SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

Busy Bee Mar 10, 2016 1:31 AM

And sorry for all the separate posts, but isnt it time they move past the dangling hardware store chains over the front pass-though doors? I mean come on how fuddy can you get?

Pink Jazz Mar 10, 2016 1:40 AM

Apparently, in the contract there are also 190 additional cars to be ordered for service expansion. It is believed that these will be used for the Red Line extension. However, since the compatibility requirement between the 5000-series and 7000-series was eliminated in this bid, the Red Line would end up with an incompatible fleet if they get the 190 additional 7000s.

Blue Line riders are probably hoping they don't get shorted again by getting hand-me-down 5000s from the Red Line and making the Red Line 100% 7000-series.

I would think the best solution would be for the Red Line to get the 5000s from the Pink and Green Lines, and converting the Pink and Green Lines to 7000s. The Pink and Green Lines have almost exactly enough cars needed for the Red Line extension, thus it would make sense for the Red Line to get the 5000s from both lines and convert the Pink and Green Lines to 7000s.

Kngkyle Mar 10, 2016 3:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz (Post 7365499)
Apparently, in the contract there are also 190 additional cars to be ordered for service expansion. It is believed that these will be used for the Red Line extension. However, since the compatibility requirement between the 5000-series and 7000-series was eliminated in this bid, the Red Line would end up with an incompatible fleet if they get the 190 additional 7000s.

Blue Line riders are probably hoping they don't get shorted again by getting hand-me-down 5000s from the Red Line and making the Red Line 100% 7000-series.

I would think the best solution would be for the Red Line to get the 5000s from the Pink and Green Lines, and converting the Pink and Green Lines to 7000s. The Pink and Green Lines have almost exactly enough cars needed for the Red Line extension, thus it would make sense for the Red Line to get the 5000s from both lines and convert the Pink and Green Lines to 7000s.

Red and Blue should get 7000s. They are the busiest lines and the two that tourists use the most. The 5000s will trickle-down to the other lines as the 7000s come in. That's my totally biased and uniformed opinion as a daily Red Line rider. Not that I really have any complaints about the 5000s... the seating doesn't bother me as much as it apparently bothers others...

Mr Downtown Mar 10, 2016 2:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 7365487)
isnt it time they move past the dangling hardware store chains over the front pass-though doors?

Not sure what would be a better option. Those become the side-guards for the passages between cars when carsets are coupled together. The right side is unhooked from one car, and stretched to the next car. From that car, the opposite side is unhooked, and it's stretched back to hook onto the first car. These guards have to be flexible in all three axes so the carsets can move independently of each other.

Busy Bee Mar 10, 2016 3:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7365949)
Not sure what would be a better option. Those become the side-guards for the passages between cars when carsets are coupled together. The right side is unhooked from one car, and stretched to the next car. From that car, the opposite side is unhooked, and it's stretched back to hook onto the first car. These guards have to be flexible in all three axes so the carsets can move independently of each other.

Just off the top of my head, how about something that looks integrated into the styling of the car. Even better is something that retracts into the nose and isn't seen at all until it's needed. Something like a rubberized, carbon fiber or seatbelt material that retracts like a measuring tape on either side of the door. The sharp turning of the cars would respond with the material automatically retracting to meet constant tension. It could also be solid instead of the chains which don't exactly convey security if moving between the cars while in motion. I'm just saying there's much better ways of doing it.

Pink Jazz Mar 10, 2016 7:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7365652)
Red and Blue should get 7000s. They are the busiest lines and the two that tourists use the most. The 5000s will trickle-down to the other lines as the 7000s come in. That's my totally biased and uniformed opinion as a daily Red Line rider. Not that I really have any complaints about the 5000s... the seating doesn't bother me as much as it apparently bothers others...

Well, the Blue Line did get shorted when it came to the 5000-series assignments. However, CTA wanted a common fleet at Howard Yard, which means if the Red Line gets 5000-series cars, that means the Purple and Yellow Lines must get them as well.

Also, the Pink Line was the first to get 5000s to resolve any teething problems due to being one of the less used lines, thus it made sense for it to get 5000s. In addition, I do believe that CTA wants the Pink and Green Lines to use the same series of cars, since the Pink Line sometimes borrows Green Line equipment when short on cars, and Harlem Yard (one of the Green Line yards) occasionally performs maintenance on Pink Line equipment.

Ryanrule Mar 10, 2016 7:50 PM

Whats with the crappy dot displays? Put in full lcd's already.

Pink Jazz Mar 10, 2016 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule (Post 7366455)
Whats with the crappy dot displays? Put in full lcd's already.

Cold temperatures can cause problems with LCDs, which is why they are generally not a preferred technology for destination signs. Ideally once OLED technology improves to avoid burn-in and have better performance in bright sunlight, that could be the technology that replaces conventional LEDs in destination signs.

N830MH Mar 11, 2016 4:03 AM

CTA board approves contract to replace half of rail cars
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...309-story.html

Let the speculation begin!!!

ardecila Mar 11, 2016 4:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pink Jazz (Post 7366474)
Cold temperatures can cause problems with LCDs, which is why they are generally not a preferred technology for destination signs. Ideally once OLED technology improves to avoid burn-in and have better performance in bright sunlight, that could be the technology that replaces conventional LEDs in destination signs.

I like the aesthetic of the LED signs. A higher resolution display would just be an invitation for some free-spirited maintenance tech to put the destination sign in Comic Sans...

I assume these new cars would have the color LEDs like the 5000s do.

denizen467 Mar 11, 2016 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7363835)
The Milw-W runs along the south edge of the airport, easily visible across Irving Park Rd. from Runway 10R/28L. It's almost exactly the same distance from Terminal 2 as the Wisconsin Central is, and any tunneling would be on airport property.

I was aware of its location; I just wasn't sure how you were connecting it to the terminals - I didn't realize you were bringing out the big guns (TBMs). Even with the tunnel boring, constructing a station next to the Hilton or the garage is yet another giant sub-project (do you have a specific idea there?). For less than all that money it seems like you could just construct a bunch of Blue Line bypasses, even if some had to be elevated, and leverage the airport's existing tunnels and station. But if you are aware of a Chinese supplier who can TBM for cheap, it may be a preferable solution.

denizen467 Mar 11, 2016 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 7366025)
Just off the top of my head, how about something that looks integrated into the styling of the car. Even better is something that retracts into the nose and isn't seen at all until it's needed. Something like a rubberized, carbon fiber or seatbelt material that retracts like a measuring tape on either side of the door. The sharp turning of the cars would respond with the material automatically retracting to meet constant tension. It could also be solid instead of the chains which don't exactly convey security if moving between the cars while in motion. I'm just saying there's much better ways of doing it.

Funny, this line of thought was my reaction too to seeing this image.

That, and the fact that the fascia have a sad puppy look.

Busy Bee Mar 11, 2016 3:02 PM

So I'm not crazy?!! :)

Mr Downtown Mar 11, 2016 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7367110)
destination sign in Comic Sans...

I once saw that on a city bus in Bologna. I almost spit out my espresso.


Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7367295)
constructing a station next to the Hilton or the garage is yet another giant sub-project

But surely that's the case whether the link to downtown is via the North Central or Milw-W tracks. As for tunnels, my thought was that they could be shallow cut-and-cover going through the airport property and under runways, less difficult than approaching from the east. But the most important reason is that Metra already has full control of the Milw-W, while the North Central will require extensive negotiations with CP.

I can't imagine spending all the money and effort on an airport express that terminates at a people-mover station in Rosemont, 1500 meters from baggage claim. As they said about the BART SFO extension, that's like coitus interruptus.

BVictor1 Mar 12, 2016 5:34 AM

Taken 03/11/16

35th Street LSD Pedestrian Bridge

Sorry for the quality. One hand on the wheel and one hand holding a camera is cumbersome.

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

https://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a...D720/ry%3D480/

LilZebra Mar 12, 2016 5:37 AM

^^^

Eww. That's one FUGLY structure.

Sequenza Mar 12, 2016 6:35 AM

^^^

Remember what you're seeing is the scaffolding and structural support used to install the main towers. Here's a link showing what the final result will look like.
http://abc7chicago.com/traffic/lake-...derway/224121/

ardecila Mar 13, 2016 1:40 AM

Awesome! That tower went up fast, I don't think it was there two weeks ago.

Looks like they've already started to string the cables, so the falsework should be gone in a month or two...

denizen467 Mar 13, 2016 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7367488)
But surely that's the case whether the link to downtown is via the North Central or Milw-W tracks. As for tunnels, my thought was that they could be shallow cut-and-cover going through the airport property and under runways, less difficult than approaching from the east. But the most important reason is that Metra already has full control of the Milw-W, while the North Central will require extensive negotiations with CP.

I can't imagine spending all the money and effort on an airport express that terminates at a people-mover station in Rosemont, 1500 meters from baggage claim. As they said about the BART SFO extension, that's like coitus interruptus.

Are you srsly talking about cutting open 3 runways and a half dozen taxiways and tons of tarmac to install a tunnel out to the Hilton?? That sounds just like you're adding runway interruptus and taxiway interruptus onto a project that already sounds like it's costing a billion dollars. The result is glorious but a bit too much to even dream about. As nobody in particular said, that's like coitus with five or ten personus.

For that amount of money, I suspect just upgrading the ATS to gold-plated standards could be achieved, including completing a full loop rather than having a dead end at T1 (and then running trains both clockwise and counterclockwise, or having runs with differing routes including a route directly to T1 and then back outbound); adding a bypass past T5 (easy, spacewise); and, importantly, boosting escalator and elevator capacity at all stations (which presently is shockingly, embarrassingly, pathetic).

This would not solve the issue of boarding/alighting Metra express trains with luggage in 10 below weather or in the snow, so a dedicated track at the Metra station, with a raised platform for level boarding and some kind of highly effective weather enclosure, would be desirable. That's essentially a micro spur and a new station structure. Ideally it would've been incorporated into the CONRAC; if it can't fit there anymore, then there's another possibility: Build a new ATS spur to another spot along the North Central, somewhere south of its O'Hare Station where there is enough excess space, and create a brand new downtown express station there. It would be solely for transferring to the ATS and would not need public roadway access, and this would also have the effect of preventing intermingling of premium-fare-paying passengers from ordinary Metra passengers. Alternatively, build the spur from T5, or from the ATS yard, across Balmoral and to the Rosemont Station, upgrading that station instead. Sell Mayor Stephens on the idea that it'll benefit his consumersville/outletsville, and maybe he will chip in. Possibly extend the line another 200yds to the warm confines of his palace of sales tax revenue? Boarding at the outlet mall would require fare payment, while boarding at Rosemont would be free as usual.

orulz Mar 14, 2016 2:32 PM

When Minneapolis connected their light rail to the airport, they had to use TBMs, presumably to avoid runway impacts. So I would expect that TBMs are a requirement at O'Hare since it's even busier than MSP.

On the positive side, when you've boring under tarmac above, you probably don't have to care much about subsidence - certainly not to submillimeter precision, like you do when there are lots of big heavy structures. So TBM tunneling would be fast, inexpensive, and unobtrusive. The airport segment of MSP's light rail connection cost $117 to build, including the stations. The tunnels would probably be two to three times as long at O'Hare, and larger diameter for mainline rail equipment, but still not ridiculous. Figure less than a $billion for the airport side of the project.

HOWEVER.

The question still remains, is this expense worth it given the fact that the blue line already exists? I seriously question whether the demand would be there to justify the expense. I do agree that airport connectors have an outsized economic impact per rider, but if the ridership isn't there, it isn't there. Spend the money on something else that would get more ridership instead.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.