SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 127 of 809
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

Mr Downtown Feb 19, 2008 5:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3363459)
private contractors [could] propose routes in the city which would have enough demand to actually be profitable, if the city were to lease them the space/ROW to build it. I am assuming the contractor would build and operate the line themselves.
Did you miss the entire 20th century? This is the financial model under which Chicago's rapid transit lines were built. And the one under which they were pretty much bankrupt by 1911. If some company actually thought it could make a profit building and operating a rapid transit line, the city would franchise any right of way it wanted for $1 and would pay for fireworks at the groundbreaking. But with the exception of the real-estate cross-subsidized Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway, no rapid transit line anywhere in the world is profitable in the usual sense of the word.

UChicagoDomer Feb 19, 2008 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3363318)
You will have noticed that demand is low for East Loop office space. While clerical workers may arrive on Metra Electric and the L, managers (and the folks who make leasing decisions) more often arrive at Ogilvie or Union. That's pulling the office district west, so much so that Wacker is now the center rather than the western edge of it. East Loop office space is in so little demand that it's being converted to residential.

South suburbanites coming to Millennium Park or the museums once a year is charming, but it's not the core of Metra's ridership. It's a system organized (perhaps too much) around bringing suburbanites downtown in the morning and home in the afternoon.

Running some Metra Electric trains (perhaps the South Chicago branch) via SCAL into Union would allow the south suburbs better access to West Loop jobs--and help make the south suburbs a viable residential choice for West Loop officeworkers. Union is nearing capacity at the south end, but since Electric division trains wouldn't be serviced in the old Burlington yard, they could just run into Union Station on one of the riverside run-through tracks (fitted with high platforms) and have a step-on engineer to reverse ends and run back south.
after the rehab of millennium station (vendors, waiting area, etc.), i doubt that metra will be willing to pull its service over into Union/Ogilve. what's the problem with running the circle line over the St. Charles Air Line (other than the fact that to connect it back into the "circle" you'd have to bore a hole under streeterville and connect the line back up at Clark/Division, which is never going to happen)?

Mr Downtown Feb 19, 2008 3:38 PM
Huh? The south part of the Circle Line is already in place. There's no need to build some expensive way to get from the Alley L to the SCAL and then another expensive connection from SCAL to Orange Line.

UChicagoDomer Feb 19, 2008 4:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3364257)
Huh? The south part of the Circle Line is already in place. There's no need to build some expensive way to get from the Alley L to the SCAL and then another expensive connection from SCAL to Orange Line.
does the circle line as planned connect up with the Metra Electric, or will the Metra Electric be the sole Metra route that is isolated from the future "fully integrated" Metra-CTA transit system?

Marcu Feb 19, 2008 4:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3363725)
Did you miss the entire 20th century? This is the financial model under which Chicago's rapid transit lines were built. And the one under which they were pretty much bankrupt by 1911. If some company actually thought it could make a profit building and operating a rapid transit line, the city would franchise any right of way it wanted for $1 and would pay for fireworks at the groundbreaking. But with the exception of the real-estate cross-subsidized Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway, no rapid transit line anywhere in the world is profitable in the usual sense of the word.
There are quite a few privately operated transit lines throughout the world. A lot in Asia where transit is infinetly superior to here and several in the Western Hemisphere including Vancouver and Sao Paolo. They usually do require some sort of subsidy but tend to save money overall due to efficiency gains. Also, there are more riders, stations are generally cleaner, and trains are on time since there's a profit motive in encouraging more use. A sure way of increasing transit use is to make it profitable.

Mr Downtown Feb 19, 2008 4:33 PM
Well, it would be a 350-foot walk from Millennium Station to Randolph/Wabash L station. That's roughly as integrated as all the other CTA-Metra connections.

Chicago's transit systems developed as kind of concentric rings, with very few intersections/transfer opportunities that make a network more useful to its users. That has been made worse by the political decision to isolate the Metra system from the CTA system. I'm not very keen on the Circle Line proposal, but it is at least an attempt to integrate the two systems.

My wild & crazy proposal is to adopt the Grey Line idea of running the Metra Electric South Chicago branch on rapid transit headways with CTA fare integration. But I would run those trains via the SCAL into Union Station, allowing cross-platform transfers at 59th and at McCormick Place with the other two Electric branches. That would give Electric riders access to either an East Loop terminal or a West Loop terminal. In addition, I'd put back stations in Kenwood, Oakland and Douglas, and I'd extend the branch into the South Works property. Suddenly the south lakefront has good rail access to downtown office jobs.

Abner Feb 19, 2008 4:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3364342)
My wild & crazy proposal is to adopt the Grey Line idea of running the Metra Electric South Chicago branch on rapid transit headways with CTA fare integration. But I would run those trains via the SCAL into Union Station, allowing cross-platform transfers at 59th and at McCormick Place with the other two Electric branches. That would give Electric riders access to either an East Loop terminal or a West Loop terminal. In addition, I'd put back stations in Kenwood, Oakland and Douglas, and I'd extend the branch into the South Works property. Suddenly the south lakefront has good rail access to downtown office jobs.
Just curious, do those stations have sufficient capacity to run the Metra Electric at those headways?

UChicagoDomer Feb 19, 2008 5:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner (Post 3364369)
Just curious, do those stations have sufficient capacity to run the Metra Electric at those headways?
they do if the Metra-CTA adopts a universal fare card and gets rid of the Hyde Park-South Side buses (Nos. 6, 2, etc., etc.) that currently compete with Metra Electric service. wasn't greater integration and less inter-agency competition the point of the Hamos bill reform?

As to the Gray Line idea, it really doesn't seem that difficult to implement. the headways during rush hour are quite frequent (at least from Hyde Park). it seems that Metra would only have to run trains with the same headway during non-rush hours as it currently does during rush hours. the increased passengers from cancellation of bus routes would more than justify it.

UChicagoDomer Feb 19, 2008 5:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3364342)
Well, it would be a 350-foot walk from Millennium Station to Randolph/Wabash L station. That's roughly as integrated as all the other CTA-Metra connections.

...

My wild & crazy proposal is to adopt the Grey Line idea of running the Metra Electric South Chicago branch on rapid transit headways with CTA fare integration. But I would run those trains via the SCAL into Union Station, allowing cross-platform transfers at 59th and at McCormick Place with the other two Electric branches. That would give Electric riders access to either an East Loop terminal or a West Loop terminal. In addition, I'd put back stations in Kenwood, Oakland and Douglas, and I'd extend the branch into the South Works property. Suddenly the south lakefront has good rail access to downtown office jobs.
as to the connection between Metra and CTA at Randolph/Wabash, the pedway would need to be kept open past 8pm (and on Sundays) to make that viable.

as to your last paragraph, did there really used to be Metra Electric stations in Kenwood/Oakland? i had no idea. given all the development along Cottage Grove and in Kenwood/Bronzeville in general, it's a travesty that those stations are no longer there.

Mr Downtown Feb 19, 2008 5:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner (Post 3364369)
Just curious, do those stations have sufficient capacity to run the Metra Electric at those headways?
Which stations? Remember that the IC was the south lakefront's rapid transit until the 1970s, with transit-like headways on the main line, better than 10 minutes most of the day and evening. And yes, Domer, there were stations every few blocks.

You'd have to revise the turnout a little at South Wye Junction so the Metra tracks rather than the freight tracks connected to the SCAL. But that should be done anyway, to allow an 18th Street viaduct to Lake Shore Drive, and would be pretty cheap if it doesn't have to be done under traffic.

If you mean Union Station, I'm sure there will be raised eyebrows. But I think it's quite doable using a step-on motorman for rapid turnback and track 30 or 32 so there's little interference with BNSF service and switching.

Eventually...Chicago Feb 19, 2008 7:10 PM
i have to say, reading the discussion in this thread is easily the most complicated to keep track of. (that's a pun, ha ha) You really have to wonder if any good transportation plans can go forward until there is a REAL government organization that can look at the rta, freight lines, highways, ... and do some straight-up Transportation Planning (capital T, capital P). I'm just so sick of everyone pissing in their own corner.

You get the feeling that even if there was enough money for all these things, no one could agree on the best way to spend it. The tranportation mess around the whole region/state/country just shows how worthless our DOT's really are. It seems like the only thing they want to do is advocate for every town to be like schaumburg. 4-6 lane suburban arterials EVERYWHERE!

Nowhereman1280 Feb 19, 2008 8:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 3363703)
I had to make a run to Champaign today and took Amtrak. Union Station and the trains were packed, way busier than I expected. My train only had a handfull of empty seats.

Are the Amtrak ridership numbers up from past years?
Hell yes they are, most trains to Milwaukee are standing room only on busy days around holidays and even sometimes during rush hour and no empty seats ever during rush hours.

jpIllInoIs Feb 19, 2008 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3363526)
Eventually, Metra is planning to run the Southwest Service into LaSalle street, which would free up some capacity.
The new SouthEast Service is planned to run into LaSalle St Station also.

http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/ses.php

emathias Feb 20, 2008 1:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3364257)
Huh? The south part of the Circle Line is already in place. There's no need to build some expensive way to get from the Alley L to the SCAL and then another expensive connection from SCAL to Orange Line.
Well, the current plan is to link it to the Orange Line at Ashland. While that gives people another route to Midway, it adds no real value to any segment of the southwest portion of the city. What that poster was probably referring to was an idea that I (and others) have asked about, which is to turn the Circle Line east along the tracks near 16th Street. That gives new "L" access to East Pilsen, the southern half of UIC including, possibly, all the new development along Halsted, and the South Loop. Since there's possibly existing space for such a project (possibly not, I'm not sure), you'd be adding REAL new service instead of just extra trains to the SW side. Doing it that way could could also be done, with a little configuration, so that it joins the Red Line at the Dan Ryan portal just north of 18th. Then, eventually, if there were ever money for such a thing, it could be punched east to run along the Metra Electric alignment and up until it became a Streeterville subway. Like you said, money for that may never come to be (although Boston did manage to milk out $14 billion to bury a frickin' highway so never say never).

Here's to dreamin' ...

ardecila Feb 20, 2008 3:20 AM
Some interesting ideas here.

Couple of questions:

Why was IC service curtailed in the 70s?

Why have private citizens had to go to the trouble to prepare a detailed plan for the Gray Line, when transit planners should have realized this obvious move years ago?

Abner Feb 20, 2008 3:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 3365997)
Why have private citizens had to go to the trouble to prepare a detailed plan for the Gray Line, when transit planners should have realized this obvious move years ago?
I've been wondering this too. Could it be that it hasn't gone anywhere simply because the CTA and Metra are incapable of working closely together in such a way?

On a related note, has there been any movement at all on fare integration? Are there any ideas about how this could be done? It seems feasible to integrate Metra fares into Chicago cards via a similar system to the DC Metro (swipe when you board and when you alight, and the fare for the distance traveled is deducted automatically), but it has to preserve the ability to buy paper Metra tickets.

Abner Feb 20, 2008 4:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias (Post 3365652)
Well, the current plan is to link it to the Orange Line at Ashland. While that gives people another route to Midway, it adds no real value to any segment of the southwest portion of the city. What that poster was probably referring to was an idea that I (and others) have asked about, which is to turn the Circle Line east along the tracks near 16th Street. That gives new "L" access to East Pilsen, the southern half of UIC including, possibly, all the new development along Halsted, and the South Loop. Since there's possibly existing space for such a project (possibly not, I'm not sure), you'd be adding REAL new service instead of just extra trains to the SW side. Doing it that way could could also be done, with a little configuration, so that it joins the Red Line at the Dan Ryan portal just north of 18th. Then, eventually, if there were ever money for such a thing, it could be punched east to run along the Metra Electric alignment and up until it became a Streeterville subway. Like you said, money for that may never come to be (although Boston did manage to milk out $14 billion to bury a frickin' highway so never say never).

Here's to dreamin' ...
There is a Metra station at Halsted and the right of way through Pilsen is extremely wide, so there's probably room for stations. It may still be valuable to connect Pink to Orange--I wonder if in this hypothetical situation it would make sense to have the Circle Line continue south to the Orange Line tracks, and run the Pink Line as an east-west line continuing along 16th.

One of the sad side effects of connecting the Pink and Orange Lines would be the demolition of some buildings that have a very interesting relation to the tracks. At the turn in the track there are pillars right in people's front yards.

Mr Downtown Feb 20, 2008 5:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 3365997)
Why was IC service curtailed in the 70s?
Declining ridership. In 1970 the IC had 17 million pax. That had dropped to 14 million in 1974. In 2007 it was 12 million.

The biggest problem was that the city neighborhoods served by the IC were just emptying out, or at least losing their downtown commuters. As the railroad industry changed, the unprofitability of commuter operations became more obvious. When RTA took over in 1974, it introduced a uniform fare structure that made the IC less attractive than CTA. A 100 percent fare increase in 1981 instantly halved ridership on the South Chicago branch. I think there was also a Metra or railroad strike around this time that spurred CTA to increase service on the lakefront buses, particularly the 6. The schedules were also revised in a way that made the IC much less useful to in-city riders. Metra's financial support comes entirely from the suburbs, so the IC's in-city stations and service have always been stepchildren.

Mr Downtown Feb 20, 2008 5:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abner (Post 3366080)
has there been any movement at all on fare integration? Are there any ideas about how this could be done? It seems feasible to integrate Metra fares into Chicago cards via a similar system to the DC Metro (swipe when you board and when you alight
Metra continues to insist it cannot be done. They funded a study around 2000 on better physical integration between CTA and Metra, but specifically excluded any consideration of fare integration.

Remember that Metra stations don't have any sort of access control or faregates, so there'd be no way to note the entry and exit stations. About the only idea that I think would work would be machines at Metra stations and on trains that treat a ChicagoCard as a stored-value source of funds, making a deduction in exchange for a seat-check paper ticket to the proper zone.

VivaLFuego Feb 20, 2008 5:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 3365997)
Why have private citizens had to go to the trouble to prepare a detailed plan for the Gray Line, when transit planners should have realized this obvious move years ago?
Yeah, those damn incompetent transit planners, incapable of seeing the obvious... :rolleyes:

The Gray Line, as proposed, is a bad idea for a number of reasons, particularly in terms of the proposed cost and operating model. The most sensible way to achieve a similar effect would be 1) increased subsidy to Metra to increase frequency on the branch (one wonders why the bonus $100 million they're getting from HB656, giving them an almost $100 million annual operating surplus not even counting their imminent fare hike, wasn't earmarked for increasing service levels or something else useful other than enriching a gov't agency that doesn't need it) and 2) integrated intermodal fare systems. The fare integration question has been beaten to death, and is a political problem whose solution (and funding thereof) must be forced down Metra's throats. Maybe once Metra is done bonding out their operating funds to supplement their capital budget (presumably to gold-plate their railcars and install butler service or something) there will be some left over that RTA makes them use on fare equipment.


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:18 AM.
Viewing Page 127 of 809
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.