Remember that the future construction of shallow streetcar subways under various central area streets was anticipated at the time.

From "The Chicago Union Station, Its Design and Construction," Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, Sept. 1922:

"The substructure of all viaducts consists of a series of concrete cylinder piers, two under each column bent, which piers are spaced 40' center to center across the street, thus permitting the construction of subways between these piers at any future time. The piers are bridged by massive concrete girders on which the three columns carring the superstructure are placed, one at the center of the street and one at each curb line. The piers vary from 4' to 7' in diameter and are carried down to hardpan at –55 to –60."

Okay... from the lion's mouth.

I remember coming in on the BNSF that I thought there was extra space to the west of track 2 as the train was pulling into the station. I thought there was room for another track or 2.


Expansion for what? Do we have not have enough tracks at Union? If this space were used for additional track space, would a potential CTA subway be underneath these tracks?

I guess that settles it.

Is "serious" condition worse or better than "poor"?

Also, when CDOT says they want to "rehabilitate" the viaduct, that implies something less than the complete teardown/rebuild that they did for Wacker, so any sort of reconfiguration or widening is therefore completley out of the question.

In short, no, there aren't enough platforms, especially on the south side. FRA regs require brake tests, engine cycling, and all sorts of other things that severely limit how fast a terminal track can be turned over.

The solution is to build through-platforms so that Metra and/or Amtrak trains can continue through the station after a few minutes discharging passengers.

You can't just connect the north side tracks to the south side ones because it would split the concourse in half, requiring a new concourse to be built above or below the existing one. Plus, the tracks don't line up, so you'd have a weird and substandard kinked platform.

That leaves a subway under Canal as the most logical option. With 100' of right-of-way, we could build 4 tracks and two 16' wide island platforms.

Even if you exclude and then include the sidewalks there, I'm not sure I understand how you go from 50' to double that width and then back to 50'. For example, the sidewalks between Adams and Jackson really don't look very wide, not as much as 25' each.

Thanks, ardecila. Another puzzle in the CDOT description is the part between Van Buren and Harrison, where Canal was depressed significantly for the construction of Congress. Surely that isn't on structure the entire distance.

16' seems a bit on the narrow side for a platform that, with through running in force, might potentially have to handle all the loading and unloading passengers for two trains simultaneously (ie four train loads worth of passengers.)

Given the 10'6" wide loading gauge, I suppose platforms would begin approximately 5'6" from track center. With 15' track spacing (and 7'6" between track center and walls) which is perfectly adequate for a station area, that leaves room for two 24' platforms.

I'm using Riko's diagrams, assuming his diagrams are to scale. The distance between 222 Riverside and the Great Hall building is 60'. Part of track 1 and 2 are already under Canal.

Current Metra platforms are approximately 15' in width, going on a rough estimation on the diagram. The actual width may be smaller.

Through routing really doesn't fix the issue of destination traffic. Most traffic occurs at rush hour going into or out of Chicago. Usually after those trains are finished unloading, they will head into the yard and wait until the next use at rush hour. In the current configuration, the trains are already at the places where they are needed the most. Also your idea of creating new platform under Canal would completely disconnect those platforms from the rest of the station.

Before we add any more tracks, I think the idea of traffic management needs to be tackled.

Oh, yes, you're right. I forgot that loading gauge is not the same as car width, and car width is the most important metric in station design (assuming your platforms are straight).

The diagrams must not be to scale... even measurement on Google Earth shows 100' from one building line to the other. CDOT's RFP document confirms it.

In the interim, trains could continue to go to a yard. They would just switch yards - so BNSF would go to Western Ave. Yard and Milwaukee District would go to the Roosevelt Road Yard. It's sort of half-assed, but it's an improvement over the current situation. Why keep the train downtown - where space is at an huge premium - until you absolutely need it?

In the long run, Metra needs to start running frequent regional service - maybe not all the way out to Harvard and Manhattan, but definitely to inner-ring suburbs and certainly to the parts of Chicago that are close to a Metra line but nowhere near the L. Service to communities further out should run less frequently to discourage sprawl - these exurban services can still terminate downtown.

Also in the long run, the dramatic increase on regional Amtrak service under the MWRRI will start to eat up many of the existing tracks, and regional passengers need longer to board because of their bags, the ticket-checking procedure, security, and whatever other obstacles Amtrak manages to come up with.

It's not like they're ignoring small fixes.

Lake Street Interlocking
Yard Upgrades/Dispatching Center

In the end, it won't be enough for the hub of all American railroads. The last time we had massive passenger volumes traveling through Chicago, we had 6 massive terminals. Today, we know that all intercity trains should be centralized, and we have a perfect facility to do it - but that leaves a lot less room for Metra when all is said and done.

How busy is Olgilve? Does the former CNW depot have excess capacity to take on some Metra trains to make room for the increased Hiawatha service and proposed 2nd daily run of the Empire Builder: Chi-Milw-St.Paul? Or is the north concourse of CUS not as overtaxed as the South concourse?

Whenever I’ve seen a specific reference to congestion and capacity at Union Station (beyond the basic “Union Station is at/approaching capacity) it always focuses on the southern terminal. Given that the northern terminals only have to deal with the Milwaukee District trains, NCS, Hiawatha and Empire Builder, I don’t think there’s any need to shift traffic from Union Station’s north terminus to Ogilvie.

I’ve seen vague statements about Ogilvie approaching capacity in the Central Area Action Plans, but nothing specific.

There is plan to move the Metra SWS to LaSalle from the south side of Union Station. It's part of the CREATE 75th St Corridor Improvement Project. Though at 2tph peak, removing SWS will have a minimal impact on Union Station congestion. The bigger reason I think is just to be able to run more SWS trains period.

^^ Yep. SWS only runs 2tph because there's no room for any more at Union. It serves some of the fastest growing suburbs in Chicagoland, so you bet Metra wants to capture those riders with more frequent service.

Ogilvie is crowded but passenger traffic is not growing at the volumes seen on the BNSF. Shifting other Metra trains there would pose an operational problem because the three UP lines are owned and operated entirely by UP, including conductors, engineers, ticket agents, and maintenance personnel. UP still owns the approach tracks and on its Metra operations, it is very over-protective to avoid even the slightest whiff of liability or responsibility (hence the total shutdowns during typical thunderstorms). They would fight to keep Milwaukee District trains off of their viaducts.

It could probably be done, but expect UP to drag their heels for years.

Also, as you mention, the north platforms at Union are less congested. The Madison St stairs are quite helpful, since commuters can access their trains from both ends of the platform and the trains load faster.

IRM March 25, CTA "L" Charter 1/2 Sold Out
 

The Illinois Railway Museum is sponsoring a third straight six car CTA "L" charter, The Snowflake Special, Sunday, March 25. The previous two annual charters completely sold out and this year's charter is outpacing last year's sell-out. In olden days these charters were called "inspection trips" because they often went into yards and travelled on other non-revenue tracks and the 2012 Snowflake keeps that heritage alive, starting with the Harlem yard in Forest Park and going all the way to the lower yard at 63rd and Calumet at the other end of the Green line for example. Lines covered by this year's charter include Green, Pink, Blue, Purple, and Yellow. The Blue is as far as Jefferson Park, the Green as far as East 63rd/ Cottage Grove, to Dempster/Skokie on the Yellow and Linden on the Purple. Lunch will be at four stops around the Loop as usual. Photography is encouraged with photo stops and photo runbys and knowledgeble persons are available to respond to questions. The six car consist will be 2400 series Boeing cars expected to be retired within the next two years. The charter is also a fund-raiser aimed at preserving two cars of the 2400 series. Charter details and ticket ordering is available on the IRM website, but time is running short.




http://www3.irm.org/store/index.phpm...ducts_id=\1895


David Harrison

Regarding traffic management -- I was really talking more about passenger loading and unloading. I came in on a train and unloaded just as tons of passengers were in the concourse waiting to get on a train. All the escalators were going in my opposite direction, which makes for bad passenger flow.

I can't see how they would have good passenger flow with having both Metra and Amtrak sharing the same floor. I would try to create a new basement level for Amtrak passengers, either under the Great Hall or under the concourse (or both). We could even try to move the Amtrak trains to go to the basement level, which would then clear up the entire concourse level tracks for Metra only (we can even add the O'Hare express on this level too). The Amtrak trains could even go under the basement level so that they are through routed. This would double the track capacity of Union. However, I'm not sure that the BNSF and the SWS freight companies would appreciate added commuter trains on their already busy freight network.

While we are at it, we might as well move the Greyhound station to be at Union as well, so that most of the transportation options are consolidated at Union.

SWS is owned by Norfolk Southern, but Metra controls a portion of the route inside the city. It's really a moot point anyway, since NS doesn't really use the line at all except to run freights to their Landers Yard at 75th Street. South of that all the way to the end at Manhattan, there is virtually no freight traffic. When the 75th Street project is done, SWS will be effectively separate from any significant freight traffic along its entire length.

Speaking of the SWS and new service at Lasalle, what is the latest on the proposed SES? It looks like they have a final LPA now out of the AA process, have they begun the environmental review yet?

This will clearly depend on the Englewood Flyover which is already in the works. Another flyover also sees to be planned at Dolton Junction.

Yeah, they'll definitely need one at Dolton Junction (interestingly, the Dolton station would be integrated into the flyover).

Unfortunately, the SES requires the use of the UP tracks through Roseland. The city is seeking to relocate these tracks onto the CN/Metra Electric ROW, both to eliminate grade crossings and to open up UP's ROW for the Red Line Extension and avoid any property takings.

On the other hand, the SES improvements would immensely improve the on-time performance of Amtrak's Cardinal and Hoosier State.

Not really. Plenty of distance-priced commuter rail systems use smart cards, typically by tagging into the system and then out of the system at kiosks, rather than at turnstiles. The Medill article mentioned CalTrain, which actually embraced the TransLink/Clipper system long before BART did. Yes, conductors do carry RFID readers to verify cards, but doing so is as fast as checking paper tickets. Closer to home, the Northstar line in suburban Minneapolis works like the Hiawatha line; you pre-pay your fare amount.

BTW, the Medill article seemed gratifyingly tough on Metra -- or maybe I'm just used to the Trib's fawning attitude towards suburban services.

Chicagoans in general are frustrated with Metra's backwardness. They may not know the finer points of rail operation or TOD strategy, but they want to pay with credit cards, transfer easily to CTA, and NOT get delayed for 3 hours by a harmless thunderstorm.

Metra has this folksy public image that presents the illusion of rider responsiveness - this is best displayed in their 1990s-era newsletter, which is printed in one-color blue and set in Times New Roman despite representing a railroad that carries 300,000 people each day. In reality they are rigidly dogmatic, inflexible, and completely resistant to change or outside suggestion.

You know it's bad when it's easier to make politicians compel Metra than it is to convince Metra willingly.

Can you explain how the tagging system works on Caltrain? When 40 people get off at a station, is there a line at the machine to tag out? How do they prevent or discourage freeloaders?

What is the expected completion date for the Englewood Flyover? It would be nice to have occasional photo, or informational, updates in these threads - it might be hard to get down there and to get useful photo angles, but once in a while would be nice. The updates and photos presented at createprogram.org offer next to nothing.

Incidentally the schematic PDF here is a really neat (if terribly abbreviated) graphic of the nation's economy as it relates to Chicago, and of just what made Chicago what it came to be. (Though I suspect the auto flows are net in the opposite direction.) I can't believe that to this day I've never seen one like this; it should be "required reading" in area schools.

They haven't awarded the contract yet, so there is no progress to update on. Bids are due by March 20, and Metra will probably award the contract soon after that unless there are major issues. Construction will probably begin by summer.

Invitation for Bids (PDF)

This is a good illustration of why these projects take so long... the conditions on the site are complex, so preparing the design takes a lot of time - and then each stakeholder must scrutinize the plan and ask for changes. More months of design, months of waiting for design to be approved, etc. In the meantime the politicians can have a "groundbreaking" and everybody pats themselves on the back. Now that Metra is actually bidding out the project, that means the construction documents are completed. Any changes at this point will be quick and done between the engineer and contractor.

By contrast, the UP-North project is an organizational breeze, with only one railroad to deal with and a simple set of project goals.

Some much needed road diets and PBLs proposed in the near South side. I am especially fond of the proposed reworking on MLK from 35th to 51st. In addition to benefiting bicyclists and pedestrians, the calmed traffic could make this stretch much more desirable for people interested in the area.

My original point was not that it can't be implemented or that it hasn't already been implemented in other places, it was simply that it can't be implemented in only a few weeks. Lead times for ordering the amount of equipment they'd need alone probably would take longer than that. Testing the equipment and determining how to handle broken cards or card readers (i.e. the inability to pay by someone who is prepared to pay) all needs to happen along with publicity and other types of things necessary to set up a new public process. In a large organization, those sorts of things take time even when the organization is enthusiastic about change - which Metra most certainly is not.

I thought there was big news from last summer or so that it had begun. Maybe it was just about having gotten the funding, plus some precious photo ops for the pols.

Yes, it was a photo op. Official sources called it a groundbreaking, and some secondary news sources interpreted that to mean construction would start immediately. The official sources never actually said when construction would start.

"In reality they are rigidly dogmatic, inflexible, and completely resistant to change or outside suggestion".

I can tell you how T R U E that statement is from trying to get then to listen (UNSUCCESSFULLY) for Sixteen Years now: http://www.box.com/shared/jqvpx489un

Cool.

Citibank, JP Morgan, and Macquarie? I'm surprised we're still dealing with those guys.

Reading the ridership stats for the CTA, I was pleasantly surprised to see January's numbers. Every type of service showed increased ridership, but Sunday 'L' ridership was up over 15% in 2012 compared to 2011.

I don't doubt that one bit. Every time I take the L, I'm crammed in like a sardine. It's great for the system, I just hope the city can keep up with increased demands.

I'm a big fan of public transit, but there are some things it's not that great for ... like bank robbery getaways.

It would be nice to see increased ridership and demand redistribute out to the underutilized lines. Sure, the Howard Red, Brown and Ohare Blue are all packed during rush hour... but at the very same time you have half empty Forest Park trains arriving downtown and 3/4 empty Pink and Green line trains. The ridership is slowly growing, but for a newly refurbished line like the Pink to have carried 1,000,000 less riders this past January than the similarly sized Brown is ridiculous. The city and CTA should be all over promoting development activity in those neighborhoods.

btw - looking up those January ridership numbers was shocking, to see the entire system at a +10.77% change from last year is remarkable.

I took the Pink Line from Clinton every day last summer. Never was the train 3/4 empty. Frequency is lowered so that CTA is not running empty trains.

Ridership from these areas is lower, though. I want better distribution of ridership too, but consider how fast the population in these areas is declining. This particular decline is not the benign shrinking of household sizes that the North Side experienced; it's real hard poverty and crime driving people out. Plus, the remaining population in these areas is heavily transit-dependent and the price of gas is quite high.

Because of those factors, I don't know how rail ridership from these parts of the city could be improved - the L is already the fastest and cheapest way to get downtown, and anybody from those neighborhoods that's heading downtown is probably taking the L.

Faster limited-stop buses might be able to drive up the bus ridership by making new kinds of crosstown trips practical on transit - the guy living in Austin who works at O'Hare might use transit if the Cicero bus offered reasonable travel times up to the Blue Line at Jeff Park Montrose.

What is a Neighborhood Greenway?
 

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact....dObONNLuggg%3D

from Alderman Pawar

I'm seeing this greenway concept referenced in many places. Yet I can't seem to get to the bottom of HOW it actually differentiates itself from a typical street. I get that the idea is to slow or inhibit vehicular traffic, but how? Can anybody shed some light on this? These overly vague descriptions are getting me nowhere.

Also known as a bicycle boulevard (but that name gives the incorrect impression that cars aren't allowed)
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/guidebook.php

Does exist the possibility to have another line ( beyond the Red and Blue lines ) open 24/7 ?

The big issue with having lines running 24/7 is that you have to pay someone to run the trains 24/7—that’s why only the two most heavily-trafficked lines get round-the-clock service. I’ve heard people wish the Brown Line operated at all hours, but there simply aren’t enough people taking transit to justify operating the whole line past ~1:30 AM—past then, the CTA saves money by only running trains down to Belmont for another hour or so and having people make a fairly easy transfer there. It’s less expensive to run buses in most cases—Lawrence Ave. and Evanston both have Night Owl routes to subsitute for the Brown and Purple Lines, and while the Green and Pink Lines don’t have exact substitutes their catchment areas either benefit from parallel buses or the Red and Blue Lines plus a Night Owl transfer.

As Beta said, there's currently not demand for it. If there was, the CTA would probably add it - they're generally pretty responsive to increased demand on existing routes.

Also, it's not just the reduced cost of operating runs that save money when not operating 24 hours. Having hours of no operation each day allows necessary maintenance to be scheduled more easily, which saves money.

I agree.

It does not seem that promoting development around train stations is a priority.

I searched for "CTA TOD" and found that Jones Lang LaSalle has three properties listed, abutting train stations (all PDFs):

• Garfield Green Line
• Belmont Brown Line
• 63rd/Ashland Green Line

The Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) has a lunch time seminar coming up called "Place Stations: Creating Fun and Functional Transit Centers" that I'll be attending and writing about on Grid Chicago.

Portland, Seattle, and Davis, California, are the leaders in building neighborhood greenways. They use traffic calming techniques to slow traffic and prioritize safer movement of bicycles and walking over automobile traffic, and they (sometimes) use landscaping to address stormwater management.

For more information, follow this topic on Grid Chicago. I've also written about this on my personal blog.

It becomes complicated if we think about the shared infrastructure the various lines use. Operating one of the remaining lines 24/7 would require the Loop to be activated at night, or it would require expensive new connections to shift trains into the subway for a nighttime service pattern.

The CTA should perhaps do a better job simplifying and improving the Night Owl system, maybe creating higher-frequency night lines paralleling the closed rail lines (Archer, King, and Cermak come to mind). Maybe this could be combined with the BRT efforts to create better-lit, safer places to wait. I imagine Bus Tracker has also improved safety for those trying to ride night buses.

Yes, it is. They are always opened for every 24 hours.

Great job to the cops for noticing the dye and catching the guy. The big risk here is thieves running up or down the stairs and knocking people over.

Average weekday ridership growth on the Pink Line was 9% year over year. Seems pretty damn good.

Morgan St station
 

This one is going to be beautiful!

http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/...nStStation.jpg
http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/...StStation2.jpg
http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/...StStation3.jpg

It really is turning out well. It's just depressing to realize that you have such a beautiful station now that will probably be gradually defaced by the CTA over the next 50-80 years until they finally will just tear it apart and completely rebuild it, probably with some horrible pomo-revival shit.

It looks like good momentum on this

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-transit-.html

I wonder if the area businesses can establish a fund for routine station maintenance? In New York, various districts have established organizations with a small tax funding source. They've learned that the city can really only afford to provide a basic amount of services, and they need to pay for anything above and beyond that - especially if the improvements entice people to come in and spend money. Station maintenance seems like the perfect use of such funding. If small problems are fixed as they crop up, they won't have a chance to become big problems.

It's not even a funding issue with CTA per se, it's just an issue of management. If you have to maintain 144 stations, lots of things are gonna slip through the cracks. If you're only maintaining one, it's gonna stay pretty nice. Why do you think Metra has such nice stations? Each suburb pays to build, maintain, and police its own station(s).

Plus, Ross Barney and CTA have probably learned from 50 years of experience how to make modernist design properly vandal-proof and tolerant to Chicago's climate, so the station should be starting from a pretty good place. Most of those premium finishes are out of the easy reach of graffiti artists.