride to 95th one last time before they tear it apart and put it back together.

Okay, so if the minimum radius is 90 feet/27 meters, then it's one third less than in Paris, which means that walk-through trains would need to have cars about one-sixth shorter than the Paris Metro stock. That's 12.5 meters, which is eminently doable: it's marginally less than the Mark I cars in Vancouver or some Talgo cars.

is there any effort underway to standardize the CTA arrival notification system, or is going to remain haphazard, station by station? for instance a stop like Montrose that sees pretty high ridership has no LCDs or arrival estimates of any kind. Belmont and Fullerton and some downtown stops use flatscreens. And then you have stops like Western that dont have LCDs but have audio notices to announce arrivals. And is Train Tracker ever actually going to get out of Beta?

Of course it's doable. We've had them before.

This is also, coincidentally, what a married pair would look like with an articulated joint. That seems like the way to ease into it; if the pair is married already, why block passage between the two cars? This model only had three doors, as opposed to the current 5000's four doors.

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gall...0/crt5001c.jpg
src

Look closely and you'll see two articulated joints, not just one. As to passing between cars, in New York it's illegal to pass between subway cars....the police will write you a ticket. Although the CTA has signs posted and protective covers in place over the door handles, it is not illegal in Chicago to pass between cars. The CTA has declared it a safety concern and does not want passengers passing between cars. If you want to change cars, exit at the next station and move to the next car.

Officially they were "compartment cars" and before the CTA, Chicago's Rapid Transit ordered four sets, two each from Pullman and from St. Louis Car Co. They are based on NYC's "Bluebirds" built by the Clark Co. Bluebirds were 10 ft. wide, but the order was cancelled and the few built were short lived. Chicago's were supposed to be 9 ft. 6 in. and the subway was designed to run six car trains of them. But the CRT ordered them to our standard 8 ft. 8 in. width.

When the CTA took over the cars bounced from route to route, unliked and they didn't fit service facilities. The cars failed clearance tests on the surface level Lake Street line. The West Side Shops on the old Garfield Park did most of the servicing until the line was demolished for the expressway. No more compartment cars were ever built. CTA engineers went to the 6000 series design. The main fault of the compartment cars, besides their non-conforming lengths was that the conductor operated from the middle compartment and could not see the outside of the train after closing the doors. For this reason the 5000s operated at front and end positions and a regular 6000 pair ran in the middle. Then the Skokie Swift opened and the 5000s got a new life and lived on for two more decades. One set of 5000s still operates at the Transit Museum near Elgin, IL.

David Harrison

Does the Ashland and Western BRT proposal spell the end of the Circle Line proposal? I hope not. The ability to easily transfer to other rail lines and connect neighborhoods will have a dramatic impact on economic development away from the near vicinity of the redline and blueline. I dream of the day where I no longer have to take a redline and bus transfer to the West side neighborhoods.

CTA to suspend Loop Brown, Purple line service
This is gonna suck for the 9 days service is suspended. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...oreUserAgent=1