Yes, the subway runs under Clybourn and Division. But a station at Clybourn & Division would only be about 1200 feet from the one at LaSalle & Division.

Study points to Asbury for possible Yellow Line station
By Jonathan Bullington TribLocal reporter
Today at 12:33 p.m.

A study group has identified Asbury Avenue just north of Howard Street as the best location for a new CTA Yellow Line station in Evanston.

Evanston officials presented the findings of a feasibility study during a public meeting Tuesday night at the city’s Levy Senior Center. And while they think an Asbury station makes the most sense, officials reminded residents that much needs to be done before it is built.

“The goal coming out of the feasibility study is not so much to eliminate other sites,” said city engineer Paul Schneider. “It’s what’s the site we feel most comfortable presenting that could be funded.”

Officials estimate that an Asbury Avenue station could cost about $23 million to build, and $900,000 annually to operate. Acquiring federal dollars, which Schneider said could potentially cover about 70 to 80 percent of the building cost, would require “a bit of a sales job” to convince the feds of the station’s merits and growth potential.

full article: http://triblocal.com/evanston/2012/0...-line-station/

Thanks. I forgot about the new entrance at Lasalle. However I am not sure of the technical jargon...maybe catchment area or whatever...but a stop at clybourn / division may be able to pull from some of that development nearer the river than an entrance at Lasalle which i think would still pull from mostly the gold coast etc.

anyhow it was us a thought.....do you know has there been any discussion of a brown line stop verus a redline stop

Great!!! I have been arguing for this for years; I think ridge could use on too though; the pop density in the area is generally ~ 15,000 / sq mile near western and near ridge is north of 20,000 / sq mile even 30, 000 sq mile

Unlikely. Not enough population in that area to justify another red line station. Technically that location (Clyborn and Division) has lost a ton of population from decades of project clearing. The new development is incapable or replacing these losses, just because any development isn't all that big and lacks density.

It's in the better interests of the entire Northside to shorten the length of time it takes to get from downtown to the Northern neighborhoods. An additional stop would be inconvenient and serves no benefit to any departing passengers, just the population immediately near the stop

It also wouldn't be a prudent use of funds. Building a subway station is expensive, but just think of how many stations you could repair / cleanup / renovate with those funds. So there would be tremendous public opposition.

A brown line stop is much more practical. It fills in a long gap between Chicago and Sedgwick, and is closer to a destination location (Division St Bars and Rush Street). I'd certainly board a brown line train at Division rather transfer at Fullerton, even if it means additional time at Armitage, Wellington, etc

For that matter, the entire Green Line is within blocks, in either direction, of the Red and the Blue Line(s). Recall when the Green was closed for two years, and there were demolition whispers?--results were community outcry.

From a planning standpoint, I had always thought the funding to rebuild an obsolete transit line could have been put to better use. (Then again, I still think EL, in general is an antiquated concept, so who am I?)

Outside the box thinking is not gonna happen in this era.

Thank god they didn't get the line demolished. It is an invaluable asset towards rebuilding the South and West sides of this city. You can argue that having the Blue and Red nearby is repetitious, but a neighborhood line is much more attractive than mass transit relegated to the middle of a godforsaken freeway that has greatly diminished potential for catchment density due to being swallowed by roadways.

Also... hasn't this city learned by now that once you demolish a mass transit line that it never comes back? Why remove value infrastructure that cannot ever be replicated for its inflation corrected cost?

I agree. Although I wish the Red Line ran over Canal and/or Normal or along those rail yards instead of the middle of a highway.

It's too bad the South Side has depopulated so much, there are a few places that adding rail service would be intersting if the densities could support it. That rail ROW just south of 49th St, the ROW between Western and Damen, the ROW along 75th just to name a few.

Hopefully they consider this when planning the Western BRT.

The current 49 bus has to be split into south, main, and north portions because going the whole distance would require the drivers to work a shift longer than the union permits. With BRT, the three lines can be stitched together again since the run times are much shorter.

What I'm getting at is, a rider could board the Western BRT at Asbury and ride it to the Medical Center. It might even be faster than going by rail, which currently requires three trains.

Agreed. I feel that the experiment of running a subway line down a expressway median has proved itself to be a measurable failure by now. But, we're stuck with what we got and efforts should be made to best utilize it. Whether that means looking to develop high density nodes surrounding stations or simply improving bus connections it is something that should be researched as a blank slate when concerning the Dan Ryan.

There are quite a few available options in the south side, but working them into a system could provide troublesome when you are dealing with such a patchwork or ROW. I have recently pondered the merits of a Westward extension of the Green line, how beneficial it would be to push it either two miles to Kedzie accessing the Chicago Lawn area, or just going for broke and extending it to the Midway terminus of the Orange Line.

The Chicago/West Lawn neighborhoods are dense, established neighborhoods that require fairly lousy commutes on the CTA to get downtown. Providing an option to either connect to the Orange and head downtown or a single ride on the Green for a transit poor area would be hugely beneficial in my eyes.

Back to the mention of the depopulated South side... with all of the University of Chicago's holdings in Washington Park it could be interesting to see how that area transitions when the school decides to start any sort of build out. The area around the Garfield station could densify quite rapidly.

I still wish the Humboldt Park line could be rebuilt, but obviously that's never gonna happen. :(

Under Richard J., well before the Orange Line, there was talk of extending the Green Line to Midway.

I don't get why they don't just start sending every other or every third Red Line train on to the end of the Yellow. I assume the platforms are too short? At this point they may as well since they are adding so many stations.

Oh God yes, fuck the Bloomingdale Trail, refit that shit with an EL line so the huge areas of Logan Square and Humbolt Park have access to downtown. That would spark a massive boom in Humbolt Park as it is an amazing area with really terrible transit access.

I did not know this, thanks for the heads up, I'll have to research it a little to see exactly what they were proposing.

Yellow can only accommodate 2-car trains. I'm sure someday that will be expanded to 4 or something, but I can't see it going all the way up to 8.

Up in the Twin Cities, all (most) of our old rail ROWs were purchased by the county regional railroad authorities back in the 70s and 80s with the intent of using them for future transitways. Of course, they all have bike paths down them now, but since they're owned by the RRAs, it's a much easier process to narrow the bike paths to put in transit.

Is the Bloomingdale Line wide enough to fit both heavy rail and pedestrian paths? I would guess yes, but they wouldn't want trains too close to the edge since parts of the viaduct don't look all that stable and some buildings overhan it slightly?

No, not at all.

I have to disagreed with Nowhereman, I think that using Bloomingdale ROW as a linear park will be more beneficial that using the same stretch as a Blue Line spur. At its furthest you would make it to Lawndale which would only be a 1.8mile expansion with maybe three additional stations and it would not displace the North Ave bus.

I know it would be vastly more expensive, but using the original Humboldt Branch alignment has possibilities to expand indefinitely westward, accessing a much larger pool of residents.

I agree with this completely. And you get to keep the benefit of the Bloomingdale trail. Really think a HP line should be considered.

From 1973: http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/1995plan.html

That plan also included one of the few actual proposals to link what are now the Blue and Brown Lines along Lawrence.

False, there is more than enough ROW to extend a Bloomingdale Trail line to Narragansett or perhaps ever further. Just have the EL tracks sandwich the existing freight lines. You'd just have to build a viaduct where it intersects with those other tracks to keep it grade separated from the active rail lines. Basically you could have it terminate at Brickyard and serve a huge swath of the city that has only limited Metra service right now.

I just believe there is simply not enough room to add two tracks as well as outboard stations to make a continuation along that line feasible.

On top of that, once you pass West of Kostner that rail line path is smack in the middle of an industrial corridor that diminishes access for residents, would be unattractive/desolate and has no direct connection to a retail corridor. Oh, and you would still have to operate the North Ave bus.

While building out this ROW for mass transit may be cheaper, I have reservations whether it would be remotely as successful as a line following the original Humboldt Branch/North Ave alignment.

I appreciate the link.

Interesting about the Brown Line extension to the Blue, that is something that I had been casually researching as well, having the Brown run down the Lawrence corridor and terminating at the Jefferson Park Transit Center. It would be a huge benefit to Albany Park and Mayfair in addition to providing a great link to OHare for Northsiders.

Not true. Dempster has short platforms but Oakton and any future stations must be designed to either accommodate 8 cars from the start or be sited such that platform extensions would be inexpensive later (ie straight track, 0.5% grades max, no obstacles like overpasses or tunnel mouths.

The increased focus of adding stations on the Yellow Line naturally leads into the question of why not route it downtown where people are actually going. The Purple Line tracks from Howard to Belmont aren't exactly swamped with traffic on a daily basis.

There are lots of questions, though. Should the Yellow Line trains terminate downtown, or continue to another destination? If they do terminate, how is that accomplished? There's not a ton of capacity on the Loop - it's pretty much maxed out unless something else changes. You could run it through the subway, but where does the train stop and turn around?

I like nowhereman's idea of routing alternate or 1/3 of Red Line trains to Skokie, but you'd need a big reorganization at Dempster both to berth 8-car trains and to set up a proper terminal with two tracks and a crossover. Would this service run 24 hours, or cut off at Howard after midnight? How do you communicate/brand this complex info to make it simple for passengers to understand?

How would Skokie feel about having a direct link to the South Side in their community, especially after the CTA's well-known role in the recent wave of flashmobs? They already went apeshit over the Old Orchard extension, because somehow having an L station next to a high school is an invitation to muggers, rapists, and pervs. Modern transit networks are built around the idea of crosstown trips, but the problem in Chicago is that we don't like the people who live across town. This is one of the reasons that through-routing for Metra has always died quickly and quietly, and why Philly is still having huge issues with their through-routing.

Start with a rush express service like the Purple Line and run it on the Red Line routing starting at Belmont. Take it all the way downtown and go up the 13th St incline to effect a turnaround (motorman walking to the other end of the train) and head back north. Expense and physical changes required would be pretty minimal.

Realistically I would get rid of the Yellow line all together. Use any fund and savings to upgrade service on dense areas in the city where transit makes more sense. What does the yelllow have 5500 -6000 riders a day. I bet it is by a considerable margin the most expensive CTA line per rider in the system. I'd do the same with the purple hell ridership on that has plummeted over the years & the route already has good metra access. Again use the savings in the system that serves areas with the density that warrants fixed rail. Or use the purple as an inner city express service...limited stop

The biggest issue is probably congestion at the Clark Junction just north of Belmont. That intersection with the Brown Line is already close to capacity.

Evanston is just as dense as Chicago and, in fact, denser than many parts of Chicago. We all know Metra provides crappy service. It's a shorter trip time to downtown but off-peak, the trains only run hourly.

Plus, Metra provides terrible access to any North Side destinations between Evanston and downtown (the stations at Lawrence and Lunt are not huge centers of activity).

The Purple Express serves an interesting function --- its core markets are actually:

(1) home-work commuting between Evanston and the north side neighborhoods of Lincoln Park and Lakeview, and
(2) supplementing Brown Line capacity into/out of downtown with an additional routing distribution option.

This makes it a very productive service, in terms of the number of trips served per car-mile operated, because it is well used in both directions during both peak periods --- which is striking because most "express" transit services tend to suffer from low productivity because their demand is so one-directional and a vehicle has to go all the way there then all the way back to serve demand, spending much of the time empty.

A relatively small percentage of Purple Line riders use it from Evanston all the way to downtown, at least during rush hours when the Metra schedule is decent.

As to claim 1 that is simply not true. As to claim 2, sure it is more dense than riverdale or Beverley; but we are not talking about those parts of the city now are we? The densest census track along the purple line is the one just north of Howard at around 16,000 / sq mile. The next densest is around 15,000 the rest float around 9-13, 000 sq mile. Now the line in chicago typically runs through census tracks with densities north of 30,000 sq mile; it rarely passes through anything much less than 20,000 and most are well above 25,000 sq mile several are north of 40,000 sq mile.

As to point 3: all the more reason for a Howard Metra stop with transfer to red / purple lines.

I would keep the purple line for in-city use only to augment the redline.


These two articles i think capture what I am speaking of:

http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100701.php
http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100401.php

To augment my point here is a graph of ridership levels on the L line 1985 = 100

http://chicago.straightdope.com/1985..._riders_v5.JPG

Ridership on the northside lines has either eclipsed or is very near historical highs whereas the suburban lines are around 70% of what they were 25 years ago

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.