I don't disagree with the sentiment, but of course tolls on commercial vehicles have already been hiked dramatically over the past decade, while the tolls for passenger cars have remained pitifully low by any standard.

It's worth noting, too, that uncongested roadways whose demand is managed/suppressed via charging tolls provide a huge economic benefit for businesses operating with any scale... the toll charge is generally money well spent for guaranteed and reliable travel times of goods and services unless the toll is ridiculously high. The fact that I-90 still sees so much congestion is itself a sign that tolls need to rise, at least during peak demand periods, irrespective of the needed reconstruction --- and if the congestion is to be relieved by widening to 4 lanes in each direction, well, that'll need money from a toll hike too.

And this is not even getting into whether an ideal funding source for the RTA would be toll revenue (a reliable and economically rational tax source, to be paired with a decrease in the undependable and fluctuating RTA sales tax), a la the New York MTA where the bridges and tunnels cross-subsidize transit service. Will never happen, of course, but hey, we can dream...

The new L cars have been spotted in the wild.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/rede...ew-l-cars.html

One bit I found interesting:

I really don't understand the CTA's rationale here. How is it possible that these cars, with less room being taken up by seats and more open area for standing passengers, will hold the same amount of passengers as the old cars? Especially during rush hour, when people are pushing to get onto the cars, you'd think that at least a few other people could pack in.

Is this a PR move by the CTA? Or is their rationale sound?

^ Or is she just an idiot?

:tup:

We have a winner!

Tracy Swartz (the RedEye's transit columnist) got the scoop straight from the CTA press office:

Not sure I agree with the "industry standard" calculation on this one...though I guess it makes sense from an average capacity standpoint. When these cars get crowded at rush hour, though, I'm guessing 1.5 sq. ft. per passenger is an overestimation.

The tolls on trucks have already been raised, which they should be, given the disproportionate effect that truck traffic has on the condition of roads.

Raising the tolls on standard motorists using I-Pass is what's being discussed. The increase in cash tolls a few years ago was a stick to push people into adopting the I-Pass, and it worked spectacularly, but now with so many drivers paying the lower toll, the net revenues aren't enough for the tollway's needs.

I wonder if the collections expenses of the Tollway have gone down with Open Road Tolling and increased I-Pass usage? There are far fewer tollbooth operators, far fewer coin-counting machines to fix, etc.

I'd rather see a congestion charge ala London. I'm a firm believer in charging for consumption.

BTW, excellent point on the effect of heavy trucks.

Not according to the tollway authority.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has no plans to increase tolls and has had no discussions about doing so, agency chairwoman Paula Wolff said today.

Wolff also scoffed at reports that the tollway was facing financial difficulties. "Our revenues are right on projection within the budget," Wolff told the Tribune.

Wolff dismissed a story in Crain's that said the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority would need to hike I-PASS tolls in order to pay for repairs on the Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (I-90).

Discussed in the Crain's article. I have no idea what goes on at the Tollway, but I'm sure the idea of raising tolls has been floated.

Is construction slated to begin on the Oakton yellow line station in Skokie this year? The wikipedia page says the station is projected to be completed by the end of 2009... obviously it's outdated.

My understanding is that technically everything is ready to go (i.e. 100% engineering drawings complete, all necessary land and permits acquired), but there have been a variety of red tape hangups regarding both the state and federal grants that are programmed to help pay the construction cost. Something regarding needing the federal grant reclassified from one program to another, and of course the standard IDOT backlog which some might remember also delayed the Roosevelt Road Metra Electric station by at least a year.

Ok. Thanks. I was just curious if it had finally begun construction. Sounds like it's up in the air when the grants will finally get worked out and construction can commence.

Speaking of el station projects/proposals, what do people know about the status of these:

--Grand (Red) - They've clogged up State Street for forever now. How much longer?

--Merging Randolph and Madison into Washington/Wabash - Is this a definite go? If so, what is the next hurdle the proposal needs to clear?

--State/Lake - Is the prevailing thinking that this will be refurbished? Or merged or deleted?

A Trib article a few days ago quoted CDOT, saying that renovation of State/Lake is tentatively planned for 2015.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=37947

Durbin spars with House over Illinois' highway funding stake

By: Paul Merrion April 23, 2010

(Crain's) — U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin is in a high-stakes, head-on collision with the chairman of the House Transportation Committee over this year’s federal highway funding, with about $119 million at risk for Illinois.

Illinois’ senior senator and U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., are both demanding that the other back down, but Mr. Durbin appears to have the upper hand — at least, for now.

...

Fuck. Illinois needs Oberstar as an advocate if we want to see any progress at all on transit or high speed rail.

Maybe it's just me, but more money flowing to IDOT is not on principle a good thing. Most of it will just go to gold-plating roads downstate anyway. It's not even a good economic solution, since the road-building jobs are temporary.

:previous:
I think this justifies Durbins action alone.

Cermak-Chinatown renovation

The CTA is using $12.5 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) federal stimulus funds to renovate the Cermak-Chinatown station on the Red Line and make the station fully accessible per ADA guidelines.

When this project is complete, customers using the upgraded Cermak-Chinatown will enjoy a bright, new ground-level station house on Cermak, equipped with an elevator to improve access for people with disabilities. Benefits of the project also include the addition of a new, permanent auxiliary entrance at Archer Avenue to provide easier access to and from the northern parts of Chinatown, including Chinatown Square and Ping Tom Park!
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/9...krendering.jpg

I don't expect that we should get back 100% that we pay in, but to get back 92 cents on the dollar, effectively subsidizing other states to the tune of 40,000 jobs... that's bullshit.

It has nothing to do with whether we "should" get what we pay in. Illinois pays more than we get back because the average Illinoisan earns more than the average American. Since government spending is apportioned (usually) by population and related metrics, and NOT by the wealth of residents, wealthier states will always be subsidizing poorer ones.

Wealthier states also tend to be lean Democratic, which leaves many liberals upset as they see red states being subsidized, but it really has little to do with politics.

I have no issue with being behind on highway funding by any amount, I'd just like to see a shift of our priorities in funding towards favoring active transportation over automotive transportation. Because citizens agree:
infrastucture spending currently contradicts the wishes of the electorate

recently heard someone argue against a transit plan, "because it benefits land speculators". The person had no issue with sub-urban road expansion projects that instigate a far less sustainable version of the same land speculation.
highway funding is entirely out of whack in the nation as a whole

If anything, government spending is conversely related to population. Large cities get less dollars of federal spending per capita than rural areas.

I've been looking forward to this for a couple years now, ever since I first heard wind of it. It will be nice to have an Archer entrance to shorten the walk to the Chinatown Square area, but it will also benefit the new development near Archer and State, as well as all the new development between Archer and 18th Street. And that hotel on Clark, if it ever gets built.

The rural voters are idiots, apparently. I don't know of a cost-effective way to provide transit service to rural areas. I'm happy that they support increased investment, but they should probably be made aware that there's not a whole lot government can do to provide transit in such low-density environments. Small cities (upwards of, say, 10000 people) might benefit from jitney services or something.

Rural areas will always get more per capita in infrastructure investment because they have more infrastructure per capita. The basic framework of the Midwest... mile-square grid of roads, power lines, state routes, and the occasional Interstate all cost money. Here in the city, we have denser, higher-capacity infrastructure, which means that a dollar invested here has arguably more benefit than a dollar invested in rural areas. That's not an excuse to deprive those rural areas of the basic road/power grid maintenance and occasional expansion that they're entitled to.

^ Yeah I am always incredulous when I travel to So. Ill and see the extensive Interstate network around the Illinois suburbs of St. Louis. They are working on their 4rth Interstate bridge connecting the Ill suburbs to St.L. Meanwhile in the heart of the great lakes megalopolis, we have 1 interstate connecting Chicago to Milwaukee. We cant get federal or state funding to finish 355 north from Lake-Cook road to Wisconsin. I know this board is dedicated to urban transit concerns, but the I-355 north completion project is a glaring omission to the regional transit system.

I have no problem with them paving roads in downstate Illinois. But when it comes to priority, do we resurface a road in Quincy that averages 5,000 cars a day, or do we repave LSD, that averages 100,000 plus.

Oak Park Residents Debate: Widened Eisenhower or Extended Blue Line

He's completely right... there's no reason both projects shouldn't be implemented. There's enough width in the corridor for both if the CSX tracks are abandoned and the Blue Line is extended along the CA&E. The only problem is the cemeteries, but I'm sure there's some way of dealing with that.

Extending the Blue Line makes total sense, since it would even out the ridership between the O'Hare and Forest Park branches, making it more cost-effective for CTA to run frequent trains to Forest Park. Doesn't CTA currently short-turn some Blue Line trains at LaSalle?

The problem with the strategy described above, though (extending the Blue Line piecemeal) is that a terminal station in Maywood is unlikely to pull many drivers off of the road. By the time they get to Maywood, most drivers have already entered the fray of the Avenues. A Hillside station would be more effective, but you'd need to put the station near the highway and find enough land for a decent-sized garage. If the Blue Line uses the CA&E alignment, it won't be adjacent to the highway where drivers can see it, so you'd have to go all the way to the Tri-State to set up an effective park-n-ride, and it would still require new exit ramps.

^
I agree, but I am unsure about removing freight tracks. Before the economy crashed, the amount of freight being transported across the country was expected to have continual growth and effectively double by mid-century. We might need those tracks to take on the increased load in the future as the trains are shuffled through the Chicago yards. The grade separated nature of the tracks makes for great storage or layover space that will not block any street crossings. Ferrara Pan Candy would also need to give up their railspur, and require more deliveries to arrive by truck.

Maywood courthouse makes perfect sense as an extension, but for the blue line to truly serve as alternative to add capacity to the corridor, it must go to at least Oak Brook along I-88. This has many advantages, as it would introduce heavy rail transit to an area not already served by Metra, and it would provide a quick means of commuting to suburban job centers from the city. The West Side would turn into a sweet spot location where one could take the CTA to one of 3 major regional employment districts. The suburban job centers have the fastest growing amounts of entry level positions, which transit dependent people in need of work have a hard time accessing.

^I don't know that the Altenheim Sub serves any particularly important purpose (other than making possible Atomic Fireballs. Non-Chicagoans will puzzle over why that's considered beneficial to society). It's abandoned east of BRC and some of the bridges have load restrictions. CREATE proposed extensive reconstruction but CN no longer needs it now that it has the J, and gives up the WC for commuter service much of the day.

^Yeah the entire Central Corridor improvements have been dropped in the latest CREATE plans. T

Not necessarily. The Altenheim Sub is 3 tracks west of Austin. Ferrara Pan only needs one track.

You could preserve one CSX track and then convert the other two tracks into a 2-lane reversible managed-lane facility (36' wide, using the Kennedy as an example) with entrances at Central and Desplaines, where the reversibles would move into the median of the Ike in a Kennedy-like setup.

What do you guys think of my Blue Line Extension proposal? I wanted to practice my Illustrator skills... but I think this is what we should be pushing for if CMAP/RTA are serious about extending the Blue Line westward.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...ZmYzN2Nk&hl=en

The idea is that it would be built in three phases: to Hillside, then Oak Brook, and then Yorktown.

A new yard (required to accommodate the large number of new trains) would be built adjacent to the Hillside station, all of which would be on the Congress Landfill site. I don't know if building there is feasible, but people have built atop landfills elsewhere. It's really a perfect site for a major park-and-ride: it sits right where 290 and 88 merge, just before the heavy traffic starts. Mannheim is a high-capacity interchange that isn't choked with traffic. The landfill site is big enough to accommodate serious quantities of parking.

There is a settlement risk; this could be okay for parking lots or garages, but not for trainyards. An alternate yard site would be near the Maywood station on a redeveloped industrial property.

I think it's safe to assume $3 billion for this thing, in 2010 dollars. Of course, that's a paltry sum compared to the Second Avenue Subway, so I remain hopeful.

^ Seems they make you create an account to view your link...

Not to be buzz kill, but I have a hard time seeing white collar commuters riding the very long distance between Oak Brook and downtown on noisy, rickety CTA railcars, through very questionable neighborhoods. Especially since now people want to use their commuting time on the cell phone or an iPad, etc.

This is out of left field, but what about a Metra spur to Oak Brook? Maybe a shuttle train that goes back and forth between the new terminal and the new junction with an existing Metra line. Maybe something down IL 83 to Hinsdale? Or make it light rail? Is this just naive dreaming? It's much less distance than the Blue Line would be.

$3 billion would pay for either all of the Circle Line or a good chunk of the Clinton Street Subway/West Loop Transportation Center, either of which would have FAR, FAR higher ridership than what you're proposing would.

If anything is built that direction, it should be run as commuter rail, by Metra, and not as an extension of Chicago's metro-style "L" system. The RTA really needs to evaluate how each system is used and how to align them to compliment each other.

Yeah, Oak Brook is too far to ride on what are basically streetcars. But the big problem in my mind is the last mile. A rail line has to terminate in a specific place, which is still a mile or more from various Oakbrook destinations. So if you can find the right of way, why not simply run BRT out there, and then circulate the buses to various office buildings and campuses in the area?

But the first thing to do would be simply to have a link running from Elmhurst to Hinsdale Metra stations via various Oakbrook destinations. Dedicated lanes on Route 83 or Spring Road and limited stops could make this a real extension of the rail network instead of just another wandering, unseen Pace bus. That would allow the (frankly, very few) potential commuters to reach office and retail destinations via Metra and a quick bus ride—exactly the same situation you'd have if you spent $3 billion running a rail line to the shopping center and then ran a birds-nest of confusing and uncoördinated shuttle buses to various office destinations.

There is no way Metra is going to build a new line between BNSF and UP-west. The blue line extension is the only thing that really makes sense in terms of further connecting the city with DuPage (now approaching 1 million residents and even more workers who are not residents). Most of the offices and retail (and the two malls) lie along Cermak except for a few office buildings that go a little further south on Jorie Blvd (still very walkable from Cermak). As far as use, the intended demographic I imagine would be the reverse commuters who live further east, not vice versa (those people already use the Metra lines). I think it's a great idea eventually, but not at the expense of the circle line etc., which should (and will) come first in terms of priority.

Honestly, I think the Blue Line should be extended before the Circle Line. I'd rather see the Clinton Street Subway/WLTC before either of them, though. The problem with the Circle Line is that the densification required to justify the line would likely by stymied by neighborhood politics. For various reasons, the Blue Line extension and the Clinton Street Subway face no such problems.

As far as I can tell, most of what RTA advocated for the Blue Line was a 1/2 mile extension to 1st Avenue. Oak Brook is an ideal terminus, and the idea of an I-88 rail line was even extended to a logical conclusion with a terminus at 355/BNSF. Even the piddling 1/2 mile extension to 1st Avenue poses challenges, though... will the cemeteries accept a rapid transit line at-grade or elevated through what is currently a quiet cemetery, along the CA&E alignment? There's room just to the north of the Ike, but building tracks there will prevent any future expansion of the expressway. I guess you could build the tracks on an aerial structure in the median of the highway.

Of course, I don't think an extension to 1st Avenue has ANY worth whatsoever. If you're trying to improve access to the courthouse, you could run shuttles every 5 minutes for far less than the cost of a transit line.

The first phase of my proposal goes to Hillside, which has strong merits by itself, in terms of its land-use consequences for Maywood/Bellwood and the massive park-and-ride I suggest for the Hillside station.

Maywood and Bellwood are rotting inner suburbs with little potential for growth. They would surely support extensive TOD around Blue Line stations, and their actions suggest this.

Another concept to consider would be to build the Blue Line Extension as a light-rail line, thereby greatly reducing the costs and allowing the possibility of at-grade intersections. Later phases could build express light-rail tracks to the Circle. I believe light-rail vehicles exist now with the acceleration and speed of heavy-rail vehicles.

General question - what are the benefits of heavy rail over light rail anyway? What do you get for the substantially higher costs? Is it basically speed and capacity I assume? (And ability to avoid a catenary I guess.) What are the outer bounds of light rail speeds, assuming a stretch having dedicated/protected r-o-w ?

Are there installed examples anywhere in the world of anything that's in between, that blurs the lines between the two?

:previous: my understanding is that typically heavy rail is separated from vehicular traffic whereas light rail is not necessarily so (like a streetcar). Portland's light rail does both. I don't know the answers to your other questions.

@ardicela: I can't access your render. It saya the document is not available. That said, I think that the circle line route doesn't really need a huge densification to justify it's necessity, because of what it does: integrate the hub and spoke system that we have, while hitting some huge hot spots like the Medical Center (and United Center; if they don't they're retarded). The densification will come naturally, even without the circle line, as that area is just west of high density areas. In terms of priority, I think that is huge (integrating the hub and spoke system) and improving service within the city itself. The Blue line expansion is key regionally though (that corridor is the second highest employment center outside of the Loop (extending from western Westchester through Oak Brook, Lombard, DG, and into Naperville along I 88). As far as the Maywood stop, it's not really the courthouse, but LUMC that really needs it. I worked there as a youngster for three years, living in the city, but drove most of the time because of the hassle of hopping a bus at Forest Park. Lots of LUMC workers and patients would use that stop.

As I understand it, the two advantages of light rail are the ability to cross roads at grade/run in mixed traffic, and the benefits of having a lighter vehicle: easier acceleration using less energy, saving on operating costs. The greater acceleration/deceleration also allows for steeper grades and sharper curves along the alignment, so less earthmoving and land acquisition is required, even if you want full grade separation. I also believe the power (usually overhead wire) and the signaling systems are less complex and less costly.

I mentioned above that the operating costs of light rail were reduced vs. heavy rail. This is per train. In real life, the operating costs per passenger are usually higher than heavy rail, since light rail trains hold fewer passengers. But if the expected traffic isn't enough to fill up a heavy rail train, it's a moot point. Chicago's L trains also use the most energy per passenger of any North American heavy rail system. Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope speculates that this is because CTA's L cars are so short that they don't hold enough passengers to justify the weight they displace.

For an example of a light-rail system that has heavy-rail characteristics, look no further than downstate: St. Louis' Metrolink is a pretty high-level system. There are only 10 or 12 grade crossings on the Missouri side, with extremely wide-radius curves wherever possible.

kWh/passenger-mile, Chicago L: 0.373
kWh/passenger-mile, St. Louis Metrolink: 0.279

In other words, Chicago's system uses 34% more energy to move somebody one mile than St. Louis' system does. You'd need proper speed data to get a good picture, though, which I couldn't find.

Other examples of high-level light rail systems are the LA, Denver, and Seattle systems. The planned Honolulu line, in fact, will be totally grade-separated.

Here's a different link:
http://www.zshare.net/download/75605838dc87323c/ (it's a PDF)

LUMC isn't near the Ike. You'd still need to catch a shuttle or bus even if the Blue Line were extended to 1st Ave.

If the goal is to provide service to LUMC through a massive pie-in-the-sky rail project, you might as well extend the Pink Line instead. The ROW already exists between 54th/Cermak and Harlem; after that, you could run along the IC tracks. The Pink Line needs the ridership, anyway. Of course, LUMC is a big part of why the Cermak BRT is in planning stages. For such a low-cost and obvious transit project, I'm puzzled as to why nobody's built the damn thing yet. Hell, just get $10 million for bus bays, signal priority, and nice boarding stations.

Thanks for the link. OK, when I said that about LUMC, I was thinking of the entire Loyola/veterans hospital complex which stretches from Cermak to Roosevelt. If the blue line extended along the Ike (which is what I was thinking before seeing your render), that is only a half mile away, and Loyola already has shuttle services to their administrative center at the notheast corner of Roosevelt and 1st ave, which they could expand to the Ike 4 times an hour or something. Or the pink line expansion would maybe even be better (less traffic congestion than near the Ike). I don't think it's pie in the sky to take into consideration such a huge employer/service provider when considering where to put a line that is going to be extended somewhere wthin a mile anyway. It doesn't need to stop at the door, just within reasonable shuttle service distance. As for the proposed BRT service, I haven't been following that discussion at all, but that would work as well I guess. All I know is that the place definitely could benefit from more transit, as what was offered was already at capacity and pretty lousy (that was mid to late 90's though) As far as the extension, I envisioned it more following the 290/I88 route, as opposed to what you have drawn, but now I don't know. It would be beneficial to have a line run through the center of Hillside, Bellwood, and Maywood I guess.

A couple of notes about equipment performance: CTA rolling stock is frankly closer to light rail than it is to heavy rail. It's even capable of operating with frequent grade crossings. The old green-and-white 6000-series cars were in fact constructed with streetcar trucks, motors, and other components that CTA "traded in" from brand-new PCC streetcars that it sent back to St. Louis Car Company in the early 1950s.

A Dallas "light rail" car weighs 107,000 pounds and seats 76, while a pair of CTA 3200s only weighs 110,000 pounds and seats 78. For any electric MU car with so many motors, the acceleration is primarily limited by passenger comfort rather than the equipment itself.

I have some problems with Cecil's energy analysis, which I discussed with his earthly assistant before the Reader column was published. First, using passenger-miles rather than place-miles places inordinate emphasis on ridership, especially on outer route segments where you're racking up the miles with few passengers to put in the denominator of the fraction. I haven't looked closely at the St. Louis figures, but they may represent lots of suburbanites parking at the terminus and riding virtually the whole length of the line in to downtown. The other thing that concerned me was the data quality, which relies on self-reported figures sent to the National Transit Database. Newer systems such as St. Louis or Atlanta may carefully measure how much electricity goes to power trains. In Chicago, station lighting and heat may well get included in the figure. For all I know, there may simply be a negotiated dollar figure for unmetered traction power that CTA pays to ComEd, dating back to the days when they were both sister companies.

Haha... I figured you'd take issue with Cecil's energy analysis, which is why I didn't claim it as a fact.

Just a random question, but do you know if it would be possible to run longer rolling stock on the Red and Blue Lines? I'm fairly sure the North Main Line, O'Hare, Forest Park, and Dan Ryan lines could all handle the longer cars, so the only question is the subways, plus maybe Sheridan.

Personally, I doubt it; wider-radius curves than what was absolutely necessary would have added serious cost and complexity to the State and Dearborn subways' construction. I don't know for sure, though; they were built before the days of publicly accessible EIS documents.

If one was to run longer cars, the Blue Line would be the logical starting point; I believe all platforms fit 8 standard CTA cars, so they would perhaps fit 4-6 longer cars. The Blue Line is also pretty isolated from the rest of the system, connected only at Congress/Paulina. Hence, the Blue Line's car fleet tends to remain fairly static.

Another option would be to articulate the married pairs with a flexible connection...

I'd summarize my objection by just pointing out that running an empty railcar is inefficient irrespective of whether it's 48 feet long or 65 feet long. A systemwide, annualized energy efficiency rating will be much, much more a function of the system service levels and ridership therein, and the relationship between the two in different locations at different times of day, rather than the specifics of the technology or car format.

But the ridership would be the same regardless of the car length. If you're trying to use energy efficiency to compare two different kinds of cars, then I don't see why ridership is relevant.

Hypothetically, if I'm drafting a conceptual plan for a rapid transit line and trying to choose between 48 or 65-foot cars, it wouldn't matter how full the cars were, only the relative efficiency of each, since the line would presumably have about the same ridership either way.

Exactly. But you're the one who brought it up:
You compare the energy efficiency of vehicles based on place-miles, not passenger-miles. In passenger-miles, the denominator of the fraction is the existing ridership, not the theoretical capacity.

From Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems, a Federal Transit Administration report from 1992:

Energy Consumption in kWh per thousand place miles

Rail Rapid Transit   Average  60     Low 25     High 116

Light Rail Transit   Average 100     Low 22     High 377

As for your question about longer vehicles, the initial Chicago elevated routes and Loop "L" were built to accomodate what are now the dimensions of New York "A" division (IRT) cars. State, Dearborn, and Congress were built to dimensions of New York "B" division (BMT-IND) cars. Kennedy, Dan Ryan, State-Dan Ryan Subway, Orange Line were built to "A", assuming Chicago would never re-equip with wider rolling stock. So your problems on Red and Blue are not the State and Dearborn subways, but instead the HoDaR and Kimball subways.

Well put. CTA could immediately boost it's per-passenger-mile and per-trip energy efficiency by simply cutting service. The energy efficiency figures Cecil used could probably better be used to generalize among the transit systems' overall level of service relative to demand (lower energy efficiency representing a higher level of service on a per rider basis), rather than to make any distinctions on technological energy efficiency.

Wow, I just assumed the two newer subways were built with wide-radius curves and wider tunnels because they were newer and presumably would try to allow higher speeds.

Thanks for the info. I wonder if it would really matter in the highway-median alignments in the Kennedy and Dan Ryan... there aren't tunnel clearances to worry about, and all the curves are quite gentle.