The Circle Line would be routed through the State St. subway, so presumably somebody had the idea that it would be doable. Unlike the Loop, there aren't any tricky junctions except at the north end. Routing something through State St. would also have the benefit of increasing off-peak frequency along what should be the most heavily trafficked section of the el system.

However, I'm pretty sure that there's no "exit" from the subway on the south, just a junction north of the Chinatown stop that allows trains coming from the south to switch onto the Loop tracks and vice versa. So the Red Line can run elevated, but the Brown Line can't run in the subway (unless it turns into a Dan Ryan train).

that's the thing, my understanding was that the dirty little secret of the circle line was that you couldn't put any more trains in the state street subway and the only way it could work was if you built the clinton-larabee subway to route the red line.

This is all just a big fantasy right now, of course...

But I think the State Street Subway could in fact handle more trains if the interference between Brown and Red at Clark Junction were alleviated with a flyover. This would allow CTA to better coordinate the trains on the North Main Line and allow for a more complex system of train movements. IIRC, the flyover was considered as part of the current Brown Line project, but it was found to be not cost-effective, and the demolition it would require would not be popular in the community. (It would also increase the amount of noise exponentially.)

Valerie Jarrett was CTA President for quite awhile, and now she is Obama's Senior Adviser (this is the position that Karl Rove held under Bush, if that gives you an idea of the significance).

There's definitely plenty of Chicago in Obama's administration, and there's even a handful of ex-CTA personnel within the administration. I really hope this will translate into funding for the CTA, and with the prospect of a new, more level-headed governor down in Springfield, the future looks sunny.

I don't know the exact state of the tracks there myself. But as with the flyover at Clark Jct, some track construction might be required to link the subway with the elevated, or to build a turnback track.

The busiest the State Street subway currently gets is 3 minute headways. I think modern signals could get that number quite a lot lower, which is probably why they're updating the signally throughout the subways.

That said, I think the Clinton Street subway should be built regardless.

They would enable through-routing, which is more efficient than round-the-loop routing.

Current Brown Line operations run about 192 trains a day. Combined Orange and Pink line operations run about 266 trains a day, which are surprisingly balanced across the two.

So, running both to Kimball would probably work. If you maintained all pink and orange trains, cross-the-day average frequency for the Kimball route would rise from about 9 trains per hour to 12 an hour. Y
ou could probably trim a few Pink and Orange trains during rush hour, when the numbers add up the fastest, but you would probably be making a high off-hours frequency for the Brown Line. Your other option would be to only route the Pink Line through at rush hours and circle the Loop the rest of the time.

There are two south portals from the State Street subway to the non-subway routes. There is the one just before Chinatown/Cermak that it normally uses now to connect to the Dan Ryan, and there is one just after Roosevelt that was the original portal which connects to what is now the Green Line. That second portal is what could be used to route the Brown Line through the State Street subway to the Orange Line (or the Green Line).

Another, unrelated, routing - if you're building things - would be to complete the west-bound portal from the Dearborn Street subway and run the Green Line through the Lake Street subway, turning onto Dearborn subway and then using the new Block 37 connector to connect to the State Street subway and up the Roosevelt portal to the Green Line tracks. It would put into use the "airport connector" under Block 37. Then the City could focus on an airport express as part of a West Loop Transportation system under Clinton utilizing mostly Metra routes, which would be faster and put people closer to the Metra stops. Part of that, too, could be to through-route more Metra routes, which would enhance the efficiency of Metra routing. Coupled with a subway loop created with a Clinton Street subway and the extra routing possible with a Clinton Street subway, and a Circle Line, the central area would be set for decades of growth. Bloomingdale Trail's ROW could also be dug under the river and routed into either the State Street or new Clinton subways, adding central area train frequency while drawing in more west neighborhoods, and the Pink Line routing could be changed to go west through the South Loop connecting with the N/S routes there.

These are big ideas with big price tags, but coupled with appropriate TOD zoning they would set up the Central area and surrounding neighborhoods for decades of a type of growth making cars a luxury and not a necessity, putting Chicago into the same league as any international city for transit purposes.

The Green Line is already through routed. However, my experience is that it is rarely filling cars to capacity. I usually board at Clark/Lake outbound in the afternoons. A lot of times, Green Lines that go by have actual seats available and I don't recall ever seeing a time you couldn't get on. Contrast with the over-jammed Ravenswood. I think there's actually room to reduce headways on the Green Line if necessary at peak of the peak. Those precious slots need to go to full trains.

The beauty of my Brown Line-Orange Line through routing is that it uses the State St. subway, thus taking runs off the Loop completely so that you can still run decent headways there on all lines.

I suppose the question would be whether the benefits (higher frequency on the Kimball line, more efficient routing through the Loop) would be worth the cost of the extra service on the Kimball line. I don't ride the Brown Line that much so I'm agnostic on that question. I can see how through-routing the Orange Line would be more efficient, but is it that big a deal for Pink? You'd still go all the way around the Loop, it would just mean replacing one turn (at Tower 18) with a straight line.

Just because this one hasn't been mentioned yet and we may as well throw around all the possibilities, has anyone thought about using the Block 37 connection to split Red and Blue into a Howard-O'Hare line and a Forest Park-95th line? These lines would be a little more balanced in their ridership patterns. Admittedly this is almost certainly a crappy idea.

.

I put together an MSN map with almost precisely as you described. One thing I have trouble with was figuring out where a Bloomingdale Line should turn south to head back downtown. Any ideas?

I've had basically three ideas on what to do with a Bloomingdale subway connection:

1) Drive it to Clybourn and have it merge with the State Street subway.

2) Drive it to Clybourn and run it under the State Street subway until Larrabee where it'd turn south to become the Clinton subway.

3) Two routing no one in their right mind would propose (so of course I have to mention them), which is to run it under Armitage to Lincoln, or up Racine to Fullerton, then for either of those to Clark, Delaware and Fairbanks/Columbus to McCormick Place (and maybe eventually south). With this routing, instead of it being a CTA-style rail line, it could be a re-imagining of the Metra Electric service into rapid transit a la a super "Gray Line" implementation.

I think merging at Clybourn would make the most sense, and a stop at the existing Metra station would be great. Pushing the circle line out a bit to align more with Western and the Bloomingdale line seems more useful than the existing plan. Unfortunately the Bloomingdale line is pretty well on its way to becoming a park, so I think the chances of that happening are pretty slim.

Ahhh, a Chicago transit thread.

All talk and no action.

Great ideas but no money to implement them.

You gotta love the mental masturbation that goes on around here..

^yeah but have you rode on it lately. It is actually working. Busses and trains - okok before everyone jumps on me, from my experiences but remember I don't own a car and take the CTA somewhere about everyday. I don't mind going across town and taking the bus because the busses are now reliable. The CTA is starting to work.

The new hybrid buses are a major breath of fresh air. Smooth suspension, good lighting, decent acceleration. Only problem is we're still stuck with the NABI articulated buses for a long time.

I think the system might soon be in good enough shape that it would make sense to start thinking about expansion again. At least they've gotten the incredibly lengthy process to apply for federal funding going on the Red Line extension and Circle Line.

^NABI articulated buses

those are the freakin' worst pieces of junk and I'm no bus expert but I do know that much. Never buy from them again!

Name a single thread on this whole set of forums that has actual action by the writers ... :-)

I definitely understand what you're saying, but for the first time in years there is actually a chance of some large scale transit projects getting Federal funding. Besides, I think Burnham said something about thinking this way once - I don't see it as a bad thing to hold onto a bit of that.

It's not incredibly lengthy. You just need to get your guys in Congress behind it and you can get funding within 2-3 years, whenever the next highway bill comes up.

the system still needs ~6 Billion to get to a "state of good repair" so while some expansion might be on the docket let's not get ahead of ourselves because northside riders don't have a slow zone problem anymore.

I wonder what the average weekday boarding looked like for the rail component?

Don't remember seeing this posted....

..

I like the idea if they can actually set up a decent transfer system between Metra, CTA, and Pace.

Actually, North Side riders are STILL the only side of the city with significant slow zones, so please avoid implying that "the CTA hates the South Side."

North Main is over 20% slow, all of the Purple Line and the Purple Express tracks are over 20% slow. And the majority of those slow zones are the middle or the slowest rating out of three slow zone speeds listed in their report.

On the South Side, the only portion of a line that's over 20% is the Englewood branch of the Green line, affecting all of two lightly-used stops (combined ridership for those two are lower than all but two single Red Line north main stops).

The Dan Ryan portion of the Red Line is just over 10% slow, however 90% of those slow zones are the 35mph variety - the fastest of the "slow zones" defined by the CTA - so the impact is even less than half as compared to the north main portion.

Slowest branch overall is the Englewood one on the Green Line (two stops long).

After that, though, the next three slowest are the Purple Express, North Main, and the Purple Line in Evanston.

Conversely, NONE of the six fastest lines are North Side lines - Pink Line, Green - Jackson Park branch, Lake Street branch, State Street subway, Dearborn subway and the Orange Line.

If anything, the CTA has focused on downtown, first, and then a fairly well-distributed set of projects in the neighborhoods, but giving the least amount of focus on the extremities fo the system. That may not be perfect, but it is pragmatic and roughly fair to their ridership.

I was implying the converse, the north side hates the CTA. that the impression of the state of the system in the collective consciousness is directly proportional to the north side commute, nothing more nothing less.

The CTA has clearly invested in its system in inverse order of ridership. First the Green Line, then the Douglas, then the Ravenwood. Meanwhile the North Main, the crown jewel of the system, has received limited upgrades. Strange investment policy if you ask me.

I sympathize, but they also went in order of age and dilapidation. The Green Line came first because it was super old, super slow, and super dangerous. The Douglas branch was the same story. Those lines would have had to get shut down if they weren't fixed. The North Main is now the most antiquated line, but that probably wasn't the case before the other lines got rehabbed. (The basketcase, I guess, is the Blue Line, which was in way worse shape than its age would suggest.)

From RedEye

A Clybourn bus would be nice, especially with all the growth that has occurred on that corridor since the route was deleted. It will have to navigate the clusterf*ck that is North/Clybourn, though....

Clybourn is difficult most of its way. It only runs from Division to Belmont. I can see why it was dropped. But, I think if it were properly connected it could become used enough to justify.

If I were creating the route, I'd probably run it from the Belmont Blue Line stop, south along Clybourn to Larrabee to Chicago to Kingsbury to Grand and then south on Wells to Van Buren and back north on Franklin/Orleans to Grand. That way you'd serve that whole part of western River North that is radically different than it used to be and could benefit from a direct route to the commercial area along Clybourn, as well as a tie-in to the financial district. Alternately you could also have it go east on Jackson to Grant Park, as a useful route for the north areas to get to Grant Park, or South Loop Residents who don't like the subway to get to the Clybourn commercial areas.

CTA's Huberman eyed for public school chief

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2306701.story

I'd prefer to keep him at the head of the CTA. I think he's done a great job so far. Long way to go though.

I completely agree. There's still a lot to do, so I hope he gets left there for at least another couple years. It may not be his first choice, but I think he's really done a lot, and could do even more if he stuck around. We should import a new schools chief, IMO

Does Huberman have relevant education experience? I think there's a big difference between running the CTA and running the schools. Running the CTA seems to be mostly about efficiency and sound decision-making--relatively transferable skills--whereas running the schools seems to require more substantive knowledge about education (not necessarily through teaching--Duncan has never been a teacher). The CTA's performance has improved drastically during Huberman's tenure--though I realize that some of those gains are at the expense of future income--but I think the schools should be managed by someone who combines executive ability with deep knowledge of education. Hopefully the federal climate will change enough that whoever heads the CTA for the next few years won't have to put the agency into as much debt to keep it from falling apart.

Huberman is awesome. I think he'd do great at CPS - however, it will be a big blow to the CTA. I wonder, though, whether Huberman might not have wanted out of the CTA. He's doing the Lord's work over there, but there's a limit to what can be accomplished unless the region decides to up its commitment to transit funding, which doesn't appear to be in the cards. That must be very frustrating to Huberman.

Irrespective of the particulars of the personalities/qualifications, I can't say it would be a good thing to send the CTA bureaucracy into another round of turmoil with complete turnover in the executive ranks, reorganization of responsibilities, and revision of company goals/strategy. Such things are inevitable with a change in administration, and periodically necessary, since after a while the deficiencies of one administrative regime can come to light in serious ways (e.g. track maintenance under Kruesi). But an organization in constant tumult will always be chasing its tail and unable to engage in anything resembling actual business strategy in terms of transforming business operations and employing long-term plans to restructure costs & revenues, and adapt service to the constantly changing environment. This sounds jargony, but people who've spent time working in either government agencies or public corporations with high visibility (visibility which comes with the imperative for new blood to "quick! do something!") probably know what I'm getting at about the sort of morale-killing, productivity-clamping turmoil inherent with the drastic change that follows a new chief executive.

I guess my point being, even regardless of the merits/criticisms of Huberman's tenure at CTA, the transit organization would suffer some major setbacks as it retools with a new batch of administrators. Depending on what CPS's problem is (if it is management/organizational/financial in nature), Huberman could do a lot of good there, but from what I've seen I'd say he hasn't quite finished the job of transforming CTAs operations into something more viable long term that isn't just limping from one crisis to the next, though he's made some progress.

Crain's and Chicago Public Radio are reporting that the Huberman choice is confirmed:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32751

I agree with Viva. Daley could have given us only one humongous, critical agency with a new chief executive, and now we will have two. How much credibility can Huberman present at CPS if people are going to think that Daley will keep bouncing him around?

are performance metrics now coming to a CPS school near you?

seriously, seems that Carol Brown would be a good replacement. She's been as transparent as any public official has been in Chicago in my lifetime.

I'm not at all saddened by this news. Huberman will have the most important job of his life ahead of him. I'm curious to see if his approach is holistic rather then just test driven.

How would one measure academic performance objectively "holistically?"

He will have credibility because people know he has Daley's ear.

I think Carol Brown would be an excellent chice as a replacement, and would continue to build on what Huberman has accomplished.


Retention rates, graduation rates, number of students continuing on to college, employment after graduation, etc... Basically real life things.

Not sure why she'd take the pay cut / demotion. She was a banker with Lehmann and landed at Mesirow, I believe, which I assume is only temporary before she moves back up to the big leagues.

it seems to me that in recent years, an emphasis has been put in teaching to the test vs. looking at broader ways to improve education. We've begun to place an emphasis on things like charter schools in recent years but I'm not sure they're the solution. They are helping bring the teacher unions in line to some degree and will eventually lead to breaking down tenure rules, which IMO is vital to a better CPS.

But the bigger question will be how do you improve student achievement? Involved parents helps an immeasurable deal but what happens when you can't count on parent involvement? what do you do in a school systems when the parents are many times the problem?

Not to mention that longer range plans need to be addressed. At some point, the school system will again begin to gentrify. How will that be done smoothly? What steps will be taken to update the curriculum and how will technology influence the way children learn?

When it comes down to it, telling some kids to memorize the details of a picture is a lot less useful then having them break down why the details in the picture were chosen.

Take this to a seperate, NON-TRANSIT thread, please.

or just ignore it and get back to the topic. I'm just answering a question.

perhaps the discussion should have focused on who's next in line for CTA boss...

Yeah - it looks like she is interested in heading to Washington.

The linked article has a good example of why I think her name keeps popping up as the possible replacement:

The CTA needs a strong chairman/president combo. The great thing Huberman brought was his operational and organizational change capabilities. We need someone else in that mode running the CTA, someone who is going to stay the course with Hubeman's program and won't feel the need to send things off in a different direction just to put his stamp on things. The Chairman needs to be out there getting the politics and funding right to get the game changed. Two different interest areas if you ask me.

^ I vote for VivaLFuego

2nd-ed

I hear the governor may be needing a job here soon, maybe he'd be interested ...

*ducks* :haha: :P