Any thought on if there will be any type of enhanced connection between the BRT and the Blue Line Station at Division? I suppose the buses could loop around the Triangle there: https://www.google.com/local?q=1200+...60642&t=h&z=18 Or maybe they could put the Bus Terminal off-street within the Triangle connected to the 'L' Station.

I’m guessing, besides just a nicer bus station in the median, there won’t be any changes—based on the cost of rebuilding the Red Line subway stops, it could easily cost $50-100 million.

I don’t believe I’ve seen any rebuild for division mentioned in any sort of long-term planning—a shame, since it’s the busiest of the subway stations along Milwaukee Avenue and there’s new construction going up on the corner of Ashland and Division—it’s a good candidate for the sort of modernizing Clark/Division is getting right now (plus it’s the CTA station I most frequently use, so of course it’s a priority :D ).

I would expect that if these work, the CTA will also install some E/W BRT routes. North could be a candidate, as would Chicago and Belmont and Lawrence/Wilson on the north side, and Roosevelt, 79th and maybe 35th on the South Side.

I vote for Irving Park instead. It's actually got the roadway width.

I don't think there will be much in the way of improvements at Division. Buses will probably use existing curbside stops and turn around via Blackhawk/Paulina/Milwaukee. We still don't know what type of BRT stations CTA will push for, or what kind of access control they will use. Ventra should speed up boarding across the system, so to deliver an improvement over this, CTA will have to use the honor system or fully-sealed stations like Curitiba.

Oh those Crazy Midwestern Fanners

• Video Link

Any conjecture on what the CTA will want for the 7000-series cars?

Maybe with a current station indicator that doesn't look like it's 1991?

Btw the current station LED maps are terrible for us color blinded people. Thankfully I don't need a map to get around the city

How about Toronto Rockets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Rocket

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c6yk4HJHds

Other's with more insight into the CTA's operations have always insisted that the CTA's operations can't accommodate long integrated sets like that. But since they run married pairs it seems like they should be able to figure out how to service fixed-pair sets with articulation. Doing that would increase capacity somewhat, too, since currently the space between cars is wasted.

It would be really nice to see a completely new design, something with modern finishes like you'd see in Europe or Asia, but I think part of the problem is that Chicago's tight curves and relatively narrow requirements limit some options. Doors that open on the outside (Barcelona uses this sort of setup on at least some trains) instead of being pocket doors seem like they'd improve some configuration options, too. If the Clinton Subway were ever created, it could be built to accommodate wider, modern trains, and then maybe the Dan Ryan branch and the local tracks on the North Side could be converted to accommodate wider trains, with the express tracks using current rolling stock. That would allow much higher ridership on what is now the Red Line to serve the jobs in the West Loop and connect to the Metra stations, without having to do a huge-scale change to the entire system. It would mean the Red Line couldn't share with other lines anymore, but in the long term it might be good for ridership and save the CTA some money (or be neutral) if the new route allowed them to piggy-back orders off of other agencies that run wider trains (New York or LA or even Toronto for example).

There's just almost too much here to contradict. First off, why should there be something different? The design of Chicago 'L' cars is based on proven configurations: place the entrance/exit doors at the quarter point, length and width is governed by operational capabilities, married pairs and no articulation are most advantageous.

A wider trainset??? Back in the 1930's Chicago's initial subways were designed for a 9 ft 6 in wide car. That never came to be. Chicago has three basic routes: one running through the State St. subway, one running through the Milwaukee/Dearborn subway, and the ones running over the LOOP 'L'. You cannot get from one route to another without running over the Loop 'L' so give up thoughts of a wider train set.

Doors on the outside??/ Why? Perhaps there is a good reason why our doors operate protected in a pocket....it's called WINTER.

There is no advantage for articulation and most integrated trainsets like Toronto's Rockets aren't articulated....there are trucks at both ends of the cars.

Face reality....Chicago's transit designers have succeeded in evolving a design that fits the operating liabilities of our system quite well. Now about those $#@!&%$# center facing seats.

David Harrison

I'd just be satisfied with a front end that doesn't look like it is from 1980. Hell, even the old Pullman cars had a more "updated" look than what we have rolling now. I've referenced this a long while back, but the comparable example that I can think of would be Berlin's HK class U-bahn cars:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...aureihe_Hk.jpg
wikipedia

Hey David,

Current CTA cars are basically still just a modestly upgraded 70 year-old PCC rapid transit design. It hasn't evolved nearly as much as rolling stock on other systems in the same timeframe.

First of all, winter has nothing to do with doors that slide out. If you had traveled at all, you'd know there are many, many examples of doors in cities that have winters comparable to Chicago that slide outward, including such sunny spots as Prague and Oslo. There are a lot more wintery examples, but I'm not going to re-do my homework when you've done none.

Second of all, "articulated" may have been the wrong word, but I think most people understood that to mean integrated, continuously open throughout the trainset, which does have an advantage both for additional standing room and for evening out the distribution of passengers across a certain area.

Finally, you really need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I explicitly stated that "It would mean the Red Line couldn't share with other lines anymore" as well as laid out an operating pattern that would enable such a change. It wouldn't be the sort of thing you could do overnight, but it certainly wouldn't be as difficult as building an entirely new system, and you'd end up with much higher capacity. Many other cities run different equipment, and while I'm sure it does simplify some of Chicago's operations, given their overall cost structure I'd be surprised if it really saved Chicago much to run the same cars on all lines. Given that the current Red Line is (by a wide margin) the busiest line and has access to yards at both ends (and with the build-out of the south extension a potentially much larger yard there), it's the best candidate to potentially move into dedicated trainsets running a different standard for carriages. It does depend on a Clinton Street subway, but that's something that would be very useful to current job and residential growth patterns and has been talked about for quite a while now.

Certainly there are problems created by doing that. But to claim there are not problems solved by doing it is to ignore a number of facts. All changes have pluses and minuses, and improving capacity for the system's biggest line (and one that is still gaining ridership) while also improving passenger comfort - for a fraction of the cost of an entirely new line - isn't something to be dismissed out of hand based only on "it's not the way we've always done it".

And imagine that - doors on an elevated, exposed-to-the-elements train that slide out to open in a city with a snowy winter climate.

First, we all have to admit that "beauty is......" That, to me is one of the ugliest designs. But that is my opinion and you can surely have yours. I certainly would not want to operate with all that glass in front of me. It's an "open invitation" to every would-be baseball pitcher. Plus there is no access from car to car, desirable in the way in which CTA trains operate.

David Harrison

There was nothing wrong with your use of the word "articulated." In fact most people believe that these trainsets without bulkheads at the ends of the cars are articulated when most are not. I am disagreeing that Chicago needs to change its rail-car style just "to change....because....to be different....because the current style is...". I find the style of the 3200s and the 5000s to be excellent.

Regarding the lack of capacity in present Red line trains, I propose an experminent that can be conducted without much cost whatsoever. I hear over and over about trains so overtaxed in rush periods that passengers are unable to board on a daily basis. For one rush period, Identify this one way movement of trains in a given overtaxed time slot and assign only 5000 series trains to move through that time slot. Identify if the trains in that slot are southbounds, turned at Howard or are yard put-outs. The turned trains would run from the opposite end of the line, go back in the day's schedule and insert 5000 series so that they come up in order. By the time of implementation the CTA should have on hand at least ten trains worth of 5000s to see the real impact that that car design can have. All this as opposed to the random appearance of 5000 series cars in the schedule presently.

Also we agree that no final word on car design and appearance cab be reached between two individuals. I'll respect your feeling, you'll respect mine. To me a 70 year old PCC looks great,

David Harrison

I can't believe they went with a full map indicator in the first place, what a terrible idea. No flexibility whatsoever.

Wise up already and adopt the same signage that MTA has on their new cars.

http://www.subwaynut.com/rollingstock/r160/r160int1.jpg

It's all been said before at some point. IIRC a train with longer rolling stock could run from Howard to 63rd after curve easings at Sheridan, Indiana and 63rd, plus modifications to yards and turnaround facilities.

However, this ignores platform length constraints in the subway, which would probably cap your trains at 6 long cars. Plus, curve easings requires some thorny eminent domain. Seems easier and probably the same cost to run 10 cars on the Red Line, which will become feasible as soon as CTA finds a technical solution to predictably berth the train in the subway.

Maybe this would help?

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/83/E58E92...5C994B7DBD.jpg

[QUOTE=ardecila;6006577]It's all been said before at some point. IIRC a train with longer rolling stock could run from Howard to 63rd after curve easings at Sheridan, Indiana and 63rd, plus modifications to yards and turnaround facilities.

However, this ignores platform length constraints in the subway, which would probably cap your trains at 6 long cars. Plus, curve easings requires some thorny eminent domain. Seems easier and probably the same cost to run 10 cars on the Red Line, which will become feasible as soon as CTA finds a technical solution to predictably berth the train in the subway.

Maybe this would help?

Sometimes I believe some people write things because they have nothing else to do. I am glad you agree that a ten-car train is the simplest answer to overcrowding. However what "berthing" problems???? I am a retired CTA subway motorman. One would berth a ten car train at the "10" mark. Subway platforms can accomodate 12 car trains. Curvature in the subway would limit any rail car to 64 ft.

Historically, one might ask why a station was ever put in between the two curves at Sheridan Road station in the first place. In 1900, when the north side "L" was built, the station was only four cars in length. I imagine no one ever forsaw longer trains. Ten car trains would bring back into question a need for two-person operation due to the length of the train. I believe New York has state legislation mandating conductors on trains over a certain length.

But more precise, why do people keep insisting on longer rail cars that would limit system flexibility. As I said before, no movement from one line to another takes place in Chicago without travelling over the Loop 'L' tracks.

David Harrison

I'm not insisting on anything, just discussing possibilities to increase capacity without the expense of a whole other line. It's not like CTA has the runaway ridership growth of BART or the DC Metro, so these improvements aren't immediately necessary. Chicago hasn't expanded the system in 30 years, so growth only comes from existing stations. But it will need additional capacity in the future. How should CTA achieve this without spending mega-billions on a new subway?

Regarding the conductors; isn't there a technological solution? They're just monitoring doors, right? Issues with disabled access should be solvable through platform reconstruction.

I thought the Orange line was built in the 90s?