Different service patterns associated with each infrastructure alternative are indeed being identified and scored with respect to operating costs and rider impact (travel time, walk time, transfer time, etc.). However, those are only made more concrete as part of the Draft EIS (next step), not as part of the preliminary scoping (current step). As Beta notes, there's a pretty well-defined process to go through vis-a-vis advancing the technical work in concert with public involvement, but these things are definitely being studied.

^^ Good to know. Thanks.

click on link

^ I'm fine with it as long as downtown Chicago remains the hub of the midwest hsr system.

If all rails lead to O'Hare, downtown Chicago loses its infrastructure advantages

Speaking of that process (with Los Angeles dealing with a number of these studies as we speak) there's one alternative that is missing from the list which they need to start thinking about to solve the problem of Clark Junction which is the basis for most of this in the first place.

What happens if you have the Brown Line trains go underground between the Belmont and Southport stations? Would that solve the problem or make matters worse? Could this be done at a far smaller cost than the full tunnel two track tunnel or even the rebuild four track elevated? The point in all this is that in order to get a iron-tight EIR this option needs to be studied and evaluated as early as possible.

So how does having 'Mayor Rahm' as opposed to 'Mayor Chico' affect Chicago's prospects for mass transit improvements? Thoughts?

Assuming CTA chooses an elevated alternative, the problem of Clark Junction can be solved easily by building a rail flyover for the northbound Brown Line track.

It's probably cheaper to go up, since the flyover can span over the existing 4 tracks easily without a column in the middle. This introduces a fairly tall visual blight to the neighborhood and a potential noise problem. It's also possible to go down, building a fly-under track at or close to ground level. This would, of course, close off School Street and require the rebuilding of the whole 4-track elevated structure for about 2 blocks.

IIRC, Viva said awhile back that CTA has indeed looked into the Clark Junction issue when they did the Brown Line rehab, and it turned out to be a few hundred million. It might be possible as part of a multi-billion Red/Purple project, but it was just too expensive for the Brown Line project budget, which was only $530 million. Under the Bush administration, that 20% was easily the difference between getting the money and not. Cost-efficiency is slightly less important now under Obama's USDOT.

EDIT: found the quote.

None of the candidates seemed to think much about transit until they were pressed by various journalists and bloggers, so I wouldn't look forward to a new golden age for the CTA. That said, Rahm was definitely the best choice.

The fact that Chico didn't form an official policy position on transit, even AFTER being pressed, speaks volumes about his commitment to quality transit (or lack thereof).

del Valle also had a decent transit platform, although he was adamantly opposed to major investment downtown. I think this was misguided... all of CTA's recent major projects have been in the neighborhoods, including major rebuilds of the Brown, Green, Pink , and south Red Lines. CTA's current expansion plans are also way out in the neighborhoods... extensions of the Red, Orange, Yellow Lines, the Red/Purple Line, Circle Line, etc. If anything, the downtown area is overdue for transit investment.

His policy statement specifically said "NO Downtown Circulator", which is a bit odd - it's not like anybody else is pushing for a downtown circulator, either. I'm assuming this refers to the dormant Carroll Avenue busway, unless he's opposing a dead 20-year-old light rail plan.

The Gray Line Project Presentation has already been submitted through Rahm's State St. Campaign Office; I will be following up immediately to see if he can attend the first Public Meetings of H I S CDOT's now-in-progress South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1245638...+PAC_FINAL.pdf

I think his connections in Washington, D.C. will greatly benefit any and all Transit and Transportation Projects in the Chicago Area.

Ever notice that besides me and my long-time obsession, NOBODY ever mentions improving/providing CTA Rail Transit to the SE Side.

I dunno what you mean by improving... Metra just sank a ton of money into rebuilding all the stations on the South Chicago Branch. Service frequencies are still crappy, but you can't say they haven't invested in the area.

I said improving/providing Chicago Transit Authority Rail Transit ('L' service - fare structure interconnected with the rest of the CTA system) - I lived on the Southeast Side for MANY years, and the in-city Metra Electric services DO NOT fit into the Transit Spectrum for MOST of the residents.

Why do you think ALL the BRAND NEW South Chicago Branch Stations (and trains) you mentioned are _ C O M P L E T E L Y _ E M P T Y _ most of the time - EXCEPT for having many riders O N L Y during the am and pm Weekday Rush Hours.

i.e.: If you are going from 71st & Jeffrey to Loyola University on Devon & Sheridan, or to Stroger Hospital on Harrison & Damen - What good does the MED do you??? (are you going to pay TWO separate Transit Fares)

How will this situation will be better with a CTA-operated "Gray Line"? There's still no connection between the Metra Electric and the rest of the CTA rail system, and there's no good place to add one.

Please read "Access and Transfer Information" 3/4 down on the left side of the "Welcome to the Gray Line Website" Home Page: www.Grayline.20m.com

Does this answer your question ardecila; and I also wonder how E V E R Y B O D Y manages to miss, or misinterpret this information - when I have had it posted clearly for many months now???

aside from the atrocious use of punctuation and caps, all you're saying is that your hypothetical rider should pay less than someone taking the bus, despite the fact that they're taking the same exact train they've been taking for 40+ years. How does adding another layer of bureaucracy help?

I lived for years at 7761 South Shore Drive, and worked near Loyola U. on Devon Ave. Since using the Metra South Chicago Branch 2 blocks away cost about $2.00 to get Downtown, and then I'd have to pay another about $2.00 CTA fare to get on the Howard 'L' to Rogers Park ($4.00 for the total trip) - I never used Metra.

MANY times I had to wait (in 10 degree weather) sometimes 45 minutes for a Westbound 79th St. bus to the Red Line at State St. (a 30 minute trip) - now I've spent 1 hour and 15 minutes, and I have NOT moved ONE FOOT toward downtown.

Then give the Red Line train about 45 minutes (or more) to get from 79th St. to the Loyola 'L' Station.

So now it's taken me approx. 2 HOURS to get to work, but I only had to pay about $2.00.



With the Gray Line trains coming every 10 minutes I could be downtown at Randolph & Michigan within 40 minutes, and then a 2 short block (FREE) walking transfer to the Red Line Lake Station for a 25 minute 'L' trip to Loyola (instead of STILL WAITING there 45 minutes later on the corner of 79th & South Shore Drive - or being on Bus #3 of a Bus Bunch somewhere along E. 79th St.)

A 1 hour 5 minute work trip would seem better than a 2 hour work trip (for the same $2.00 price) - but I guess that's just me.

What is Metra's motivation for operating the MED stops? And btw I completely get your argument about converting the MED to CTA rather than extending the Red Line. Solid argument. But tell me why Metra plays ball with this? Does the CTA pay them 100% of operating? We all know that transit operates at a deficit.

Maybe you shouldn't live at 7700 south and commute to 6500 North? Just a suggestion...

You know I am not sure it is such a good idea to come on here and utilize such childish flaming techniques. I mean think about it; you are on a site where you more than likely will find a audience that is probably more sympathetic to your cause than the general population. SSP'r at least in the Chicago forums tend to be highly pro-transit.

So coming on here and writing in this style just makes you look SHRILL & STRIDENT. (See what I mean) It diminishes your argument.

Don't be so snarky... One of the advantages of living in a dense city is the ability to move easily from one end of the city to the other without a car.

CTA already provides this hypothetical commuter a fast option in the form of two express buses (the 14 and the 147) with a transfer at Congress.

This only works in rush hours, but the rest of the time, the hypothetical person can still get to his job at Loyola with only one transfer - this time at the 79th St Station on the Red Line. Other good options exist as well.

Right - the use of ALL CAPS is like shouting in a library.

If the red and purple lines are to be buried, it would be possible to use rolling stock that is both longer and with a wider loading gauge than the El trains.

Longer, maybe. Wider is tricker. The State Street Subway, according to Mr. Downtown, was designed to accommodate BMT/IND-sized cars, but I don't know if the North Side Main Line has track spacing wide enough for these, and the platforms at all Red Line stations would need to pull back a few inches.

In a similar vein, though, I was wondering today about the possibility for automating the Blue Line, like Paris' Line 14. It would save a ton of money by cutting out the operators, potentially allowing for higher service frequencies. The Blue Line is isolated from the rest of the network, so it would be easy to change the technology.

The precision of the automated computer would allow the train to berth at exactly the same place every time, so CTA could install platform doors in the Kennedy-median stations and make them much more pleasant for riders.

Yes, but the entire reason cities exist in the first place is that people prefer to live as close to their jobs, entertainment, and other services as possible. So living on the far side of a massive city from your job is a terrible idea.

Besides there are really only two directions in Chicago, towards downtown and away from downtown. The N-S commute through downtown is better than most, but its still an incredibly inefficient route.

When one has been UNemployed for 3 months - one takes what ever effin' job one gets offered - no matter how far away it is!!

"The hypothetical person can still get to his job at Loyola with only one transfer - this time at the 79th St Station on the Red Line. Other good options exist as well".

To lawfin, wrab, sammyg, etc., etc.... The above statement demonstrates exactly why I am SHRILL & STRIDENT (and use CAPS - like shouting in a Library).


When somebody tells me that it's "OK", and a "good option" for ME (and others like me in the same South Shore neighborhood) to spend an Hour And A Half of time - and still be stuck somewhere on 79th St. - I want to set off a _ P I P E _ B O M B _ in the Library, so shouting isn't too bad by comparison (and yes, you are correct - I am C R A Z Y).


It's like while the rest of the City of Chicago has fine Dom Perignon Champaign in a Waterford Crystal Flute; the Southeast Side has mud in a broken tin cup - but that's "OK", and a "good option" for us because........???


AND if you think MY solution (purchase-of-service) stinks, Rep. Jack Franks has a M U C H better idea; DISSOLVE all the separate Transit Boards, and have just ONE Transit Board presiding over 3 Operating Divisions.

This would also end up with the South Chicago Branch operating as an integrated part of the City Transit System, but it seems much more Draconian to me.

You want the CTA to spend millions of dollars because you don't want to spend 2 extra dollars for an 18 mile commute? How many people actually take that commute?

Trying to get some kind of common ticketing system between the CTA and all Metra lines could be something useful, converting one line to save a very small portion of the population a very small amount of money (even working 365 days a year would save you $730) is ridiculous.

I don't see how. The trains through a new subway would both start and end on the existing L.

This is why we are rapidly approaching second rate status as a nation, nobody can see anything past 2 year political cycles.

In the Republicans’ defense, they’re working from a complete ignorance of macroeconomics (or hell, even microeconomics), having all paid for their houses in cash or something. Anytime I see a politician talking about the deficit or debt (which are constantly conflated) I have to stifle an angry rant that invariably ends with me denouncing anyone with a law degree, which isn’t fare, but as someone with some experience in both economics and geophysical modeling my tolerance for conservative think tanks and Republican lawmakers is constantly hitting rock-bottom, and then dropping though another layer of the Earth’s mantle.

Although I know CREATE is a pretty forward-thinking program, there have to be other public-private freight railway investments earmarked around the country. I wonder if they’ve been affected in the same way or if there’s any correlation between the partisan makeup of the region and how much was cut. If there were a stronger Republican Party presence in northern Illinois, this might not have happened. And of course, all this comes with the caveat that this was by the House in the hope of forcing a government shutdown, so at this point no one knows how everything will pan out. I cant help but agree with Robert Longworth here: “whatever our representatives in Congress are doing, they aren't earning their pay.”

Still, this has a sick irony for anyone who knows American history. Although I couldn’t find it online, I’ve seen versions of the map below that were used as nineteenth-century Democratic political propaganda about how the Republicans sold our country’s bounteous agrarian future to the greedy railroad industrialists:

http://railroads.unl.edu/documents/j...tr.0239.01.jpg

Have you ever lived in South Shore or South Chicago?

You have a point, but I think the problem is simply that the Southeast Side doesn't have the clout to demand increased Metra service. If South Works, Lake Meadows, and the various Hyde Park projects all go through as planned, I think Metra will magically have a change of heart.

I don't think you make a lot of friends by discussing the equity issue rather than the transportation value of the Gray Line. Anecdotal arguments about the horror of someone having to spend a little extra time or pay two (already heavily discounted) fares to travel from one obscure location to another obscure location 20 miles away aren't very convincing. Yes, as a matter of policy, we should have fare integration between all parts of the RTA system, but so long as Metra is paid for entirely by suburbanites, their interest in in-city service will be limited.

Journeys-to-work from South Shore and South Chicago are served pretty well by express buses, which have the advantage of door-to-door service for many. I don't think it's at all obvious that those patrons, particularly women, would prefer to walk to a rail station and end up east of Michigan Avenue, far from most downtown jobs, just to have a slightly faster ride along the lakefront.

There is an intrinsic appeal to the idea that the IC, which once functioned as the south lakefront's rapid transit line, should again serve that function. So let's study the Gray Line idea as part of the South Lakefront study—but I don't think the result is a foregone conclusion.

Living in this corridor and working northwest of downtown via the Blue Line, I could see a lot of the issues I see solved by just better bus management and some signal priority to help schedule adherence. In Hyde Park at least, bunching’s a major problem at rush hour. The afternoon commute also has major capacity problems, with a lot of buses between 4:00 and 6:30 being crush-loaded and coming at irregular intervals. Although rail would be nice due to increased capacity and better reliability from having an exclusive ROW (if I worked in the main office five days a week I’d definitely get a link-up pass and walk a couple of extra blocks to Millennium Station), I agree—a Gold/Gray Line-style solution isn’t the only option available.

South of 47th Street on the South Shore branch, most stations have multiple entrances, so you don’t lose that much accessibility by going to rail. This is purely anecdotal, but from what I’ve seen a lot of downtown trips in this corridor are skewed towards the east. Whenever I take the X28 to Union Station the vast majority of people are gone by the Dearborn stop. And while I find having a direct link to Union Station nice, I only see it really utilized is around holidays.

CTA traffic simulated on an animated map
 

Fare integration seems like a logical first step to check the relative demand for services, since right now the lack of integration provides a relatively arbitrary impediment to a certain level of use on the ME for those making multi-link trips. With integrated fares, the magnitude of this could be assessed, and a better transit operating plan for the entire corridor could be evaluated. At this point, the ME most closely approximates the #6, with the #14 and #X28 serving more distinct markets.

Part of the challenge is the inherently "commuter" nature of the route --- from 23rd to 47th, nearly 3 miles, there is basically nothing generating any transit trips. Rapid transit routes are at their most effective serving a corridor with lots of short trips interspersed among downtown commute trips, and the ME route doesn't have that. A route dominated by long trips is generally less suitable for a flat fare rapid transit fare structure, and better suited for a commuter-style distance based fare (which can be still be applied at improved headways of course: see WMATA and BART). Regardless, regional fare integration seems to be the most logical and crucial first step before any discussions of new intergovernmental agreements, major union labor rule changes, and so on. There are also some low hanging fruit like rescheduling the route** to improve the perceived level of service, which shouldn't be such a challenge since the ME and SS operate exclusively on the Main Line tracks in this area.

**An obvious pet peeve born of living in Hyde Park for ~17 years is that despite having 2 off-peak trains per hour, they are scheduled within 10 minutes of each other and thus basically provide a 50-minute headway, rather than 30-minutes. This made sense when the focus was on timed transfers between branches, but I'm not convinced there's any sizable demand for these transfers that couldn't be much more effectively met by the CTA bus network.

I agree 10,000% - Fare integration would be a very appropriate first step; BUT THAT IS _ N O T _ E V E R _ GOING TO HAPPEN (There will be a Star Trek [TransPorteR] available to everybody right there in your own Living Room - L O N G before there is any kind of UFC).

Since there is N E V E R going to be a UFC (due to Extremely Childish 3rd Grade Inter-Agency C R A P) - I came up with another viable way to utilize the MED as part of CTA.

Chicago to build electric car charging network


25 Feb 2011

By Todd Woody

http://www.grist.org/i/screen/new/grist_logo.gif

Read More: http://www.grist.org/article/chicago...arging-network




An electric car charging station next to a gas station in Lake Oswego, Ore.

http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThu...klem.jpg&w=307

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't get how it is practical to charge the vehicle at a gas station. Will you just sit at the gas station for a few hours while it charges? Ok, in Chicago or certain other places you could walk somewhere while it charges, but in many areas that isn't a reality.

You obviously can't do that. I think there is something called "quick charge", or something to that effect.

Metra Electrification and Commuter Rail Workshop
 

Is anyone else on this Board attending this Workshop?

http://www.tflex.org/default.asp

Is anybody out there??

It sounds interesting, but I won't have time to do it.

Looks like the new Metra 35th Street station will be open in a couple weeks, in time for the Sox opener.

Between having a Dem governor (unlike states with R governors cancelling rail projects) and the Chicago axis in the White House, things really are lined up for IL to become an early leader in (quasi-) high speed rail in the US.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3115845.story

Illinois can vie for $2.4 billion in high-speed rail cash
By Jon Hilkevitch Tribune reporter
4:15 p.m. CST, March 11, 2011

Illinois and other states with high-speed passenger rail programs will be allowed to compete for $2.4 billion in federal funds that Florida turned down when its governor killed a fast-trains project between Orlando and Tampa, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced today.

It will provide the second opportunity for Illinois to pick up federal high-speed rail funds relinquished by other states. In December, Illinois was awarded about $42 million after the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio scuttled the rail programs in those two states. Wisconsin gave up $810 million and Ohio lost $400 million.

Illinois had previously received $1.2 billion in federal grants to upgrade tracks and signals for 110 mph Amtrak service on the Union Pacific Railroad route between Chicago and St. Louis. Amtrak trains currently are limited to 79 mph on the route.

...

Applications for the funding will be due on April 4, officials said.

...

The metra northside bridge repair project is going to start back up again this spring. They aren't going to disrupt the schedule this time and are going to keep the space for a potential third track by rebuilding a retaining wall on the west side. It's supposed to be completed in 2019 which is incredible for rebuilding 2.5 miles of track. At that rate it would take 100 years to build a high speed rail to St. Louis. I don't get how they completely rebuild the Dan Ryan in a couple years but it takes a 8 YEARS to replace a couple tiny rail bridges.

^^^ Source? If they’re keeping the extra space, it’s great news.

I’m not worried about the timescale of the project—rebuilding the bridges is more to benefit trucks than riders, and while I think trucking is definitely underrated by most urbanists (it’s a pretty efficient way to get a lot of goods from one part of an urban area to another), as Aaron Renn noted this really shouldn’t be Metra’s biggest priority. I think the timeline has more to do with the financing structure than anything else.

Mind you it's like 25 rail bridges. Still, the timeframe seems ridiculous, unless it's a financial issue like B_M just said.

If it is going to be accomplished with no disruption, does that mean they are effectively building a 3rd track before reconstructing either existing track? If so, that's fantastic.

No, the timeline is because Metra can't disrupt the train schedule. It's amazing how long construction takes when the users of the line refuse to shoulder any of the burden. Just look at the Second Avenue Subway.

I'm guessing the retaining wall has to do with construction staging. Metra was pretty clear earlier that they don't see the need for a third track. If building a retaining wall allows for a third track, that's just a side effect.

Metra's failure was one of communication, not one of poor engineering. They failed to let passengers know that their service WOULD be adjusted and schedules WOULD be changed. I rode the UP-N line pretty much every day over the summer, and Metra's only announcements were small pieces of printer paper tacked to the walls in stations.

If Metra had launched an all-out media blitz with big colorful signs (how about taking over some of that ad space?), conductor announcements, and flyers, it would have worked much better, and they could have saved a ton of money on re-engineering and project delays.

^ I'm not sure about that, ardecila; the trains were (reportedly) overly crowded and poorly spaced. They wouldn't cancel a year's work just because pampered passengers needed more easing-in to the new regime. After all, just repeating the experiment this spring will not yield better results without actually changing the construction program, no?

Anyhow, how about a source on this, so we can actually see what the plans are? This link just says "coming soon": http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/a...lprojects.html