This is what I'm thinking. Barring a miracle, Chicago won't be laying any new heavy rail. But integrating Metra/CTA would do wonders for neighborhoods currently out of reach of reliable public transit. BRT is the other realistic albeit major component--a few east/wast and a few north/south routes would do wonders to connect the city (with connections at CTA rail and the aforementioned integrated metra stops.)

I was answering a broader question about why Chicago-land is not pursuing transit expansion. Those US cities that are building transit are those that are growing rapidly, not just downtown but all over, to the point where transportation issues weigh on everybody severely. The growth of Chicago's Central Area is great, but it's more than canceled out by the exodus from other areas. Unfortunately, the Central Area cannot (by itself) fund and build billions of dollars in infrastructure, or the North Red Line would never have reached such an advanced state of decay. Finding the funding for that project alone required the cooperation of elected officials at every level from alderman up to US Senator, and the commitment just isn't there.

Other approaches to this problem have been highly controversial. One of the best arguments for TIF is that it has allowed for some new infrastructure to be built in growing, successful areas.... but many Chicagoans oppose this bitterly, because they see it as North Siders shirking their obligations to the long-troubled South and West Sides.

If you do through-route Brown Line trains to O'Hare, I don't see how you can do that without affecting the capacity of the Blue Line. One of the best things about the Blue Line is that it runs independently of every other line. Interline the two, and you lose all the reliability.

Plus, there's a capacity issue. The peak headway on the Blue Line between Jeff Park and O'Hare is 3 minutes. Not sure there are even slots available for Brown Line trains at peak.

But even if you don't through-route, you still need a separate platform for Brown Line trains or you get all the same conflicts. I think you'd have to build a separate station for Brown Line trains, maybe in a deep cavern, and then build an track connection somewhere around Central Ave. Ideally the cavern station is as close as possible to the existing platform, not only for O'Hare bound passengers, but also for people transfering to NW Side bus lines. Maybe the cavern could be under the inbound Kennedy lanes, with exits to the bus terminal and the Blue Line platform?

^

Interesting point. Admitedly I know much less about schedule and capacity conflicts in regards to a hypothetical O'Hare extension - I was thinking about it more in terms of jsut how the infrastructure could work. I would say it seems an obvious solution to a Blue Line capacity constraint would be to not run all trains to O'Hare, but instead continue to terminate many at Kimbell since the main Brown Line layover yard would continue to be there. Instead I think the Blue Line could easily accomodate say an outbound and inbound Brown Line train every 8-10 minutes during am/pm rush. The concept of outer reaches of lines having a lower frequency than down line, especially if interlining is present is not a foreign one though it does not currently exist in Chicago. So just to be clear, a hypothetical Brown Line extension would, for example see a far out station like Rosemont see 3 inbound Blue Line trains and 1 inbound Brown line train during a 10 minute period during peak hours.

another argument in favor of a brown line extension out to the blue line is the fact that the census tracts that line that stretch of lawrence through albany park almost all the way out to the edens are in the 25,000 - 45,000 ppsm range.

it's some of the highest non-lakefront population density in the city. a handful of infill stations along the way would certainly get used, and might even eventually reverse some of the horrid '80s/'90s strip-malling of lawrence.



not that i'd expect anything like new rail transit infrastructure in chicago to happen during my lifetime. :(

Totally agree about the density part. I'm slightly more hopeful about the possibility part, who knows what kind of dramatic reshifting of transport policies the future may hold on both local and national levels, especially vis a vis how they benefit environmental goals. I don't think a future in which green infrastructure (including new build clean mobility projects) are funded at an exponentially higher level is totally outside the realm of possibilty, especially if certain political parties either re-invent themselves or are permanantly put out to pasture. Remember all we're talking about in this specific case is a 1.5 mile subway extension, let's have a little more hope that's something the richest country on earth could manage to pull off, especially considering fucking China seems to be opening a new metro system every year.

Let's assume 3 minute headways (20tph) is the maximum capacity of the outer section of the O'Hare branch. In theory, you can do 90-second headways (40tph) on a rapid transit line, but in practice this usually requires full automation and the elimination of any conflicts - this means no interlining, no flat junctions, and probably platform doors at every station to keep disruptions to a minimum. So 3 minute headways it is.

Right now, the Blue Line already operates close to this level. 3 minute headways are really not needed on the outer section, but it's definitely needed in Logan Square and Wicker Park. That means CTA needs to short-turn some Blue Line trains before they get to O'Hare - which they already do.

Unfortunately, the place where this is done currently is at a siding just north of Jefferson Park - so all Blue Line trains currently stop at JP whether they are short-turning or not. You could move the turnback track somewhere further south, but this isn't great for the many thousands of people who transfer to buses at JP. Basically, I don't think there's a way to squeeze Brown Line trains into the existing JP station without severely crimping the Blue Line - so a second JP station is needed for Brown Line trains. The existing station is also pretty pinned-in by the Kennedy and the enormous concrete viaduct carrying Milwaukee Ave and the UP-NW tracks above, so the best bet is to construct a new underground cavern where Brown Line trains can berth. The conflicts between the two lines can be more easily managed a little further north, where you can shift the Kennedy lanes outbound a bit to create a proper flying junction in the median that would allow for interlining or at least service moves between Blue and Brown.

I haven't really thought about the challenges at the other end around Kimball, but ideally it would eliminate the grade crossing at Kedzie.

This could all very well be true. My first thought would be if, even as a loose concept, a Brown Line O'Hare extention seems like wishful thinking in our current impotent leadership and funding environment, the idea that if not just a pair of small diameter bored tunnels could somehow find their way into the Kennedy Blue Line median right-of-way, even while undeniably doable, seems mighty impressive --- the thought of a 600 foot long deep cavern station UNDER an active Kennedy Expressway seems like a goddamn moonshot.

Anything else involves some pretty crappy compromises. One other thought I had is that you could put the subway cavern under Milwaukee, which would actually be very convenient for the bus transfer folks and JP residents, but would screw over any Brown Line riders going to O'Hare with a long convoluted walk. Maybe that's not a big deal if the Brown Line train continues directly to O'Hare. :shrug:

Electrifying select Metra lines within the city limits would require requiring transfers at the last electrified station to traditional Metra diesel trains. It would also require a unified fair structure (so that outbound Metra riders can make it to their proper transfer station after work). It would also require rerouting Metra tracks within the loop into a centralized new tunnel system (you cannot reroute into the blue and red tunnels unless you want to significantly disrupt those service headways) to distribute those new riders throughout the loop. You’d also need a new set of transfer stations with existing loop stations and with both the blue and red lines (without checking I would assume the rail gauges are different, too, between the two systems). This would decrease ridership tremendously on the remainder of the non-electrified stops that remain within the commuter Metra belt while increasing ridership within the city. Does the increase outweigh the decrease? Then you’ve gotta consider that the ridership decrease on the remaining Metra system is disproportionately going to move to their car and drive into the city for work every day, thus either making traffic worse in the city or having at best no net traffic effect at all. I’d say worse is more likely, if only because the people in the city who would have shifted their commutes to the new electrified rail would have disproportionately come from preexisting bus transit riders.

All of this is to say: you either electrify the whole system and consolidate their fair structures or you leave the dual system structure as it is while expanding each separately.

True, which begs the question if you have to slog a 1000 foot + moveable sidewalk bridge connection ($$$ by itself) why not just end the extension with a superstation between the MD-N (with new stop) and a reactivated electrified Weber Spur to Lincolnwood and beyond. Two commuter rail and two rapid transit services in one station complex. A guy can dream.

Why coudln't suburban trains still be diesel (or dual-mode locomotives) while in-city trains would be EMU's? The suburban trains could run mostly express in the city.

Those larger diesel trains would be a major safety hazard running on the same tracks without temporal separation, let alone technical and engineering limitations to combining the technologies. That’s why you don’t see that any real world examples of this approach, that I know of. You’d either have to electrify the entire system or require commuter transfers at the edge of a centrally electrified system. Either way, that would require massive investment in the core to integrate the current termini into a functioning system.

It’d be more cost effective to:
(1a) build CTA extensions where logical: red-south, blue-west, orange, yellow & brown line extensions
(1b) change service structure to provide a better and more seamless system: inbound yellow line direct express service into the loop via the red line tunnel, plus other similar express arrangements on the south side
(1c) build new CTA lines where necessary by activating vacant rail beds, thru eminent domain, or cut/cap/subway: the circle line, Weber spur (nice suggestion, above poster), etc.
(2) build a supplementary light rail system for in-city medium density or redeveloping areas, designed to facilitate seamless passenger transfers to key CTA and Metra stations and in a way that can be upgraded easily for increased frequency later: Lincoln Yards, Portage Park / Dunning are seriously underserved.
(3) infill stations on Metra and CTA where needed
(4) bus rapid transit down key corridors
(5) complete streets (bike lanes, bus lanes, etc.) everywhere
(6) consolidate payment systems and fair rates. One ventra pass should qualify you for ALL of Metra, CTA, and Pace. Rather than the separated systems they have for them.

What are you talking about? Any electrification system would be overhead catenary. Diesel trains run under catenary all the time, including on the South Shore Line right here in Chicago. Or on the Northeast Corridor in New Jersey. There's no regulatory issue with installing an overhead power system on a diesel road - although freight railroads may want to ensure that double-stack container cars can fit under the wires, and some bridges over the tracks may need to be raised higher.

The temporal separation thing you're thinking of is not about power supply, but about crashworthiness. Most modern multiple-unit trains from foreign manufacturers - like the ones on NJ's RiverLine, or Texas' Cotton Belt - have an efficient, lightweight design to save energy and improve performance. However, FRA historically didn't want lightweight passenger trains running on the same tracks as uber-heavy freights... in the event of a crash, lightweight trains would get wrecked along with everybody inside them. So American commuter rail operators were forced to purchase heavy, inefficient locomotives and cars (whether diesel OR electric) that would hold up better in a freight collision.

BUT - FRA's policy has now changed. The Positive Train Control system being installed across the country drastically reduces the likelihood of crashes, so FRA will now issue waivers to any railroad that wants to run modern lightweight equipment - whether diesel OR electric. Caltrain in SF is currently installing an overhead catenary system AND plans to run modern, lightweight trains AND will mix them with UP freight trains at several points along the corridor.

Given my limited expectations of Metra's willingness to innovate they could buy ALP-45DPs and start electrification from the city terminals on out as funds and negotiations with the various railroads allow. That is of course separate from the Rock Island which Metra owns and could electrify at will provided they had the cash and desire.

I sincerely hope the recent profoundly encouraging decision to electrify by the Boston MBTA will serve as inspiration to the ye olde railroading culture at Metra.

Metra has never seemed all that interested in what the other commuter roads are doing that could apply to their own operation. I'm skeptical that will change a lot. I mean they were still trying to buy gallery cars for christ's sake until only one company responded to their request. I'm fully expecting to see the Caltrain ones riding our rails in a couple years when they start using EMUs.


https://i.imgur.com/5n40UjV.jpg?1

This could change with a generational shift in leadership at the agency — also public shaming.

Red painted bus lanes appearing in curb lanes around town! On Western in Bucktown, also I spotted them along Chicago Ave in River West.

This phase also includes some paint on 79th. The next phase, according to the Block Club article, will include parts of Halsted, Pulaski, 63rd, and Belmont.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2019/12...special-lanes/

https://blockclubchicago.org/wp-cont...49.jpeg?w=1024
src: Block Club

Going to need some on board camera enforcement for these things...

Which, as you know, requires a new state law. Good luck getting anything out of Springfield. It'll take at least a few more years, and more deployment of bus lanes, before there is any urgency in the State House on this matter. And even then it may require the city to trade out red-light cameras or speed cameras. Ideally all money raised from this ticketing goes toward maintenance of the existing bus lanes or creation of new ones.

Lightfoot hasn't been especially gung-ho about camera enforcement or ticketing generally, but she has expressed support for bus lane cameras at transportation forums.

I'm just amazed to see red paint at all, considering we are still in the grips of the insane parking meter deal...

Saw this yesterday in person. They also tricked out Milwaukee with green bike lanes. Looks v gentrified...

I'd probably trade out the red light cameras, not the speed cameras. If the city can get unlimited ability for on board enforcement it would be worth it. Putting the cash it raises back into more bus improvements seems like an easy sell.

Even with the POS meter deal the city has a fair amount of unmetered parking at its disposal that could offset taking out spots on the busiest bus corridors for enforced bus lanes.

Yea where did they relocate the parking? There are/were definitely metered spaces where those lanes are...

A small glimpse of what might have been :(

Most of Western between Montrose and 63rd doesn't have metered parking, only a bit in Lincoln square does and around Diversey. That particular stretch doesn't have metered parking for example. Ashland is mostly unmetered as well. Only near belmont and Ashland and in Wicker Park does Ashland have meters.

Here's the parking meter map.
https://map.chicagometers.com/

Wow could have sworn longer stretches than that, thats great. Wouldn't be that hard to piecemeal together stretches on other roads to make room for BRT on Ashland and Western...

I am loving the bus lanes.

Whats going on with the Damen green line station? Have they broken ground yet?

No.

...do you have any data as to when they may start ? I would use that station.:tup::tup:

They put in the foundations a while ago and it's been crickets since...

No idea when they will start. It’s probably a funding snafu. The Fulton Market Association was in favor of the station but didn’t want all $70M of the project cost to come from the Kinzie TIF district... they want CTA to get free money from the Federal government instead. Apparently they think the Trump administration is sitting on giant piles of transit cash, just itching to hand it out. LOL

What the status of the Cta Green Line Damen Lake street stop

On a different topic... While I appreciate the large-scale electrical, track, signal, station and other replacements/expansions/improvements all along the length of the Blue Line from O'Hare through to Downtown, the weekend delays have been absolutely absurd as of late! My normal 25 minute train trip from Belmont to Clinton and vice-versa took nearly 45 minutes because of the single-track section between Clark/Lake and Damen. This morning was roughly the same. Wouldn't one think that CTA would try to schedule trains at intervals which don't involve one train sitting for a very long period of time while one or two trains traverse the stretch in the opposite direction?

Ah well, first-world problems, I guess. :shrug:

Aaron (Glowrock)

Well they've got to do it sometime and single tracking always sucks. The only alternative is a couple month line cut.

Yeah, I got caught in that yesterday, both directions. I'm wondering if something other than single-tracking was going on, or if the location of the crossovers at both ends of the single-tracking was just really inconvenient for the Saturday Blue Line schedule.

I didn't realize Chicago had actually created a guide for Transit Oriented Development here in the Chicago. Nice to see it.

Block Club has a nice update on flyover construction. Even has a bit of construction fundamentals (70 ft piers) you don't always see.

If I'm not mistaken, these are the same caissons we see for highrise construction... so we do "always see them" on this forum, lol.

I appreciate getting info from Block Club on this kind of stuff, but I feel like the constant and intensive coverage really makes this work seem like they're building the Great Pyramid or something. In any Asian city, this kind of project would be very minor!

And certainly on the private side, companies like Case and Revcon do this kind of foundation all day nonstop for developers. It's a pretty standard technique.

People who don't follow construction and don't live downtown probably find it more new than people on this forum do.

Exactly, specifics of process are usually glossed over in construction coverage, I thought it was notable that they were going into more detail than typical

Related chopped 10 stories off the proposed Equinox Hotel (down to 48 stories), but in transit news it seems like Burnett is pushing for the reconstruction of the Halsted L station given the development activity in the area. I think there are higher priority infill stations, but it’d be awesome to get this one back. The spacing on this segment of the Green/Pink Lines would be tight, but there’s a lot going on. 90/94 just east of Halsted eats a decent amount of the service area, but we’ll survive.

Hopefully the push wests continues and we can get a Pink Line stop at Madison in addition to a Brown/Purple Lines stop at Halsted and Division, and that Green Line stop at Damen that’s allegedly under construction...

It seems to me that you could pretty cheaply add auxiliary entrances to Morgan on the east side of the station around mid-block between Sangamon and Peoria with high barrier gate fare controls instead. That would certainly improve the access for people to the east of the station.

As you say there are higher priorities for new infill stops.

Sounds like a GREAT use for TIF funds... high impact, low cost.... :hmmm:

Still, glad to see Burnett pushing for CTA to solve the traffic problems in the West Loop area instead of more parking. Not that Burnett has any real leverage over CTA, though.

And it should be pretty fast. With all the office coming online just to the east the need appears obvious.

I think the Halsted Green Line is a great idea. The area is going to need some significant transit improvements, considering the expansion of the downtown zoning a few years ago. A stop at Halsted likely wouldn't open until the later part of the 2020s at the earliest, so I think it's entirely reasonable to assume demand will be higher whenever it does open.

The Green Line could do with a few more infill stops also. Western, Elizabeth, 26th would all be very helpful in improving downtown connections. 63/Racine could be reopened relatively easily, and perhaps some other demolished stations could be rebuilt, maybe in tandem with a re-extension along 63rd to University or Stony Island.

From an interview between Burnett and former DPD commissioner Reifman (2 years ago?), Reifman said they won't rebuild Brown/Purple infill stations until the Belmont flyover is finished. It's cause the Brown/Purple lines are already at capacity during rush hour, and adding new stations in the central area will overload the lines until they can improve frequency. So don't expect new stations until the end of 2024 :(

Edit: Looks like the Brown/Purple section of the bypass will be finished in 2021, Red/Purple tracks a few blocks north are being reconstructed between 2021-2024. Hopefully that means new stations after 2021

I was looking at CTA Rail Ridership stats for full year 2018 (the last year we have full stats for), and noticed that the official full year total for rail ridership was around 225 million riders. But if I go through the line items and add up total yearly ridership for each line, it sums up to 186.3 million.

Can anyone here explain that discrepancy?

One possibility is that the total rail ridership is unlinked trips, but the line totals are entrances at each station. So the 225 might somehow include people who enter on one line and have an in-system transfer to another?

At the speed at which the CTA moves *cough, Damen, cough*, they should just start the process now. Like they'll actually finish rebuilding a station before 2024 if they start in 2022.