Yeah, I'm not sure about the usability of the planned service pattern either. But if Pace wanted to set up a network like the one you show, isn't the Barrington Road park and ride exactly the kind of infrastructure you want?

I suppose it could be adapted. But the emphasis on park-n-rides and call-n-rides seems misguided to me. It's the most innovative transit ideas of 1975—unlikely to even be considered a possibility by real people with jobs and lives.

Here's the scheme from the Illinois Tollway presentation:

http://i.imgur.com/q03SSEm.png

The current I-90 construction along the Jane Addams from Rt. 31 in Elgin to the I-294/Kennedy is expanding the expressway from 3 lanes to 4 lanes, with the inner medians being dedicated to buses only.

The Pace system as it stands is not very comprehensive and ridership is low, but that makes sense. Hard to expand a system when it's not heavily used, and it's not heavily used because it's not an expansive system. Buses are not advantageous in most parts of the suburbs unless you live close to a stop or have a convenient or time efficient way of getting to one of the few 'park-and-ride' stations.

I think there's potential even if this new option along I-90 only has modest improvements. If Pace and the Tollway could expand routes along the expressway more people would consider using Pace. The tollway gets backed up everywhere at times, not just the I-290 interchange or north of O'Hare. I think those with long commutes could consider using Pace if: 1. Buses significantly cheaper than the tolls and 2. If it could 'swiftly' link commuters to their business in Schaumburg or Rosemont/O'Hare. There's the problem. "A bus that passes speeds by slow moving traffic on the expressway? I'm listening... But how do get from the expressway to my job 1-3 miles off the expressway? I think I'll just drive because that part isn't convenient."


Map of the Pace network around the I-90 corridor:
http://i.imgur.com/wiiNiRH.png

Union Station Transit Center
 

April 21, 2016

Could airborne cable car boost Chicago tourism?

Read More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...504-story.html




http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/cit...lead_large.jpg




https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m.../cfec76471.jpg

Wow! A cable car, huh? Unreal!

I am pretty sure about that. It will happens. I'm sure they will consider it. If they approved and they can have cable car all over city of Chicago.

Way to disfigure the Chicago Riverwalk.

It's like something you see in a future movie. A bad future movie. Sweet renderings though.

They've been studying and planning the same over la Défense for a couple of years, but then it's not exactly the same older and more experienced high-rise district as that of downtown Chicago. It's like what you'll find ski resorts to me.

In la Défense proper, hanging over the tremendous pedestrian deck, I'd rather have a people mover à la Détroit and Vancouver. It would fit the spot very nicely and would be more efficient, I think.

Ah yes, the famed people mover. Admired the world over for it's visionary success. Idoled by many a city who wishes they had such a glorious mode of transit.

^Thought the same. The Detroit people mover as something to emulate? Geeeezus

^To be fair, the AGT used in Detroit is a very promising technology in my opinion. It's exactly the same as used for Vancouver's lines, and almost the same as Toronto's Scarborough Line. Detroit's suffers a bit from being a one-way loop, and even more from the nonexistent cityscape around several stations.

Over the last year, I've gone to look at a lot of similar AGTs (now marketed as Bombardier Innovia Metro) in East and Southeast Asia. Many of them, like Taipei's Line 1 or the Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, are impressive operations, carrying very large passenger loads on very short headways. I've also looked at many Asian installations of the rubber-tired variant, now Innovia APM. Operations seem very similar to me, but I can't help but think the steel-rail version will prove more robust for winter cities like Chicago.

^Yeah my critique was of the horrible DPM itself, not really the specific tech.

Was speaking for la Défense anyway, that's quite an odd district like none other, nothing much to do with a large traditional US downtown, except for the fact that highrises rule the district. The pedestrian deck may be the largest anywhere, and I truly think a people mover would work in this very particular context. Again, much more efficiently than this thing suggested above to let tourists enjoy the canyons of downtown Chicago. That kind of gadget is usually called "eggs" (Fr: des œufs) over here in the colloquial language related to ski resorts. And there are often long lines to get in those so called eggs...

It would be interesting to have 'L' service where pictured, though. Maybe not exactly how pictured, but along the main branch anyway.

----

I think that if the aerial trams were implemented well, they would not only be an interesting tourism feature but could actually become a useful part of transportation in Chicago, sort of like how Portland has their MAX lightrail system and their streetcar system, except not stuck in traffic like Portland's streetcars.

I agree that they do risk creating negative visual clutter, but I think it's worth exploring options for implementing a system like that. I think my biggest concern would be the impact of snow and ice on such a system - I mean, obviously things like that exist in very snowy areas like ski resorts, but they generally don't run over crowded, pedestrian- and infrastructure-rich areas. But, in theory, it could be an interesting way to solve the West Loop to Streeterville transportation conundrum for far less money than my preferred West Loop to Streeterville subway (a la 1968's transportation proposals). And while not part of this proposal, it might even be an interesting option to run a "line" from the base of Navy Pier or somewhere near the river and the Lake to near the Shedd. That would probably generate even more objections, though.

Emanuel names Zopp deputy mayor, announces CTA South Side service expansion
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...511-story.html

Emanuel names Zopp deputy mayor, announces CTA South Side service expansion

Bill Ruthhart May 11, 2016 11:00pm

Mayor Rahm Emanuel will name former Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Andrea Zopp to a new City Hall position as a deputy mayor on Thursday, placing the businesswoman and former head of the Chicago Urban League in charge of neighborhood economic development....

^ Ahhh, ever the panderer.

Whatever, keep extending transit service to a bunch of weedy lots. Great idea!

He's tossing the Black Community a couple of crumbs -- and all those other so-called "Black Officials" and "Leaders" are just as perfectly willing to throw the Black Community under the bus to maintain their positions; like all those Brazilian spiders in their giant communal web (ugggggh), every spider has it's place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-9KPe3nwaQ

Coalition for a Modern Metra Electric
 

http://www.modernmetraelectric.org/

Spring 2016 More Frequent MED Service would give Southland a Boost Active Transportation Alliance newsletter
3/16/16 What's the best way to provide "Great Airport Transit" to O'Hare? Streetsblog Chicago
2/29/16: Critics say the O'Hare Express train plan [leaves something to be desired]. CrossRail Chicago could improve it. Chicago Reader.....

OHare express
 

Im concerned that the Ohare Express is going to come down to a turf war betwix Metra and CTA.

Modern Metra coalition is basically taking the MWHSR position on CrossRail added a heaping spoon of Grayline proposal and has cultivated some local econ dev groups. All good stuff. In fact Modern Metra adopting grayline is a huge step in itself.

While CrossRail does has some important backers including Cook County board..I dont see the seal of approval from CMAP. And dont ever expect to see the CTA back CrossRail over their own version (still waiting) of Ohare Express.

IMO OHare Express should proceed under Metra with Crossrail and Grayline plans and CTA should join in the big dig on Clinton St for a new subway. Everyone on the same page for the WLTC.

^^^ I don't doubt there could be a turf war... pretty much par for the course in America and Chicago specifically.

A few things make me optimistic though:

a) Metra's chairman is Marty Oberman, a city guy through and through and a Rahm appointee. Not a suburban guy. He faces an uphill battle to change Metra's railroad culture but I believe he is starting from a good place and (should) have some loyalty to Rahm.

b) Aviation is leading the charge for the OHare Express, not CTA. That means the city isn't default starting from the position that CTA has to provide the service. Ginger Evans specifically has not made any statements that CTA will be providing the service, and articles about the ORD Express have implied (not sure whether this is sourced) that a mainline rail solution is being considered.

c) If the city turns to a PPP for ORD Express, that PPP will undoubtedly reach the conclusion that mainline rail is far cheaper assuming Metra's coordination on scheduling. One flyover at A-2 and some signals are cheaper than miles of viaduct or passing tracks on the Blue Line. Plus mainline rail carries a far lower risk of service disruption, which in the world of PPPs means a more stable revenue stream.

I'm hearing that Union Station Transit Center won't be ready until August. Not sure when CTA will actually move routes into it, because Adams Street bridge will still be out of service.

When will the bridge be completed?

CDOT originally thought that Adams would reopen Feb 2017. Not sure if they're on schedule.

Washington/Wabash Elevated Station
 

May 16, 2016

After Demolishing 63rd "L" The Salvaged Steel Lives
 

An agreement in 1997, between the CTA and the Feds, the salvaged steel from the 1000 ft of brand new construction was to be used by future projects....after 19 years, most of the steel is still unused, stacked on the ground next to the CTA 61st St. upper yard. My photo....msibnsf
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1110757.jpg


http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1110757.jpg

I don't doubt that mainline is less expensive, but probably only if it's allowed to also be the absolute worst rider experience on the airport end of things. If the solution is actually implemented in a way that riders might want to use it - as in it's actually accessible from the terminals instead of from the remote parking area like the current Metra station is - then it's going to be pretty damn expensive. I know of exactly zero business travelers who would consider it a smart choice to take the People Mover from the terminals to the end of the line to alight an express train that costs probably $20+ and drops them in the West Loop only, from which they'd likely need a $10 taxi ride. It just wouldn't make any sense at all, so who would be the customers? Suckers who've never been to Chicago and will ride it once until locals mock them for taking an over-priced, inconvenient solution?

I mean, seriously, to even pretend it offers value (high end value is what it would need to offer), it would need these:

1) Must be accessible to most travelers without using other airport transit (i.e. the People Mover can't be a required part of the trip). Maybe we can get away with making Terminal 5 people use the People Mover, but ideally there'd be two stops at O'Hare for any express - Main terminals, and Terminal 5, so that neither needs People Mover connections.
2) Must stop somewhere downtown with easy connections to the CTA (ideally a ticket on the express would also include 2 hours of free CTA use). Union Station simply doesn't have acceptable connections to the CTA rail system.
3) It must be faster than a taxi, including connection times, for anywhere in the greater Loop area. Otherwise, what's the point of calling it an express?

I don't see those three things being achieved cheaply. A good airport express really must have those three items and if it doesn't, I personally don't think it's worth spending a dime on because those transit dollars would add more value and get more use elsewhere. Spending a billion+ dollars on something we call an "express" just for marketing purposes would be so very foolish since a billion dollars spend just on marketing the city would achieve far, far more return than an unused train that continues to require subsidy to operate.

Exactly. Any dollar spent on a new express train would be better spent further improving the existing Blue Line service.

NICTD Double Track
 

Wow, this has been on the planning table for a long time. But progress is being made.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016
NICTD gains federal approval to develop double tracking project

The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) has received approval from the FTA to enter Project Development for its long anticipated project to double track the South Shore Line from Tennessee Street in Gary, Ind., to Michigan Blvd. in Michigan City, Ind., a distance of approximately 25 miles.

The estimated $210-million project is expected to add 5,000 - 8,000 daily riders to the South Shore Line, increase train frequency by 30 percent and improve on-time performance. In addition, double tracking the South Shore Line will allow the railroad to significantly reduce travel times along the line, especially at station locations farther away from Chicago.
.........
The next step in this process, in addition to completing the preliminary engineering and environmental studies, is locking up the all important local/state share of $105 million to qualify for federal funding.

McCormick place sta.
 

^ This area of town is going to explode with development.

^It's too bad Hilliard Towers and National Teacher's Academy are there. It'd be great to see continuous development from McCormick to Chinatown on Cermack.

I could see that area eventually looking a lot like the area around the Roosevelt Station just north of this area.

Beautiful, and only 3 blocks from McCormick Place!

saw a dozen or so people from the NRA (Restaurant) show making the walk. Even easier if you use DIVVY.

Sounds like wanting more complete "black removal."

DH

^ I wouldn't interpret it that way. Both Hilliard and the NTA are set way, way back from the street, hindering any chance for a possible pedestrian-inviting street wall.

BS. Hilliard is just fine the way it is, and an architectural landmark to boot. CHA is aware of the urban design issues and has explored the idea of developing the outlots. I wouldn't expect anything to happen here within the next decade, gotta wait until the surrounding parcels fill in.

National Teachers Academy doesn't offend me any more than Walter Payton HS does, and ideally it would serve as a neighborhood school for South Loop rather than a charter for poor children who are bussed in. It is brand new, well equipped and way under capacity. Ridiculous that Rahm and CPS are talking about building a whole new elementary school in South Loop rather than deal with the racial politics of mixing white and black kids.

Also, there is a pretty significant plan to redevelop CHA/Harold Ickes land and create a bustling mixed-use corner at Cermak/State. Of course, it's led by McCaffery who can't seem to get anything off the ground...

No no no, absolutely not. I just don't like how they're set back from the street. It'd be great if the CHA could build something on the Cermak/State and Cermak/Clark corners.

Preach.

To add on to ardecila's point, whenever I'm in New York it isn't uncommon to see housing projects on streets that still had great pedestrian experiences, especially in Midtown. Heck, some of the projects even had retail on their ground floor in spite of the tower-in-the-park design. Here are some public housing areas I've passed by and really enjoyed walking around:

The Bronx: https://goo.gl/maps/EhwBRRBmwGL2 (Who said Starbucks is for gentrified areas?)

Midtown: https://goo.gl/maps/bEVKxKT45f62 and https://goo.gl/maps/EfpVqN8fEHu

Brooklyn: https://goo.gl/maps/CbrcBGNDTKz

Queens: https://goo.gl/maps/6Atx8Zk1dBt

Not to get too OT... but Parkchester and Hilliard are two different ideas. Parkchester was built in the 1930s on the edge of the city on undeveloped land, and developers had to build a retail component as well just to ensure that residents' needs were met. It's also not public housing, it was developed privately as a master-planned community (although I believe it had government support of some kind).

Hilliard was part of 1960s slum clearance, which explicitly rejected retail and mixed use on the theory that the surrounding neighborhood would satisfy the needs of tenants, or worse, set aside land for auto-oriented shopping centers in the master plan.

Anyway, NYCHA is exploring the idea of selling off public housing outlots and I assume CHA will do the same. Right now CHA has a huge cash reserve and doesn't need the proceeds from selling the land, plus there's no shortage of developable sites in the area so land values are not as high as they could be.

The Quincy Loop Station is Getting a Makeover, Including ADA Accessibility
STREETSBLOG CHICAGO | Wednesday, June 8, 2016 | by John Greenfield

CTA Website for Quincy station upgrade
Image from above link
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...incyrender.jpg

So, what with the 'splosion of offices and other things in the mid and far west loop, will we ever see a station added along either of the Metra routes running alongside Kinzie?

Assuming some point when passenger counts would justify it (shouldn't be hard to beat at least UP-North Clybourn), the main issue would probably be timetable planning of the lines' runs, more than construction or land costs.

Milwaukee District is at-grade through much of the West Loop. A stopped train would block grade crossings and the exiting passengers pose a safety concern. If a station was added, it would have to be west of Racine, or possibly right between Green and Morgan (assuming you want about 900' for a Metra platform for the longest express trains).

I wouldn't expect much to happen here until Metra decides what to do with A-2 Interlocking. That's a huge capacity constraint... ideally they would build a flyover, but financially they may have to settle for just a computerized signaling system.

For the time being a number of those sleepy grade crossings can suffer more frequent gate closures, or even complete elimination, since they aren't really necessary every single block. Eventually if vehicular volumes build up, a viaduct would be necessary at some point anyway.

When you refer to the A-2 Interlocking, is that effectively the point about 30yds inbound of Western Ave where 3 tracks of MD cross 4 tracks of UP? That seems conceptually so easy to separate -- there is an uninterrupted mile from Western to Ashland, or 1.5 miles because you have useable space all the way to Racine, where you have 8 straight, parallel tracks, lacking even crossovers, that are accompanied by ample "shoulder" r-o-w (and a hodgepodge of forgettable light industrial) on either side, with zero NIMBYs to complain about construction of a flyover. So it would seem conceptually easy to re-assign all the tracks at the current crossing into a non-crossing configuration and east of there build, in easy phases, a 4 by 4 track flyover over that fertile stretch.

So is it just that there is no present need that justifies the (admittedly nontrivial) outlay, or is there something more complicated behind it? If Rahm & Ginger come up with an airport express scheme along NCS, maybe that can start catalyzing something. The resulting improvements to the ancient, cavelike viaducts connecting Hubbard and Carroll would help spur more artisanal food and other light industrial and office in that area as well. And Amtrak would eventually derive benefit too, alongside planners allocating Union Station platforms, so it seems like it would kill a flock of birds with one mammoth stone.

Barring some notable increase in demand like an airport link or something, ^this passenger rail matter can be revisited again in a half decade or decade. But in the present, Union Pacific was supposed to be rebuilding all the viaducts on the North line between Addison and Bryn Mawr. They successfully built a new single-track viaduct along the west side of that length, creating a 3rd track through that stretch along with a beautifully done revetment and landscaping and parking etc. But then work seemed to stop at least a year ago. Have they given up on this? It does seem that this would be the trickiest phase of the project, where you have to pick either the middle or eastmost track and demolish it, and its viaducts, while leaving its aging immediate neighbor undisturbed and operating.

^ Metra is launching a study for A-2 Interlocking that will consider signal upgrades as well as a flyover. Signals can do a lot, but in our cold climate they can't alleviate the switch malfunctions that often happen in subzero weather. It's really a mistake to send so much of the Metra network through a single flat junction IMO... not only four Metra lines and Amtrak, but also the deadhead moves that bring Metra trains to their respective coach yards for daytime storage.

Everything comes down to money, and you're right - Metra has some big ticket projects they need to get done first, including the UP-N bridge project (not only finishing Phase I, but also Phase II from Grace to Webster). I believe that is on hold due to the state budget crisis...

Are fantasy maps allowed on this forum? Because I just made one.
See it here.

The general concept is a reconfiguration and expansion of the existing L system into 5
metro-style "L" lines, and a rework of the Metra network into 4 RER-style Regional "R". All lines run through the CBD. There are no frequency-limiting reverse branch bottlenecks - every line gets a two-track route through the core, but there is some proper branching at the outer ends of some of the lines. To the greatest degree possible, things are laid out to enable a two-seat ride from anywhere to almost anywhere.

There is no rhyme or reason to where I stopped drawing the commuter lines. I basically stopped when I felt I had drawn far enough to show my point.

Some parts are pretty foamy. Others are big but would probably be worth the investment. I tried to rely on existing infrastructure and rights-of-way, and base it on plans that actually exist in the real world, as much as possible.

Probably the two biggest items are:
1. Two new regional rail tunnels heading north from Millennium Station. One connects to the MD-N and NCS via Carroll Street, and the other connects to the UP-N via Streeterville and Chicago Ave. The UP-N, MD-N, and NCS would all be electrified at 1500VDC so they can use the tunnels and for compatibility.
2. The Brown Line wound up turning into a 40 mile "super loop" (Yikes, foam alert.) The only part of the brown line that is recognizable is the part where it already has its own route starting at Roscoe/Sheffield. Yeah, I know, it's a bit out of control. Its route, heading east from Roscoe/Sheffield, is:
(1) A new Lincoln Park Subway. East on Roscoe, South on Broadway and then Larrabee
(2) Clinton/Larrabee Subway under the North Branch
(3) West Loop Transportation Center
(4) St Charles Air Line through the South Loop
(5) IC Freight tracks through McCormick Place and Hyde Park, to 63rd
(6) West along the Green Line branches along 63rd, extended to Midway
(7) North up the Mid-City Transitway to Montrose
(8) East in a subway under Lawrence to the existing terminus.

Other things of note:
-The loop is de-looped by mothballing and/or removing the southern (Van Buren) segment.
-Tower 18 is reduced to a diamond where the Pink and Green lines cross each other, with no switching operations, and could (possibly?) be grade-separated.
-The Pink Line (formerly known as Purple) becomes a through route by taking over the Rock Island right-of-way from Lasalle to 18th, where it enters the Dan Ryan line
-Ogilvie and LaSalle stations cease to exist and their train sheds are made available for redevelopment.
-Rock Island trains are diverted to Union Station and run through to the MD-W and UP-W lines via Union Station run-through tracks.
-The BNSF is connected to UP-NW via Union Station.
-Intercity trains use the WLTC concept, with new through tracks under Clinton or Canal.
-The current yellow line is operated as an extension of the Red Line (basically, this frees up its color to be used on a Regional line.)
-The Metra Electric South Chicago branch is taken over by a southward extension of the Green Line. This would probably require rolling stock with dual current collection by both 3rd rail and pantograph, similar to the former configuration of the Skokie Swift.
-I was not really sure what to do with the Forest Park branch (current Pink Line). I just kept it as a branch of the Green Line.

:stunned: I think you're gonna need a bigger thread.

Interesting you mention viaducts down to Webster -- I daresay if anywhere it's Ashland (next to Cortland) that really is decrepit and poses an issue to road safety, but I suppose that won't be addressed until Phase MMXXXV.