Yeah American costs are out of control. Nobody can really explain why fully,
but there's no single reason.

It wasn't meant to be snarky, Mr. Defensive, it was merely a statement of fact. :-)

If it really does estimate out to be that much, a large part of it is probably because it would be quite complex to create a subway portal in a fairly dense, active neighborhood and then join an active rail line in the center of the areas busiest expressway.

Unfortunately we're not out of the woods on this yet. Rauner lifted the freeze on IDOT projects after blowback from the roadbuilders, but it remains in effect for rail.

You've got to be kidding me.

Nope, see here:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...pending-freeze

The good news is, as I understand it, IDOT was only unfrozen for existing contracts, so the Illiana is still frozen.

Is there any explanation for going full subway? Since looking at the route (assuming its going straight west to the blue line) elevated over Lawrence Ave would be fine except for the very last half mile due to two elevated rail tracks. Unless the cost of raising el track high enough over the lines pushes subway into being competitive.

And iirc the plans called for two stations, over Elston and Pulaski.

I don't understand how tunneling in Chicago can possibly be that expensive. It blows the mind, where does the money go exactly?

Existing contracts were always going to be left untouched (they are contracts, after all). The recent unfreezing was for the shovel-ready projects that were supposed to be let on January 30. In other words, business as usual. The argument was that road builders had already spent time preparing bids and committing resources for those projects before Rauner took office, so it would be unfair to pull the rug out from under them.

I'm not sure of the contractual status of IDOT's rail projects; they are usually a contract with the freight railroad in question rather than with a contractor directly. The railroad can perform work itself or subcontract to a construction company.

Into a giant hole in the ground...

Tunneling itself is only a portion of the cost. Laying track, installing signal equipment and drainage systems, etc is also very costly regardless of whether you are above or below ground. The cost of stations is also tremendous. Cut and cover is the more economical way to do stations, but it's very disruptive to businesses and residents, and may not be politically feasible if less-disruptive options exist (also might fail an EIS).

I lived at Lawrence & Kimball for 5 yrs (easy commute to the Loop), there is NO WAY the Businesses along Lawrence Ave. would go for any type of "L" structure; which would turn it into Lower Wacker Drive. And there is no other available ROW in the area; even a subway under Lawrence would probably have to be stacked (cut & cover - boring is too expensive) because of the narrow street width.

I don't see any reason to build new elevated lines in a gentrified city. Chicago hasn't taken its down like most cities, but they won't build new ones.

They certainly won't build anymore over streets (maybe), but both the Red and Orange Line extensions are proposed to be elevated for much of their lengths (the Orange maybe over Cicero Ave. approaching Ford City); parts of any Yellow Line extension also.

If constructed it would make a very interesting ride, on elevated tracks from the Loop to Western Ave., down to the surface with frequent grade crossings to Kedzie, down into a subway to reach the Kennedy Expy., and then up into the Expy. median (probably running all the way to O'Hare, providing it 2 CTA city access routes)

Any Brown Line extension should absolutely eliminate the grade crossings between Rockwell and Spaulding. Elevated structure makes the most sense. Build it in concrete with sound walls, it won't be any noisier than the ground-level tracks.

For Metra riders, fare increase depends on type of ticket, destination
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...130-story.html

By Richard Wronski and Meredith Rodriguez January 30, 2015 2:34pm


When Marlene Tillis bought her February Metra pass recently, she was surprised to find out how much the cost had jumped: an increase of $14.50 to $92.75 for a month's worth of rides.

That amounts to an 18.5 percent increase — more than the average of nearly 11 percent that Metra said the fares would rise when it approved the increase in November......

The combined cost of that and the subway would price it right out of existance; also I'm sure there was Federal funding involved, isn't there some rule about using a funded facility for some certain length of time? Also I don't think the locals would want a big wall (like the Red Line at Berwyn) in their back yard (NIMBY).

I'm doubtful that the Brown Line Extension will come to fruition in the near future, perhaps even in the long-term. It is certainly a worthy project, as it would provide a crosstown connection between the Red and Blue, and is the third highest ridership line in it's own right.

There are a few projects that are more important that will take up the CTAs efforts for the next 10-15 years; Red Line reconstruction, Red Line to 130th, Blue/Forest Park reconstruction, and Ashland BRT. The Yellow and Orange extensions should go through, as they are relatively cheap.

I wonder if CTA is still pursuing the Circle Line. Despite being in CMAP's list, it's duplicative of the Ashland BRT. I guess both projects are moving quite slowly, so who knows if either will happen.

It would be really nice if CTA could cut about half the bus stops from the system. Currently CTA uses 1/8 mile spacing, but cities like Seattle and LA are using 1/3-1/4 mile stop spacing. Reducing spacing would increase speeds, and more ridership at the remaining stops would justify more bus shelters.

I'd also like to see CTA introduce TSP on some of the wider streets, like Western, where it would be beneficial. Moving more stops to the far-side of the intersection would really speed things up.

I'd also like to see a move to all-door boarding with Ventra passes (a la San Fran), but I don't think that CTA would be fond of that idea.

Where are the Chicago-area construction projects in 2015?
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/h...mn.html#page=1

Jon Hilkevitch February 1, 2015 6:44pm

A boatload of transportation projects, including completion of the first phase of the Chicago Riverwalk extension, will be launched or resume in early 2015, regardless of whether an early spring is in the offing.

That's because in northeastern Illinois, construction season runs most of the year, put on hold only by "Chiberia"-like conditions or strikes involving lightning or labor unions.....

That would never work in Chicago, half the riders would sneak in through the back door behind someone else (I lived in Chicago for 58 yrs, lots of it spent on CTA -- I KNOW)

Re: Museum Campus Transportation Study
 

Anyone have any idea why the Analysis and Illustration Phases of Mayor Emanuel's MPC/CDOT "Museum Campus Transportation Study" were halted; the entire Study was supposed to have been completed by the end of December, it's months later now: http://www.civicartworks.com/project...opular&phase=1

There weren't THAT many submissions (less than 50) that the big group of quite knowledgeable people at MPC and CDOT couldn't get a handle on it in over 2 months (unless maybe they are stalling until after the Elections -- and that is certainly NOT right, the Public is entitled to that knowledge)