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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

CTA board approves contract to replace half of rail cars
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...309-story.html

Let the speculation begin!!!

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.

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.

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.

So I'm not crazy?!! :)

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


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.

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/

^^^

Eww. That's one FUGLY structure.

^^^

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/

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...

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.

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.

Considering runways are like 3 feet thick, I don't see settling being an issue.

What's the latest on Washington/Wabash? Is that still on schedule?

Not sure if there is a more appropriate thread, but I caught an overview of the progress on I-355 on a return flight today. What a difference the westbound ramp has made. Looking forward to the completion of this project in the future.
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/t...0E8AC28B29.jpg

^I think you mean SR-390, the Elgin-O'Hare Expwy. View is looking north at the I-290 interchange in Itasca.

Oops you are correct Mr. D. Late night post. Mind must not have been working at full capacity.

It's ok. anyone from south of there calls it 355. I constantly get confused looks from friends who live up by schaumburg when i say 355 instead of 290.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...318-story.html

Feds, public to hear plan to reduce rail congestion around Chicago

Becky YerakContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
03/21/16

A proposed 278-mile rail line billed as relief for freight and traffic congestion in the Chicago area is getting a hearing next month from a federal regulator, even as one potential customer said it's not interested.

The Surface Transportation Board, an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has scheduled public meetings in April to get input on the three-state proposal, partly due to its potential for "significant environmental impacts."

Its developer, Great Lakes Basin Transportation, hasn't publicly divulged its funding sources, but said it envisions the privately financed freight rail project to run in relatively sparsely populated areas from near La Porte, Ind., to Milton, Wis., and to connect with existing major railroads.

This seems like a pipe dream. How come these guys can access $8B of private capital when all seven Class I railroads put together can't do it?

^^
I am dubious about the "private" funding of this project. Historically RR's got their start with free federal land rights. How will they purchase all of this property and then construct and then still need to charge Class I RR's high tariffs to use it.

The big 7 Class I RR's dont want and wont pay for it. CN has the EJE byass which they spent better than 500 Mil on acquisition and upgrades. BNSF has a route from Savannah, IL to Smithboro, IL which they have sent $$ on to upgrades. NS has just finished upgrading the Kankakee Line-Streator to Schnieder, In to Griffith, IN. And the CREATE projects on the Belt Corridor improvements are almost all complete.

Most annoying is that this type of project doesn't even acknowledge WHY the 7 Class I RR meet in Chicago - To interchange carloads and redirect to the end users. And they do that at the appx 22 Railyards in and around the city and suburbs.

I would rather see the 75th St corridor project get funded. It would benefit commuters & intercity passenger travel and develop the demand for logistics jobs in the now abandoned south side manufacturing districts. Much like the recent Pullman development with Whole Foods and Method and the ongoing reemergence of the Stock Yards as a distribution center.

They are probably planning on using FRA RRIF guarantees to backstop the risk of building such a project, so private companies putting up the dough to build it would be well insulated and be almost guaranteed to at worst break even.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...tting-overhaul
Looks great. I'm on Belmont quite often going to Stage 773, and that intersection sucks for pedestrians.

City's bike lane expansion continues
WGNtv.com | POSTED 5:25 PM, APRIL 11, 2016, BY SEAN LEWIS

(above link includes a video news story)

I understand why the city keeps mum about the locations of new bike lanes, but it is frustrating as an armchair planner.

Sadly the parking meter lease really constrains where the city can put in this type of infrastructure... They can't convert paid parking spots to bike lanes without finding alternate spaces somewhere else, so the only way to put in protected bike lanes is to convert a travel lane and do a road diet. Which is just fine if it's done intelligently...

Looks like Bombardier is protesting the award for the 7000-series cars to CSR:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...oreUserAgent=1

This is such BS. Even if CSR "improperly underbid", whatever that means, I think most Chicagoans would agree that bringing decent jobs to the South Side is just as important, or more important, than saving a few million on the railcar purchase.

Also, if the Chinese government wants to subsidize the production of railcars at a cost that is uneconomical, that's not CTA's or Chicago's problem. We should happily take the cheap railcars and do what's right for Chicago taxpayers and CTA riders. Who knows, maybe the Chinese even have some efficient manufacturing techniques that Bombardier doesn't. China's built hundreds of miles of sleek, efficient new rail systems, maybe they know something. I don't see any reason why CTA should indulge the uncompetitive business model of a Canadian company just because they built the last round of railcars.

It's obvious why CSR, Wanda and other Chinese state-owned businesses want to invest here. The domestic gravy train is coming to a halt in China and there are better returns to be made in the US, even if they have to take a haircut on the first few deals to get their foot in the door. The Japanese did the same thing to enter the US auto and electronics markets, and the increased competition made American consumers better off. The railcar industry isn't nearly as big as those two industries, thankfully, so we're not talking about something that will cause massive job loss.


TL;DR Tough break, Bombardier. Sorry about the loss, bro. Maybe next time.

CNR did the same thing to get the Boston Orange and Red Line bid so I think there business plan is to underbid and pick up a few big contracts to get established and build a reputation then start bidding at more normal prices after this first round.

Oh, they do.

(I understand in that case it was Bombardier using Chinese parts, but nevertheless)

Exactly.

All in favor of the Chinese subsidizing our mass transit system?

I.

Yeah, it's interesting that CSR/CNR also committed to a factory in Springfield, MA for the MBTA railcar assembly. That's a huge amount of capital to set up two different US factories.

Even if China does get their foot in the door of the US rail industry, there isn't really enough demand to support two Chinese factories in the US. You have 1, maybe 2 large railcar orders per year, and even those are heavily contingent on whether Congress is feeling ornery or not.

Of course, that could change if the Chinese actually start bankrolling rail projects directly...

On the topic of the 7000 contract, here's the bid images from Sumitomo. I really dig that first exterior rendering, though they resemble an awful lot like some German S-Bahn cars from the '70s. The interior proposals were also pretty nice, especially those red seats—they seem to grasp how human torsos are actually shaped:


http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...d298ef371.jpeg
http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...d298ef371.jpeg

http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...6ac0e1a1c.jpeg
http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...6ac0e1a1c.jpeg

http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...efcc3ac2c.jpeg
http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...efcc3ac2c.jpeg

http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...5b65c3f4a.jpeg
http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...5b65c3f4a.jpeg

http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...83e12a6b4.jpeg
http://chitransit.org/uploads/monthl...83e12a6b4.jpeg

That's certainly not Wilson, but other than that looks good! I wish they would give up the fabric though, I hate feeling afraid anytime I smell piss and my seat is abnormally cold.

If CSR was only $226 million under Bombardier, that does not sound like an underbid to me, relatively speaking.

This is suburban, but interesting nonetheless. The new Barrington Road interchange on I-90 will have an "in-line" bus station with a park and ride. This facility is out for bid right now. The pedestrian underpasses are nice, and then there is a large signature pedestrian bridge over I-90 as well.

This kind of infrastructure is common in other cities like Seattle, LA and Minneapolis but this is the first one in Chicagoland.

No renderings, but from the bid drawings it will look like this, the style is similar to other Tollway structures like the new toll plazas:
https://goo.gl/maps/mktasZzxdXy

The site plan looks like this:
http://hoffmanestates.org/Home/ShowI...76670598900000

Fascinating piece of infrastructure. I have long thought that things like this should be built everywhere.

Even taking Seattle and Minneapolis into account, this is the first one I've seen that ties into existing exit ramps like this. This is important, because it doesn't require any extra right-of-way to build, instead using surplus land that just sits around unused at most interchanges.

I wonder if some special AASHTO permission was needed to allow this on an interstate highway, particularly one of the caliber of I-90. Or could it be that this this all kosher with the most recent/relevant interstate standards?

What sort of barrier (if any?) exists between the platform and the fast moving highway traffic?

Those are ramp meters in the drawings, right? I wonder if there will be a sensor that causes them to turn and stay red whenever a bus is leaving the platform.

My personal vision for this concept would eschew the pedestrian overpasses and underpasses in most cases, and instead tie the platforms in with the existing sidewalks of the surface street with simple, cheap, ADA-compliant ramps and stairs. Leaving out the over/underpasses is not desirable in this case because the interchange is a SPUI, but for a standard or folded diamond interchange on an urban freeway in a relatively dense area, it could be done. Combine that with Bus On Shoulder operations and you have a gold standard BRT with 55-65mph line haul speeds and fully dedicated right-of-way for very little money.

It's hard to see, but there is a bus lane in each direction on the tollway that acts like a distributor. Separated by jersey barrier from the mainline. The entrance to the bus lane is accessed from the exit ramp instead of the mainline, so I think the geometry should prevent most drivers from zooming past the platform. It's weird to have these accessed from a right-hand exit ramp when the bus-on-shoulder is on the left shoulder, though. Under congested conditions it could take the bus many minutes to merge across four lanes.

No ramp meters, you're looking at electronic toll gantries. The mainline doesn't really back up to the point where ramp meters would be needed.

My only hesitation here concerns actual ridership. These buses will only go to the O'Hare/Rosemont area, and most jobs there are not concentrated near transit. I do see this working as a really nice remote park-and-ride for the airport, though, like LA's FlyAway or Boston's Logan Express. We really don't have an option like that in Chicago to serve suburban residents, you're expected to take a cab, park at the airport, or kiss-n-fly.

http://i64.tinypic.com/eqpjeu.jpg

I don't really get this; the 610 already has several park-n-ride lots just a mile west of there, and ridership is really modest: 440 per day, only a few of them park-n-riders. Doesn't help that it has a dozen routing variations.

There's a whole series of new park and ride lots planned along with new services. Most of them are the traditional style next to the interchange, but this one has a unique "in-line" design that doesn't require buses to exit the expressway.

http://www.illinoistollway.com/docum...ion+Nov+10.pdf

I feel like that sort of scheme is pointless without walkable density around the nodes.

I'll mention again my own pipe dream of serving this corridor with an Ottawa-style busway in which the routes do useful origin and destination work before interchanging passengers at stations along the line-haul corridor:

http://www.chicagocarto.com/NWC.gif

^This makes so much sense. So of course it will never happen.