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)

Justin_Chicago Feb 15, 2016 7:20 PM

I fly out of O'Hare twice a month for work and I will still use a bus/cab connection to the blue line because I leave from my neighborhood and not the office. I personally like riding the CTA and find it very efficient, especially on the way home when cab lines are packed.

Okay, so the demographic for this high speed rail is not residents who live in the neighborhoods except maybe people in West Loop or River North (depending on terminal location). Now how about we consider convenience. Most people at my company just cab or uber to the airport because everyone gets company reimbursement and they like someone picking them up directly outside of their door. I cannot see business travelers selecting a high speed train to save their company $10-20 or going out of their way to some new connection terminal more than 4 blocks away from their office/hotel. We need to consider door to door connections. How often will this rail system move (every 15 or 30 minutes)? How many hotels are within close proximity? Do people arrive near security? Or do they have to travel another 10-15 minutes from the entry point?

Even if people do take a high speed train, hotels are scattered all over the CBD. If a business traveler is staying at a hotel near Aon, BCBS and the Prudential buildings, would they really walk many blocks to a West Loop or River North terminal? The blueline is still a closer distance from this area and people will most likely take a cab/uber anyway.

And if people were not getting reimbursed by their company? I am sure they will still select the cheapest option (blue line) if it is coming out of their pocket. I recently rode the blue line with the CEO/Founder of Trunkclub.com sitting adjacent to me. Clearly he rather save the company money with a $2.50 ride than spend $30 on a uber.

The city is better off stimulating new residential development by creating better CTA rail access in growing neighbhorhoods.

Chi-Sky21 Feb 15, 2016 7:47 PM

Spend all that money on better maintenance of the tracks and more trains / frequent service. You have far more to gain from the more frequent reliable service. Just seems like this project would cost way to much for little benefit.

k1052 Feb 15, 2016 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7335840)
Well, no reason not to dream big. A mainline rail tunnel going north-south under the airport with a station in the central terminal complex would have lots of usefulness, especially if it extended up to Touhy on the north end. The Hiawatha could be diverted to serve O'Hare...

That would be a conversation worth having.

nomarandlee Feb 15, 2016 8:36 PM

The number one issue I see with the Toronto example is the price of the ticket is way to high. I think it has to be $20 or less to start to be an attractive alternative to a cab. Especially since taking an Uber to the airport now has substantially lowered the price out the airport at certain times from what I've seen/heard.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7335840)
Well, no reason not to dream big. A mainline rail tunnel going north-south under the airport with a station in the central terminal complex would have lots of usefulness, especially if it extended up to Touhy on the north end. The Hiawatha could be diverted to serve O'Hare...

Or maybe a transfer point could be made to line up an above grade station to link up next to the Terminal 1 ATS station? It would be cheaper and would cut off a good 5 minutes for most passengers starting from that end of the ATS compared to the other end of the ATS over at Parking F/Rental Car facility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 7335428)
I think such a move would be tremendously unpopular with regular O'Hare blue line riders (particularly the workforce).

I don't have any problem with the city exploring and implementing if it can be done at a less than ruinous cost and actually stands a good chance of attracting ridership but I don't think it's a must have at this point. O'Hare and Midway's rail access is already better than our domestic competitor cites with maybe the exception of Newark since it has NEC access. I'd much prefer a solution that integrates with Metra and Amtrak in some way for more intermodal opportunity.

I'd agree. Any change that would detour the Blue Line from a T2 endpoint so that richer patrons could use it as their station would be a non-starter politically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7335197)
Another off-the-wall idea: fully automate the Blue Line and with the savings on motorman pay, increase all-day headways to between 2-5 minutes, around the clock. The Blue Line, being completely divorced from the rest of the CTA network, is ideal for this. With higher frequency, you can shorten trains to 4 cars or even 2 cars and still meet demand while alleviating the crush-loading problems that make the Blue Line an uncomfortable choice for air travelers. Travelers would still have their butt in a seat the same amount of time vs today, but could save almost 10-15 minutes of waiting, especially at off-peak times.

Or maybe an option would be for every 2nd or 3rd Blue line train would include an extra car or two to make it a 10 car train. Is that even possible? What stations can handle 10 car sets along the blue line?

Have two of the cars have suspension upgrades, luggage racks, electric outlets, work desk, drink offerings, premium seating etc. Have it so that their doors only open at a limited number of stops that have enough room for 10 car sets (maybe just downtown/O'Hare). Make the price $10 or $15 tops. Again, you aren't getting there any faster but you removed from squishing your luggage across the aisle and having polar air gush into your face in the winters. It would surely be the cheapest option to implement.

k1052 Feb 16, 2016 3:38 PM

Thinking about it a little more if you did heavy rail under or directly adjacent to the central terminal, rerouted the Hiawatha Service, connected Union Station to the SCAL so an airport shuttle could serve McCormick (using DMUs) the effort might be worth it.

Jim in Chicago Feb 16, 2016 3:53 PM

So, this stinking pile of pork is back on the table. Just to save 20 minutes when anyone who isn't close to the CBD terminus would need to get to the station somehow, probably adding 20 minutes, when the Blue line has stops all over the place and still takes only 45 minutes. Add a stop at Jefferson Park - um, no, From JP to ORD is like 15 minutes on the Blue line and a stop would add what, 5-10 minutes to a high-speed train that would need to slow down, stop to pick up pax and then get back up to speed - taking away half the advantage.

Compared to the cost of this, how much would it cost to increase the frequency of the Blue line, install luggage racks, and clean the cars a little better. I'm guessing a lot less.

Kngkyle Feb 16, 2016 6:08 PM

There are MUCH better ways to spend what little transit money we have. Anything other than more upgrades to the blue line is a colossal waste of money.

If we had an extra $15 billion laying around to complete all our pipe dream transit projects then yea, let's blow a billion or two on this. But we don't, and until we do, there are more pressing transit improvements needed.

I don't understand why people here are endorsing some of these ideas. :shrug:

CTA Gray Line Feb 16, 2016 6:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7337392)
There are MUCH better ways to spend what little transit money we have. Anything other than more upgrades to the blue line is a colossal waste of money.

If we had an extra $15 billion laying around to complete all our pipe dream transit projects then yea, let's blow a billion or two on this. But we don't, and until we do, there are more pressing transit improvements needed.

I don't understand why people here are endorsing some of these ideas. :shrug:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/02/1...49eb-276822525

ardecila Feb 16, 2016 7:47 PM

Yeah, based on the latest round of news, it seems like they've more-or-less already ruled out the Blue Line corridor.

I don't see how they could accomplish this without using Metra. Who knows, maybe this study will include a detailed professional analysis of the CrossRail proposal, or at least the section from McCormick-Union-O'Hare. The high fares envisioned by the city RFP, though, do not bode well for a transit solution that commuters can actually use.

Kngkyle Feb 16, 2016 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 7337429)

Is linking to an article your counter to my argument or something? I don't see what you are trying to do/say here. :shrug:

CTA Gray Line Feb 16, 2016 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7337542)
Is linking to an article your counter to my argument or something? I don't see what you are trying to do/say here. :shrug:

NO, I am not trying to "counter" anything -- simply the newest additional information on the current topic.

emathias Feb 17, 2016 12:28 AM

Crossrail seems sucky at the airport end of things unless they do something with the terminals.

To me, it seems like a deep tunnel with only three (O'Hare, the Loop, McCormick) stations would be ideal. You could have one station under O'Hare, and design it so that future HSR could use the same tunnel and station if that ever actually happened, one station under the West Loop, and one station at McCormick ready to also connect to future HSR. Design it right and it forms a backbone for the West Loop Transportation Center that's been long planned but never any movement on. I mean, ideally you'd drop people under Lasalle at Clark/Lake or use Block 37 but I don't see anyone actually advocating that anymore so the deep tunnel, three-stop solution seems best. Deep tunnels with only stations at the ends and one in the middle wouldn't be all that expensive compared to "normal" subways.

Kngkyle Feb 17, 2016 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7337905)
Crossrail seems sucky at the airport end of things unless they do something with the terminals.

To me, it seems like a deep tunnel with only three (O'Hare, the Loop, McCormick) stations would be ideal. You could have one station under O'Hare, and design it so that future HSR could use the same tunnel and station if that ever actually happened, one station under the West Loop, and one station at McCormick ready to also connect to future HSR. Design it right and it forms a backbone for the West Loop Transportation Center that's been long planned but never any movement on. I mean, ideally you'd drop people under Lasalle at Clark/Lake or use Block 37 but I don't see anyone actually advocating that anymore so the deep tunnel, three-stop solution seems best. Deep tunnels with only stations at the ends and one in the middle wouldn't be all that expensive compared to "normal" subways.

This could cut the travel time from the airport to downtown to about 10-15 minutes, with another 5 minutes or so to McCormick. This solution, although costly, at least has the benefit of actually solving the problem. Which is more than can be said for any of the other proposals we've seen thus far. Not that I would be for spending billions on this idea either.

the urban politician Feb 17, 2016 1:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7337905)
Crossrail seems sucky at the airport end of things unless they do something with the terminals.

To me, it seems like a deep tunnel with only three (O'Hare, the Loop, McCormick) stations would be ideal. You could have one station under O'Hare, and design it so that future HSR could use the same tunnel and station if that ever actually happened, one station under the West Loop, and one station at McCormick ready to also connect to future HSR. Design it right and it forms a backbone for the West Loop Transportation Center that's been long planned but never any movement on. I mean, ideally you'd drop people under Lasalle at Clark/Lake or use Block 37 but I don't see anyone actually advocating that anymore so the deep tunnel, three-stop solution seems best. Deep tunnels with only stations at the ends and one in the middle wouldn't be all that expensive compared to "normal" subways.

Great idea. Now we just need $10,000,000,000!

CTA Gray Line Feb 17, 2016 3:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 7337545)
NO, I am not trying to "counter" anything -- simply the newest additional information on the current topic.

More additional information: http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...16-column.html

CTA Gray Line Feb 17, 2016 10:31 PM

"Gray Line" Advocate Mike Payne wants Rapid Service on the Metra Electric Line
 
http://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/02/1...electric-line/

giantSwan Feb 18, 2016 7:01 AM

you could do some other things to make it attractive - similar to hong kong's transit direct to the airport - you could have people check luggage downtown at a station and it's automatically transferred directly to your airplane...that system works well and is cheap and fast

Tom Servo Feb 18, 2016 10:27 AM

Quote:

To me, it seems like a deep tunnel with only three (O'Hare, the Loop, McCormick) stations would be ideal. You could have one station under O'Hare, and design it so that future HSR could use the same tunnel and station if that ever actually happened, one station under the West Loop, and one station at McCormick ready to also connect to future HSR. Design it right and it forms a backbone for the West Loop Transportation Center that's been long planned but never any movement on. I mean, ideally you'd drop people under Lasalle at Clark/Lake or use Block 37 but I don't see anyone actually advocating that anymore so the deep tunnel, three-stop solution seems best. Deep tunnels with only stations at the ends and one in the middle wouldn't be all that expensive compared to "normal" subways.

LOL :haha:

Oh man that's pretty funny :haha: :ack: :lmao:

Are you guys all :koko: or just :fruit:?

$140,000,000,000+

That's how much debt this state is DROWNING in, of which the City of Chicago is solely responsible for more than 60 BILLION.

...I'm reading through these comments and seriously wondering: do you guys have any clue how fucked this state is, or are you all really THAT delusional???

Quote:

Emanuel tries to resurrect O'Hare express train plan
By John Byrne


Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying to resurrect Chicago's long-elusive plan for an express train from downtown to O'Hare International Airport by hiring an engineering firm to look at possible routes and costs.

It's a preliminary step, and the Emanuel administration isn't sure who would pay for the massive project, which could run into the billions of dollars.
I mean... I know he's a total piece of shit, but is he high!? Jesus. This guy is going to bankrupt us into Detroit. :no:

the urban politician Feb 18, 2016 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7339947)
LOL :haha:

Oh man that's pretty funny :haha: :ack: :lmao:

Are you guys all :koko: or just :fruit:?

$140,000,000,000+

That's how much debt this state is DROWNING in, of which the City of Chicago is solely responsible for more than 60 BILLION.

...I'm reading through these comments and seriously wondering: do you guys have any clue how fucked this state is, or are you all really THAT delusional???



I mean... I know he's a total piece of shit, but is he high!? Jesus. This guy is going to bankrupt us into Detroit. :no:

^ Hey genius, did you bother to read that they are trying to get it privately funded?

Do you read anything? Stop making a fool of yourself on a near constant basis

Tom Servo Feb 18, 2016 8:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 7340029)
^ Hey genius, did you bother to read that they are trying to get it privately funded?

Do you read anything? Stop making a fool of yourself on a near constant basis

Private funding on a public transit project??? Haha, oh kay! :dunce:


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.