That has long been my 'wish' for restructuring the Northside Main. Have the Purple stop at Howard/Loyola/Bryn Mawr/Wilson --> transfer to the inner tracks after Addison and follow the Red Line through Belmont/Fullerton/Subway --> then either turn around on the 13th street incline, or continue on the incline to the Elevated and terminate at the new Cermak station (With the low frequency of the Green I would assume they could easily work in a quick turn around.)

Ridership would increase due to the influx of Red Line riders and would raise the effective capacity ceiling of both the Red Line and the State Street Subway during rush hours... and you would be unclogging the Loop as well by removing a train during peak hours.

It could quite possibly even serve as a trigger for further densification/gentrification of further North neighborhoods as well. Edgewater and Rogers Park would seem a more reasonable alternative to Lakeview/Lincoln Park/North Center/Lincoln Square when commuting to the Loop when a station like Bryn Mawr is a short two stops past Belmont, opposed to the seven it is currently.

Not surprising considering that 60 years ago you could get from the Loop to Davis in 31 minutes, a trip that now takes 41 minutes at the fastest during rush hour and longer when you have to make a Red/Purple transfer. After safety, speed is probably the biggest determining factor for transit use.

I pretty much agree. I think one of the issues holding back gentrification of areas like RP and EW and to a lesser extent UPtown are the travel times. If you could get RP to DT at around 25 minutes or perhaps even somewhat less it could make a difference. I think back in the skip stop days Loyola was labled as 23 minutes to downtown....imagine that now.

I had wondered if the CTA could build a small rail yard and turn-around depot just as the Red line emerges from the subway between 16th St and 18th St. There seems to be some amount of land that could be configured into a depot, and then you could have Purple line trains turn around and go back north through the loop. Another option would be to have a steep incline into the Orange line to circle back into the subway via the Green line.

During my research for a Circle line alternative, I had some discussions on other forums which talked about the peak capacity of the Red line subway. During peak periods of the Red line, more trains are added, at which you will have a train every 2-5 minutes. Adding another line into the subway could make the subway too congested, unless they eliminate peak period Red line trains and transfer that ability to the Purple line instead. That would probably fix the problem of where capacity is needed most -- on the northern segment of the Red line.

^^ With signaling upgrades, it shouldn't be too difficult to run trains on 3-minute headways through the State Street Subway.

Ideally, if you do run the Purple Line through the subway:
- You want the last station to be a busy one so that the train doesn't totally empty out as it moves south.
- The station also has to be configured to allow for quick turnarounds, including a dedicated siding and a outdoor walkway for the motorman to switch directions.

From a quick examination, the only cost-effective place for an efficient turnaround facility is probably along the Red Line just south of the Chinatown station, in the median of the highway feeder ramp. The tracks exist on solid ground there, so you could shift one of the Red Line tracks to the side to allow for a center siding and a narrow platform for the motorman to switch directions. You might even be able to extend the siding further south over the Stevenson interchange, since it looks like the piers for the highway bridges there were built to accommodate an extra lane or L track, and there's a bit of extra room (also on solid ground) south of the interchange for the necessary switches.

In a broader sense, none of these changes are free. Changing service patterns will require somewhat expensive changes to track, signaling systems, and signage, and expensive personnel shifts. So it's not necessarily the "no-brainer" everyone seems to think it is, and it should be weighed against other potential uses of CTA's limited funds.

Any chance that was included to some degree in the Green Line Cermak Station plans? Seems like the an ideal opportunity.

FWIW, there is a third track south of 35th/Bronzeville/IIT on the Green Line, which could conceivably be upgraded for a turnaround.

If we’re assuming big upgrades that allow eight-car trains on the Purple Line in Evanston, one could through-route the Purple Line through to the Orange Line—currently, they have roughly the same frequency. The big disadvantages would be poorer access to western parts of the loop (with the advantage of improved access to River north and Michigan Avenue) and crossing Green Line tracks: the Orange Line’s flying junction deposits trains on the outer of four tracks around 18th, while the inner tracks lead to the subway incline (currently Green Line trains switch to the outer tracks before that). The latter might be a deal-breaker—although there’s be less traffic at Tower 12 (and the Loop as a whole), crossing the Green Line tracks could still lead to congestion.

The siding south of 35th is fine for train storage, but not as the terminus of a relatively frequent line. Since there's no outside platform, the motorman would need to walk from car-to-car to reach the opposite cab. That could take as much as 4 or 5 minutes, and then he has to wait for signals to give him an opening to move forward. Then the motorman must wait again on the 13th St incline to move into the subway. If anything goes wrong, the turnaround train is stuck on the siding and southbound trains start to stack up. Too much interlining is a recipe for disaster unless you have relatively low service levels (such as on the many new US light-rail systems).

I guess you COULD potentially make it work if Purple and Green had interchangeable trains so they could be switched at will - they'd need to have the same train length and rolling stock to avoid yard problems at the end of the day.

As you mention, bringing the Purple Line trains up onto the elevated structure at Tower 18 creates a potential conflict with weaving maneuvers, which also constrains frequency. A potential Orange-Purple merged line could approach the Blue Line in ridership after maybe 10 years of service, and it would require similar service levels. If that's the goal, then a new connection should be provided between the HoDaR subway and the Orange Line viaduct at 18th/Wentworth.

This is why I think a siding somewhere on the Red Line is a better idea. Fortunately most of the Dan Ryan branch runs at-grade, so I'm sure you could find the space for a siding somewhere - even if you need to beg IDOT to borrow 1000' of Dan Ryan shoulder.

Posters that rival the London Underground - These fascinating transit posters provide a different view of 1920s Chicago

The link above includes not only some great classic transit art from the 1920's, toward the bottom it also includes some old photos from that period as well.

Here are a few of the transit advertisements:
http://imprint.printmag.com/wp-conte...e-1024x558.jpg

http://imprint.printmag.com/wp-conte...s-1024x513.jpg

I had no idea there were so many. Absolutely incredible stuff.

I’d never seen most of those—I’m surprised at how many there are of Milwaukee (as a former resident, I think they’re quite lovely and really capture the city nicely—especially the snowy view of the cathedral and the view of the lakefront bluffs).

door to door, taking the purple line from my home at marina city up to my job in downtown evanston (essentially loop-davis, though i get on at merch. mart) takes about 45-50 minutes on average. i can ride my bike over the same distance in approximately 50 minutes, on average (45-55 minutes depending on wind). that's right, the purple line barely beats a bicycle.

since becoming a bike commuter, i rarely take the train. why pay money when my bike does the same job for free, and comes with a negligible time penalty?

Being on the Purple line to Evanston and being overtaken regularly by Red Line trains is pretty discouraging. Track condition is so degraded that track 4 is about 2/3rds slow zone north of Lawrence to Howard at this point. The Brown line routing south of Belmont isn't doing it any favors either with too many stops and and an ever increasing amount of slow zones between Armitage and the Loop.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cta-tattle...sfer-stations/

CTA Red-Purple Line alternative: Basic Rehabilitation with Transfer Stations

By Kevin O'Neil, January 30, 2011 at 3:22 pm

This alternative includes all of the elements of the Basic Rehabilitation Alternative plus new transfer stations at Wilson and Loyola.

Estimated cost
$2.9 billion

Longevity
20 years (60-80 years at new transfer stations)

Evanston Branch
Same as Basic Rehabilitation Alternative in this segment for this alternative.

North Red Line

In addition to including all of the elements of the Basic Rehabilitation Alternative, this
alternative adds new transfer stations at Wilson and Loyola in this segment.

I had always tried to figure this out as well. Why was I arriving at my destination locations on the far Northside earlier by bicycle than by taking the EL? after all the stops at stations aren't THAT lengthy, and even taking the lakefront trail, you are eventually confronted by stoplights and heavy traffic once back on surface streets.

The answer is simple. Bicycling is done doorstep to doorstep where transit is station to station plus the time it takes you to get to and from the stations and wait on a platform.

Speaking of which, the next meetings about that project are next Monday and Tuesday:

Monday, February 6, 2012
5:00 to 7:30 p.m.
EVANSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
1703 Orrington Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201

Tuesday, February 7, 2012
5:00 to 7:30 p.m.
BROADWAY ARMORY
5917 N. Broadway
Chicago, IL 60660

A key House Committee is threatening to kill three decades of successful investments in mass transit — originally started under President Ronald Reagan — by ending the guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.
In a stunning development late last night, House leadership and the Ways and Means committee made a shocking attack on transit that would have huge impacts for the millions of people who depend on public transportation each day.
They proposed putting every public transportation system in immediate peril by eliminating guaranteed funding for the Mass Transit Account and forcing transit to go begging before Congress for general funds each year — all while highway spending continues to be guaranteed with protected funds for half a decade at a time.

It's dead on arrival. There's no way this will pass the House and no way in hell it'll pass the Senate, certainly not with a veto-proof majority.

It's just retaliation. The House Republicans didn't like the move that Reps. Petri and Johnson (Republicans themselves) pulled in the transportation committee yesterday when they tried to reinstate funding for ped/bike programs. So now they're flexing their muscles, trying to remind their wayward lackeys just how much power they have.

Conceptually, though, I like it. User fees should fund the road system, but if they're redirected to transit, they're no longer user fees. Personally, I'd prefer that all transportation spending were devolved to the state level, where the Feds would simply return the gas tax revenue to the states, in the same proportion that each state contributes. Then states could set their own transportation priorities without worrying about top-down Federal planning. Illinois could spend a greater degree of funding on much-needed transit, whereas Texas could expand freeways to their hearts' content.

The relative scarcity of transit funding, especially in red states, would force cities to scrutinize their transit wish-list and only build those projects that would generate significant ridership - which might also mean that those cities must change their land-use patterns in certain areas.

Theoretically, I’m in full agreement with you ardecila—the interstate network is essentially built-out (or overbuilt, especially if you include urban expressways) and transportation needs needs are rather divergent across states. State transportation policies could be better tailored to local needs, so with transit you’d expect states like Illinois, New York and Massachusetts to focus more on modernization and improving their existing networks (since there wouldn’t be any FTA incentives towards expansion) while Minnesota, Colorado and Washington focus on expansion and rural states focus on their needs. And minus federal taxes, you solve the donor/recipient problem with gas taxes. Voila!

In practice, though, I’m much less optimistic. Although I have my quibbles with the way the FTA operates, in practice it’s much better than state DOTs, which tend to often be 100% highway-oriented, are often hostile to basic pedestrian amenities, and usually don’t know much about transit. From what I understand, federal funding allows metropolitan areas to mostly bypass their states to get federal funding (provided there’s a local match)—if that’s eliminated, cities might end up at the whim of potentially-hostile state governments. Plus, state government suffers from the same problem as the feds in terms of disproportionate representation—cities would, in all likelihood, still get screwed over for funding. Finally, although I’m sure it varies widely from state to state, I don’t get the impression that state DOTs are all that big on cost effectiveness metrics for determining which projects should go forward or not—they strike me as being much more clout-oriented. So, absent a major step up from state DOTs, I’d prefer for metros to continue dealing with the Feds.

More on-topic to Chicago, the CTA’s claiming that the rehab project’s just a facelift and that the big RPMP is still going forward:

http://www.chicagonow.com/cta-tattle...urple-project/

I’d say this makes sense, although they probably should have done basic rehabs like this ten years ago or so. Given the scale of some of the proposed Red-Purple alternatives, $60 million for short-term improvements is basically a rounding error—furthermore, if you’re going to go forward with a major tunneling/embankment repair-and-replacement project, you’re talking about ten to fifteen years in engineering, paperwork, assembling funding, and construction—those short-term improvements would get plenty of use in that interval. Furthermore, should the RPM not end up going forward due to the collapse of federal funding (and IDOT subsequently deciding that Decatur needs a full beltway or three), these could serve as an armature for more modest improvements along the line.