SkyscraperPage Forum

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 11, 2013 3:18 PM

^I think it's 90 feet. I believe the Loop L curves are 100-foot radius.

Edit: best I can measure from aerial photos, the curves at Wabash & Van Buren are 88 feet radius.

emathias Feb 11, 2013 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicagopcclcar1 (Post 6009385)
... We don't need any doors on the outside or coupled trainsets with no bulkheads.
...

For the record, I do not advocate change just to change. Every single change I suggested is rooted in a desire to improve present problems. The problems may not be big problems, but they are still problems created by present design.

Integrated trainsets allow people to move through the train, this simplifies emergency evacuations, allows crowded cars to self-distribute into less-crowded cars, which makes boarding more efficient, and reclaims the presently wasted space in between cars for additional riders.

Doors that slide out do two things, first they allow the walls of the interior to be the same depth across the entire car, which marginally allows more space, but more importantly stops the problem of the areas nearest the doors being narrowest. It's not a huge difference, but I think it creates a psychological barrier, particularly for less-frequent riders, and contributes to passengers crowding near the doors and preventing more efficient boarding processes and even distribution of passengers in the car.

Second, doors that slide out allow more windows. This is simply aesthetics, but as your photos illustrate, the fact that Chicago's cars are mostly elevated gives riders a great view of the city. Why wouldn't you want to give riders as much window area as possible to be able to enjoy the views that you clearly also appreciate?

So, please, quit patronizingly saying that calls for change are about "change for change sake" - you may not agree that the problems these changes solve are worth the effort, but they are not merely change for change sake.

K 22 Feb 11, 2013 5:32 PM

When is the Dan Ryan rehab starting? I heard it's sometime in May?

I'm asking b/c I plan to go to Chicago in late March/early April I want to take that ride to 95th one last time before they tear it apart and put it back together.

Via Chicago Feb 11, 2013 7:48 PM

State hits brakes on city plans for protected bike lane

Alon Feb 11, 2013 10:06 PM

Okay, so if the minimum radius is 90 feet/27 meters, then it's one third less than in Paris, which means that walk-through trains would need to have cars about one-sixth shorter than the Paris Metro stock. That's 12.5 meters, which is eminently doable: it's marginally less than the Mark I cars in Vancouver or some Talgo cars.

Via Chicago Feb 11, 2013 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 6009356)
I've posted it here before and I'll post it again: the only thing the CTA or any system for the matter NEEDS can be perfectly illustrated with the model countdown clocks on the Paris Metro:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ers_-_SIEL.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ers_-_SIEL.jpg

Forget full board monitor-like displays that lead programmers to feel the need to fill and flash it with more than the necessary information (think Happy Earth Day!) and in which financially strapped systems like CTA will inevitably be tempted to sell out and flash advertisements at you in between intended information. I can also see full size monitors burning up quickly (Chicago climate being a variable) costing the CTA money they don't have to be constantly replacing them, or worse yet leaving half burnt out or "dimmed" boards for the public to decipher (think 1st generation "flip-dot" bus blinds. KISS, keep - it - simple - stupid. Avoid more than is necessary. And the Paris signage just looks badass, anyone care to differ?

is there any effort underway to standardize the CTA arrival notification system, or is going to remain haphazard, station by station? for instance a stop like Montrose that sees pretty high ridership has no LCDs or arrival estimates of any kind. Belmont and Fullerton and some downtown stops use flatscreens. And then you have stops like Western that dont have LCDs but have audio notices to announce arrivals. And is Train Tracker ever actually going to get out of Beta?

ardecila Feb 11, 2013 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alon (Post 6010764)
Okay, so if the minimum radius is 90 feet/27 meters, then it's one third less than in Paris, which means that walk-through trains would need to have cars about one-sixth shorter than the Paris Metro stock. That's 12.5 meters, which is eminently doable: it's marginally less than the Mark I cars in Vancouver or some Talgo cars.

Of course it's doable. We've had them before.

This is also, coincidentally, what a married pair would look like with an articulated joint. That seems like the way to ease into it; if the pair is married already, why block passage between the two cars? This model only had three doors, as opposed to the current 5000's four doors.

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gall...0/crt5001c.jpg
src

chicagopcclcar1 Feb 12, 2013 1:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6010830)
Of course it's doable. We've had them before.

This is also, coincidentally, what a married pair would look like with an articulated joint. That seems like the way to ease into it; if the pair is married already, why block passage between the two cars? This model only had three doors, as opposed to the current 5000's four doors.

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gall...0/crt5001c.jpg
src

Look closely and you'll see two articulated joints, not just one. As to passing between cars, in New York it's illegal to pass between subway cars....the police will write you a ticket. Although the CTA has signs posted and protective covers in place over the door handles, it is not illegal in Chicago to pass between cars. The CTA has declared it a safety concern and does not want passengers passing between cars. If you want to change cars, exit at the next station and move to the next car.

Officially they were "compartment cars" and before the CTA, Chicago's Rapid Transit ordered four sets, two each from Pullman and from St. Louis Car Co. They are based on NYC's "Bluebirds" built by the Clark Co. Bluebirds were 10 ft. wide, but the order was cancelled and the few built were short lived. Chicago's were supposed to be 9 ft. 6 in. and the subway was designed to run six car trains of them. But the CRT ordered them to our standard 8 ft. 8 in. width.

When the CTA took over the cars bounced from route to route, unliked and they didn't fit service facilities. The cars failed clearance tests on the surface level Lake Street line. The West Side Shops on the old Garfield Park did most of the servicing until the line was demolished for the expressway. No more compartment cars were ever built. CTA engineers went to the 6000 series design. The main fault of the compartment cars, besides their non-conforming lengths was that the conductor operated from the middle compartment and could not see the outside of the train after closing the doors. For this reason the 5000s operated at front and end positions and a regular 6000 pair ran in the middle. Then the Skokie Swift opened and the 5000s got a new life and lived on for two more decades. One set of 5000s still operates at the Transit Museum near Elgin, IL.

David Harrison

Justin_Chicago Feb 12, 2013 3:17 AM

Does the Ashland and Western BRT proposal spell the end of the Circle Line proposal? I hope not. The ability to easily transfer to other rail lines and connect neighborhoods will have a dramatic impact on economic development away from the near vicinity of the redline and blueline. I dream of the day where I no longer have to take a redline and bus transfer to the West side neighborhoods.

J_M_Tungsten Feb 12, 2013 3:21 AM

CTA to suspend Loop Brown, Purple line service
This is gonna suck for the 9 days service is suspended. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...oreUserAgent=1

ardecila Feb 12, 2013 4:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago (Post 6011103)
Does the Ashland and Western BRT proposal spell the end of the Circle Line proposal? I hope not. The ability to easily transfer to other rail lines and connect neighborhoods will have a dramatic impact on economic development away from the near vicinity of the redline and blueline. I dream of the day where I no longer have to take a redline and bus transfer to the West side neighborhoods.

Probably. The Circle Line proposal never really made much sense anyway. The CTA system works as a grid of frequent bus lines combined with a radial network of fast rail lines for easy downtown access. Much of the ridership on the rail system comes from bus transfers. For the Circle Line, those bus transfers wouldn't occur at the same level, so the density around each station would have to increase dramatically to drive ridership.

The Western/Ashland BRT achieves most of the goals of the Circle Line (serving travel to non-downtown markets), but doesn't require insanely high ridership to justify insanely high costs.

I don't know what your situation is, but why wouldn't the Western or Ashland BRT lines serve your needs? Remember that the projected travel times (over an equivalent distance) are only a few minutes longer via BRT than via rail, so going from Lawrence to Madison on the bus might be smarter than doing it on the Red Line.

CTA Gray Line Feb 12, 2013 5:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6010251)
For the record, I do not advocate change just to change. Every single change I suggested is rooted in a desire to improve present problems. The problems may not be big problems, but they are still problems created by present design.

Integrated trainsets allow people to move through the train, this simplifies emergency evacuations, allows crowded cars to self-distribute into less-crowded cars, which makes boarding more efficient, and reclaims the presently wasted space in between cars for additional riders.

Doors that slide out do two things, first they allow the walls of the interior to be the same depth across the entire car, which marginally allows more space, but more importantly stops the problem of the areas nearest the doors being narrowest. It's not a huge difference, but I think it creates a psychological barrier, particularly for less-frequent riders, and contributes to passengers crowding near the doors and preventing more efficient boarding processes and even distribution of passengers in the car.

Second, doors that slide out allow more windows. This is simply aesthetics, but as your photos illustrate, the fact that Chicago's cars are mostly elevated gives riders a great view of the city. Why wouldn't you want to give riders as much window area as possible to be able to enjoy the views that you clearly also appreciate?

So, please, quit patronizingly saying that calls for change are about "change for change sake" - you may not agree that the problems these changes solve are worth the effort, but they are not merely change for change sake.

Thank You emathias -- YOU said it much better than I could have (and I tend to overreact to things).

Mr Downtown Feb 12, 2013 3:23 PM

Circle Line has been dead for nearly six years now. Its advocates are all long-gone from CTA.

It never made a lot of sense for Chicago. Sure; it looks more direct on a map, but unless you posit unrealistic headways on all lines, you can quickly calculate that making one transfer downtown only costs about a minute more than making two transfers at 1700W.

ardecila Feb 12, 2013 6:33 PM

^ Right... And we haven't even set up proper transfers downtown! Where's the passage from subway to elevated at State/Lake? Where's the one at State/Van Buren? The one at Clark/Lake exists but it's confusing and labyrinthine.

Why not build these connections properly (with a single flight of escalators, and elevators), for a microscopic fraction of the cost to build a whole new line along Ashland. The site at State/Van Buren is even conveniently empty. The State/Lake transfer can be done inside the Page Brothers Building.

untitledreality Feb 13, 2013 1:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6011219)
I don't know what your situation is, but why wouldn't the Western or Ashland BRT lines serve your needs?

The whole "connecting to the Red Line" thing poses a fairly big problem.

emathias Feb 13, 2013 5:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality (Post 6012444)
The whole "connecting to the Red Line" thing poses a fairly big problem.

Not really. If you need to go somewhere on the Red Line, then take an east-bound bus to the Red Line as your start of trip.

Maybe I'm missing something, but describe a trip where having Western or Ashland directly connect to the Red Line would serve a utility greater than taking an east-bound bus to the Red Line does now.

I will say that I think it would be useful for the Ashland bus to connect to the Red Line at Howard, and maybe the Western bus, too, but I don't see much utility in having them connect to the Red Line mid-point.

Beta_Magellan Feb 14, 2013 12:21 AM

The current Ashland bus connects at Irving Park, though it doesn’t seem to in the BRT plans. On one level, I can see why—a system is as reliable as its least-reliable point, if there’s not space on Irving Park for fully separated lanes muck-ups there would propagate along the entire lane, messing up on-time-performance.

However, I’d think the benefits of two extra stops (at Clark and terminating at Sheridan Red Line), perhaps with Jeffrey Jump-style measures, might be worth the risk to OTP.

As for extending up to Howard, I know the Anderson Development Corp. wants any Ashland BRT to eventually be extended further north—eyeballing things, it does look like median lanes would be possible up to Clark and Devon.

ardecila Feb 14, 2013 1:31 AM

There's definitely room for bus lanes along that stretch of Irving Park. Half the segment runs through a cemetary, and the remaining 2-3 blocks can get curbside lanes with parking removed. Existing parking doesn't appear to be metered so the only problem is political. I assume the eventual rebuild of Sheridan will include enough space for a nice off-street bus terminal like the one at Western.

Justin_Chicago Feb 14, 2013 3:58 AM

I visit Ukranian Village and Humboldt Park on a weekly basis and the North Avenue and Division Street buses are very slow in my opinion. It is quicker for me to ride my bicycle from the north side. I come from NYC and spent time in Tokyo so I am spoiled when it comes to train systems with multiple transfers to outer neighborhoods. I work downtown, but I spend my nights and weekends elsewhere.

I agree that the density along the circle line does not justify the capital investment, but I hope neighborhoods eventually grow to a point where system expansion turns economically feasible. I could never live in Pilsen without a rail connection.

Now that the Lincoln Avenue bus is cancelled, my trips to Koreatown take forever!!! Haha

untitledreality Feb 14, 2013 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6013288)
Not really. If you need to go somewhere on the Red Line, then take an east-bound bus to the Red Line as your start of trip.

Maybe I'm missing something, but describe a trip where having Western or Ashland directly connect to the Red Line would serve a utility greater than taking an east-bound bus to the Red Line does now.

I will say that I think it would be useful for the Ashland bus to connect to the Red Line at Howard, and maybe the Western bus, too, but I don't see much utility in having them connect to the Red Line mid-point.

First, I agree with you, Ashland routing through Ridge to Howard is a great idea. Connecting Western to Howard would seem unwieldy, so maybe connecting to the potential Asbury station would be a reasonable end point?

I also agree with ardecila, the rail to rail transfers that actually do exist in Chicago are terrible. Improving those alone would make a huge difference in the efficiency of the system.

Back to the Circle Line...

Making train to bus connecting sucks. Plain and simple. In a city where the weather sucks five months a year and the buses are extremely unreliable (and slow) having contained, rail to rail connections is a huge plus. Traveling from Belmont to the United Center would be a piece of cake with the Circle Line... but now? Ride the Red all the way downtown, get out in crappy weather, walk a block, wait for a bus (that will likely be bunched up with others), sit through downtown traffic and enjoy 25 stops on your way out to the UC.

Or... Belmont to North/Clybourn, transfer within the station, ride five stops... and your done. All warm. No Bus.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.