it is.

that said, the city will also probably get money to actually complete lead pipe removal, so i guess they get out of jail on that one. also i get it needs to be done, but street paving dosent matter when everything is going to be perpetually torn up anyway to complete all these sewer/peoples gas/fiber optic/water main replacement projects. just gonna be never ending for the rest of our lifetimes.

Transit use throughout the world is in the gutter right now due to COVID. It's not just a Chicago issue.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Your comment is basically a lie, considering, as glowrock also states, ALL public transit ridership in major cities is facing severe problems thanks to Covid, and not just Chicago. For whatever reason, you are unable to accept that reality.

We cannot look at things strictly based on Covid. There is also climate change and the quality of life in our cities.

Private Transportation is not the answer to making our lives better. The last 70 years has proven that it has been a false utopia.

It is true that transit ridership is down, but this is also an opportunity to re-imagine transit to make it more attractive to more people. The Covid crisis is gradually ending, so we need to look at transit with a post-covid vision.

real suburban take

Suburban and anachronistic. I'm surprised it didn't come attached to a thumbnail of a PRT module.

What RPM Phase 2? LOL. CTA hasn't even started any detailed planning for such a project. It should have begun as soon as construction on Phase I began, so that they can roll right into Phase II with the same contractors and project mobilization. Unfortunately our region never does serious project planning until they can get their hands on Other People's Money.

No, CTA will use this to extend the Red Line south and rebuild the Blue Line Congress Branch in conjunction with IDOT's Eisenhower expansion. Maybe we'll get a few accessibility/station rebuilds out of it too.

I also expect this to fund the North LSD project, so we might get some major civic improvements (added/renovated parkland, improved lakefront access, bus lanes) out of that project. Despite being auto-focused it is really the only project in Chicago right now with the "magic to stir men's blood".

What is the issue with the red line expansion?

^ You're spending a lot of money to extend CTA into a part of the city that is already served by Metra Electric and Rock Island lines. You could upgrade all of those lines to provide trains every 10 minutes, for half the cost of the Red Line project. The only reason they don't do it is because Metra doesn't want to.

Not just that but it is taking a route that is counter-intuitive and capital intensive instead of a modest median running route ending with a terminal near large patch of land in which to build a new yard.

I wouldn't agree with that. CTA's project isn't great, but it's better than another expressway extension.

Expressway median stations are totally unable to serve as community anchors or generate walkable, transit-oriented communities. Look at all the existing Dan Ryan stations on the Red Line, is there a single one where you could get off and feel like you are in a community? Where the station can support local businesses? Etc etc. At least with the UP alignment that CTA chose, it gets close to the heart of Roseland and has the potential for TOD at each new station.

Now CTA just has to get out of its own way and stop building park-n-ride lots. Unfortunately the Federal approval process often forces transit projects of marginal value to add tons of parking, in an effort to guarantee ridership. I'm not sure if that's the case with Red Line extension, but it's possible that CTA has no choice in terms of the parking. :yuck:

I'm gonna go ahead and post my pie-in-the-sky proposal again :)

https://i.imgur.com/B7FNnuu.png

The idea would be that the RL would be slightly extended by one stop to the ME (and possibly another stop to 103rd /Olive Harvey College / giant park and ride / a giant yard if it makes sense) and ME service would be greatly enhanced. A "Hammond" shuttle would serve Altgeld Gardens. Potentially the GL would be extended to the ME and the South Chicago line would be extended to the Eastside/Whiting but those are not essential.

I agree with the general premise that that is not how you want to build a new rapid transit line. I disagree in the sense that this would be anything but a modest extension to what IS ALREADY AN EXPRESSWAY MEDIAN RAPID TRANSIT LINE. Earlier 20th century proposals sent the Dan Ryan branch down 94 and 57. That dogleg that they are currently planning is totally absurd when all they have to do is continue down the Bishop Ford to serve the same population at what I would imagine would be a lower cost. To reiterate, I recognize that building new lines in expressway medians is an old practice that we have learned from and few would recommend doing again, BUT this is just an extension and if done correctly can be much nicer than the open air salt sprayed stations on the Red and Blue. Even Amsterdam is still building expressway median station,s and they are awesome. No reason the Bishop Ford median couldn't accommodate more enclosed and hospitable stations at Cottage Grove with easy transfers to Metra and a terminal at 103/Stony Island with a much needed new yard. Any transit access for residents further west in Roseland should come in the form of dramatically improved ME infrastructure and frequencies, not a 2.5 Billion Cta extension on expensive aerials. I can see them getting down to Stony Island in the median with two new stations for half that.

It's been a while since I read anything about it, but isn't a major benefit of the Red Line extension that it also adds the possibility to add capacity on the entire Red Line? By sending more trains south you're also send more back to the north. And I thought I remembered reading that limiter of frequency was train yards, which the southern expansion would add.

^ Thats part of it. The yard south of 95th station is narrow and cramped and too small to hold the amount of trains necessary to improve service. With a little imagination and an agreement with IDOT you can easily imagine how that could be rectified there at the 57/94 junction, but thats neither here nor there. Lets hypothesize that if operational flexibility and capacity is a major driver behind the extension, then
IMO you could strongly argue that a modest extension down Bishop Ford to the large open land in the proximity of Stony Island/103rd/I-94 poses the perfect opportunity to construct a large yard with all the space you'd need for storage and layover requirements. It could even be designed in a way where soithbound trains could just run through and turn around on a loop and return north without reversing directions and taking time consuming steps like crew change and passenger clearing.

Has there been any timeline given on the opening of the Wells-Wentworth Connector?

No updates that I know of. Construction is ongoing, they are pouring the retaining walls for the 2nd underpass near the Ping Tom Fieldhouse (goes under the CN Freeport Sub tracks).

I'm glad they're doing it right with proper grade separations even if it takes a little more time, some of the earlier plans called for grade crossings. Totally unacceptable near downtown, especially when the new street will be an important bus/bike corridor.

This is one of the arguments but the south end of the Red Line simply doesn't require that level of service based on ridership. Finding somewhere to short turn trains just south of downtown would take care of the part of the line that does need more service. They already do this on the Blue Line.

I feel like the 3 planned stations running along the existing rail median in roseland do have the chance to transform the neighborhood.

^Do you think it will be as stunning as the rush we've seen to develop around Green Line stations, and how those have revitalized the blocks around them?

I guess the better question would be do you believe the current proposed RLE route has the potential to "revitalize" Roseland?

:yes:

I was gonna say something similar but I figured I'd get the usual barrage of hate and "you're so suburban!" that I didn't bother stating the obvious

I mean the housing stock in Roseland isn't deteriorated to the same level as some of the neighborhoods along the green line so you wouldn't be starting out from rock bottom. And if it helps stabilize the neighborhood and direct some rehab money into the area then why not.

Edit.
Read a few abstracts on the economic impact of the construction of the orange line. Obviously roseland and the southwest side are different neighborhoods but it seems the property values in areas adjacent to the orange line started going up when the extension was announced in the 80s. I wouldn't be surprised if it at least stabilizes the prices in Roseland if the red line extension is fully confirmed.

Certainly the impact would be greater than if the extension were in an expressway median.

The Green Line is sort of a poor example, the West Side stations are constrained by lots of industrial zoning and the South Side stations have in fact seen a lot of redevelopment (although there could certainly be a lot more).

I hope other city departments will work together to steer funding towards social housing and other forms of development near the new stations.

^ Demand is the bedrock of construction.

Literally nobody is saying "I don't want to live in Roseland because there isn't a train that goes downtown from there." Meanwhile, there are north side hoods with no CTA L access that are doing perfectly fine.

The Red Line construction will fix nothing for anybody, and will cost billions.

State senators and reps are pushing to use the new federal funds to jumpstart rebuilding the Ike and Blue Line Forest Park branch

Use $2.7B from federal infrastructure bill to rebuild the Eisenhower Expy., officials say
Sun Times article- https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/11...-290-coalition
And link to the 20-page ILEPI report- https://illinoisepi.files.wordpress....al-11.8.21.pdf

I'm all for expanding 290 to 4 lanes between Hillside and Austin. It doesnt make sense for it to go from 4 lanes to 3 lanes for a few miles and then back to 4 lanes again. It causes such a traffic nightmare at most hours of the day.

Definitely happy to see they want to rebuild the Congress branch of the blue. It would be great to get rid of the block long "ramps" to the stations, and simply replace them with stairs and elevators, ala the UIC-Halsted station. Removing the eyesore abandoned stations would be great too. I wonder how feasible it would be to add express service from Forest Park to the Loop as well? The Congress line was initially planned to be a 4 track line, which is evident from the unused subway portals just west of the Jane Byrne. Space would definitely be an issue, especially through Oak Park where there is barely enough room to widen 290 to 4 lanes and reorganize the off ramps from the left to the right lane.

The Congress Line is built for 4 tracks from Halsted to Central, and then 3 tracks from Central to Desplaines.

Judging from the recent section of the Kennedy they widened to 8 lanes, they would need about 136' of total width to widen the Ike. Looks like they are planning to take the CTA's 3rd trackway through the Oak Park trench, but they would leave the 4-track section east of Central. To be honest, 3-track railroads kinda suck since they just pile up trains at one end of the line (this is why NYC subway doesn't use a lot of its center express tracks on 3-track sections). A mix of 4 and 2-track sections is better for an express/local service pattern.

One other aspect of the Eisenhower project that's not talked about is that they will build a regional path through the corridor, basically extending the Illinois Prairie Path eastward to Columbus Park. And the city is now working to convert part of the CSX Altenheim Line to a trail through North Lawndale too. That's two huge chunks of a West Side "bike superhighway" that would get built and could eventually extend to downtown.

Hrm. I assume CSX would not be willing to give up any space/trackage from its ROW in that section of 290 either.

How awesome would a Congress Line extension to Mannheim Road at the Bellwood/Hillside border be? The Eisenhower has the row to widen to 8 lanes, even with accomidating westbound ramps, by shifting the centerpoont south easily creating an easement for a 2 track line west from the current Forest Park terminal tail tracks to Mannheim. The large open land on the west side of Mannheim could also hold a new yard and a sizable park/ride facility. Possible intermittent stations at 1st Ave and 25th Ave. Rush period trains could potentially run express on a 4-track row to and from Halsted to Austin drastically speeding service for western end riders.

Sure seems like this should be part of the conversation.

The funny thing is that it actually used to do just that, in addition to having a Westchester branch running N-S to Mannheim and 22nd:

https://i1.wp.com/thetrolleydodger.c...size=470%2C286
Source: www.thetrolleydodger.com


Sadly, the line was ripped up in 1951, right before the area experienced the post WW2 suburban boom. Had it stayed on for a few more years, ridership would have justified its existence and the area may have developed in a much more urban manner, at least near the train stops.

You can still see the old ROW with the property lot lines and housing development: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8558...m1!1e3!5m1!1e2
Look for the curve that is just northwest of the Mannheim & Cermak intersection.

I think extending the blue to Mannheim could serve a purpose, offering a route downtown in between the UP-North and BNSF Metra lines. The area is fairly dense and built up, so ridership numbers would be plausibly good. Having stations out that far from the Loop however would definitely necessitate the need for express trains, if not all the way from Mannheim then at least from Austin to Clinton. Otherwise it would be a 90 minute train commute, which would make driving on 290 fairly comparable, if not faster.

Can anybody give the rundown on this?

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...invented-metra

I assume it's some version of https://hsrail.org/midwest/crossrail-chicago

That would be great. Screw One Central, I'd rather have this.

I love this idea. I used the RER in Paris since I stayed a bit outside the city center, which means I didn't have access to the Metro. But the trains that went out to my area felt just as nice as the Metro. Plus, they ran frequently and fast.

I would love Metra to succeed as much as the next person, but I feel like they need to repurpose those lines for something more on the lines of RER trains that are outlined in this vision. Right now, the UP-NW line runs, at best, once or twice an hour. Having a train that ran this line every 15 minutes would be amazing.

My only question is how does the Metra Electric line connect to trains traveling to/from the East... It could be done at 75th onto its existing route, but does that defeat the purpose?

Too little information to actually state what plan will be implemented.
But let's not confuse Express Commuter trains with High Speed Rail trains.

I also would like to remind everyone that the METRA electric district powers their EMU commuter trains with 1500 VDC, not several thousand volts AC that most HSR trains require.

It's difficult to get upset with public comments falsely responding to poorly written news articles. :shrug:

Maybe using the SSL track? The tracks are parallel by the Dunes I believe so could switch there?

The CrossRail calls for both express commuter and high speed. Not sure what the article says though.

I could see that, but there's only 2 tracks so I would anticipate there would be some conflict with the SSL trains.

I'm not sure. Chicago is the interface point between western railroads and eastern railroads, and the Altenheim Sub is what allows CSX to do the interchange without using somebody else's tracks and paying trackage fees to another Class I, or loading all the cargo into trucks just to go 10 miles. Specifically CSX picks up cars from CN/CP yards around O'Hare and takes them to their own yards on the South Side to be hauled to points east or the East Coast. I'm reluctant to encourage the abandonment of the Altenheim Sub if it means that cargo gets loaded onto trucks to go across town instead.

It is. The new section of Eisenhower through Maywood/Bellwood will be built for transit in the median. I'm not sure why they're not just doing a grassy median like other expressways built for future transit lines (Bishop Ford, I-57) but it is being future-proofed for a transit line regardless. The rendering shows buses but rail is also under consideration.

https://i.imgur.com/QXi0XUT.jpg

This isn't traditionally part of CTA's service area, so they'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it for a rail extension. Not sure what the prospects are for ridership, but it's a long slow journey into downtown or the IMD. A bus project would be worse though with the forced transfer.

I think a connection track is planned in Burns Harbor to allow Amtrak Michigan trains onto the South Shore? Not sure but I've heard this from some people. This would be a fairly slow route into Chicago because Amtrak would have to crawl behind SSL trains, but at least it would be predictable/reliable with way less potential for delays.

Otherwise the connection could use the former Michigan Central track, which diverges from the South Shore near 130th/Altgeld Gardens and runs through Burnham and Calumet City. This was contemplated as part of the big "South of the Lake" project that would carve out a dedicated passenger corridor between Chicago and the start of Amtrak's line in Porter.

Metra has considered replacing their DC system with 25kV AC but the low bridges on the lakefront north of Pershing make this difficult/expensive. In the context of an HSR buildout, the benefits of reusing a wide, fully grade-separated ROW built to very high standards though the city probably outweigh the costs of switching to AC. It is the Chicago equivalent of the Hell Gate Line in NYC and the natural entry for intercity trains. Or you could get dual-voltage trainsets with an onboard rectifier.

Isn't this the median running rail that you have been railing against with me others promotion of a Bishop Ford Red extension?

With regards to a possible western Blue extension from Forest Park, what possible sense does it make to re-insert median running when the current Forest Park terminal and a clear r.o.w. path is right there on the north side of the highway r.o.w. all the way from Forest Park to Mannheim? The westbound ramps could be effectively engineered to allow a Blue line r.o.w. with more desirable east-west street station access instead of mid-bridge north-south station access. Ardecila, I respect you opinions and base of knowledge, but I'm going to need you to answer this.

I don't think it makes a difference whether you're on the side of the expressway or in the middle. It sucks either way and undercuts the idea of community investment. The Blue Line is even worse because the Eisenhower corridor is heavily residential with almost no commercial or multifamily currently.

In the case of the Red Line, Roseland and West Pullman advocated for a Red Line route through the heart of their community along the UP tracks, and advocated against the Bishop Ford median. I think for Roseland residents the impact of an elevated CTA line is minor, considering the UP corridor already hosts an active and busy freight line.

In Maywood/Bellwood, there is a Prairie Path alignment nowhere near the expressway that would be ideal from a planning perspective, but nobody wants the L to run behind their house on what is currently a quiet peaceful path. The community came out strongly against that alignment.

^ I'm not talking about a Prairie Path alignment. That was never uttered. I am talking about shifting the centerline of the Eisenhower slightly south from Mannheim Rd to Des Plaines, just enough to widen the existing north side shoulder and embankment to create a row for a line. I see no engineering reasons why this isn't totally obvious to planners versus swinging the trackway back into a median after Forest Park. Just look at the satellite map, it's begging for a row tucked along the north edge of the Ike. The tightest spot would be where the highways tightest point already is, passing through the cemeteries, but I think it could be done even with an 8-lane widening. An attractive stone wall or berm on the south may be in order to lighten the impact but its not rocket science. Some small property acquisition may be necessary in the industrial area between 1st and the river, but beyond that it looks like you could easily secure a 50' row with little problem. Westbound on and off ramps would be the biggest engineering challenge but I believe could be accomplished with an ounce of imagination. Oh IDOT how I wish you had an ounce of imagination...

I personally don't think a side alignment is any better than a median anyway. People still don't want to live or shop next to a busy expressway, so your potential for development is almost zero.* In the 1960s, nobody cared because they assumed nobody would hang out near the station, they would transfer from a bus. That's still a consideration obviously but the number of people willing to do this has declined year after year. If you want people to ride your trains, you either need to put housing around the stations or park'n'ride lots. Obviously one of those is way better than the other...

However, if you have to build transit in an expressway ROW, then a median alignment is better simply because it puts more of the cost on the "highway side" of the ledger. Highway funds can be used for more of the advance work, so that the transit agency only has to lay down tracks and build stations. Under our current system, transit funds are a lot more limited and competitive than highway funds.



* = I will admit that other systems have better median stations than CTA, because they have more space available for landscape buffers, wider platforms, sound walls, etc and the pedestrian entrances don't require you to cross busy onramps. You can get on the DC Metro at East Falls Church and barely know you're in a highway median.

Ardecila, you're not talking me out of it no matter how hard you try :D

I'm very excited about this prospect, but I can't find any information about where the alignment would be. Though in reading the studies I saw that Oak Park was interested in exploring the possibility of capping sections of the highway. This would make any path exponentially more pleasant and useable. I've biked on frontage roads before. It's not pleasant considering all of the noise, smell and air pollution you're breathing while exercising.

Scroll to page 20 of this PDF: https://www.oak-park.us/sites/defaul...o%20Cicero.pdf

You'll see the trail start at Desplaines Ave and extend east to Columbus Park. Basically it is a widened sidewalk along Harrison/Flournoy Streets on the north side of the expressway.

Sound walls are planned along much of the length, and the path would run on the neighborhood side of the wall so that should cut down on the noise and other unpleasant aspects (not that a mile-long blank wall is much better). It's not reflected in the PDF but I think there's also a possibility for the trail to fly under Harlem and Austin so cyclists wouldn't have to cross those interchanges at grade.

Blank sound walls don't have to be ugly. For every effort that is made to mimic fake stonework in concrete they could dramatically improve the aesthetics by designing with ivy growth in mind. IMO every sound wall should be covered in ivy or climbing flowering vines.