I once supported streetcars but the more time I spend in Chicago, the more I have to agree with the BRT folks. At the fraction of the cost, you get practically the same service--but not as "cool" as a streetcar.

Which is good. Why be like Portland and San Francisco anyhow? Screw those hipster havens, this is Chi-caw-go, damn it! You either ride an ancient, elevated monster or take the damn bus. ;)

TUP, you dog.

What is a partial grade separation (everybody duck)? Also, can you sketch or give dimensions for what you think would be a workable cross-section? Ashland is a 100-foot ROW. How would you handle curb parking? Left-turn storage? Would passengers board at safety islands or would you order special cars with offside doors for island platforms?

Never read this, but Cecil Adams posted his plan for the Red/Purple Lines. Good stuff.

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9...lereconfig.jpg

I would personally eliminate Berwyn. The stop really only serves as a transfer point to the 92 - Foster bus, which can easily be rerouted to Argyle. If Argyle was rebuilt with a northern entrance at Winona, that would help to pick up some of Berwyn's riders.

Cecil doesn't mention it, but the precision called for at Howard - with Red and Purple Line trains making alternate departures every 2.5 minutes - would probably require Yellow Line trains to get their own track and platform somewhere in the Howard megacomplex. I have no idea where that might be, but CTA dispatching can barely handle Howard right now. I shudder to think of what it was like before the station was modernized. If you eliminated the Yellow Line and just ran every other Red Line train to Skokie, that would also solve the problem.

Also, for fairness' sake, I'd like to see what would happen if the Purple Line bypassed Wellington and Diversey, as in Cecil's plan, but then shifted back to the outer tracks at Armitage and headed to the Loop as it does today. Cutting two stops is not insignificant, and providing a high level of service to Chicago and the planned station at Division is important.

Eliminate Berwyn? It's the station that most directly serves the heart of Andersonville (Berwyn & Clark intersection). Berwyn is the station that's most closely positioned near the midway point between Lawrence & Bryn Mawr, just one block north of Foster.

^Berwyn has a lot of walk-in boardings; transfers from the 92 are not a particularly significant source. It actually has more boardings than Argyle or Thorndale, and roughly the same as Granville or Lawrence.

Dec. 2009 ridership stats (PDF)

Which is why I suggested "moving" the Argyle station north to a location between Foster and Argyle somewhere, where it could serve both streets equally well. Berwyn may have walk-in boardings, but it doesn't really support a transit-oriented business district like Argyle does. Many of those walk-ins at Berwyn might just as easily go to a Foster-Argyle station, or if they're at Balmoral or north, they'd just go to Bryn Mawr where, under Cecil's plan, they could catch an express train without a transfer.

Creating a new Foster station also solves the 'WTF' problem of naming important stations after minor streets.

It's all a moot point, really, because if you had a valid express service, you wouldn't need to close any local stations. It would save CTA a bit of money, though.

Weird, now that I think about it, Cecil Adams kind of reminds me of Mr Downtown, and vice versa. Weird...

Berwyn is also the layover location for the 92 and 146 --- don't discount the value of having a place where several buses can be lined up and parked for 10 minutes in a neighborhood as dense as Edgewater in which CTA neither owns nor leases any off-street bus turnarounds nearby.

Some renderings floated around a couple years back for a large "TOD" wherein that Dominick's next to Berwyn would get the mixed-use highrise treatment including an off-street bus terminal, but that was more of a concept created by Ald. Smith and planners rather than representing actual developer/landowner interest.

In terms of ridership, all of the North Main stations have strong walk-in ridership and serve unique markets that would be negatively impacted with any closings. Even the weakest station in the corridor, Jarvis, serves a distinct market from nearby Howard. There may be some efficiency to wring out via a closure or two and some new auxiliary entrances but eventually it might not be worth the trouble either politically or financially.

As regards new express stations, Wilson would be a dual-island-platform station if and when the $80+ million needed to completely rebuild it is finally kept in the 5-year capital budget for more than a year or two before the money is redirected for other purposes (mind you, it first started appearing in capital plans back around 1985, same as Howard). That said, the recent and ongoing sprucing up at the station in conjunction with the "North Red & Purple Vision Study" suggest the current plan is to try to bundle a large chunk of North Main rehab work into a single project to move through the federal funding process and market to legislators rather than deal with any further elements piecemeal.

How will the Purple Line turn around at Roosevelt? I know that the conductor can simply go to the other end cab, but how will they switch tracks?

I do see a huge benefit of running the Purple line down the Red line Subway, this will free up the Elevated for more Brown-Green-Orange trains during rush hour.

^In Cecil's plan, the now-unused tracks between the subway portal at 13th and 18th Street would be used to lay up and turn back Purple Line trains. However, I have my doubts about whether the State Street Subway has the capacity to handle both Red & Purple.

When Cecil's Earthly Representative began musing about this plan a couple of months ago, he wanted to close all the stations north of Davis and do a couple of other things that, it was pointed out, had some political and practical problems. I'm not sure what about this watered-down version would be dramatically better than just running Purple Line service most of the time with a new stop at Wilson, and maybe fewer stops south of Belmont.

Cutting service north of Davis doesn't seem like a good idea. Is it possible to close either Noyes or Foster, and expand the remaining one? They're all in pretty poor shape, so they'll have to be rebuilt eventually. The question of whether to keep them or dump them will be considered seriously.

Any major rehab project should consider what to do at the grade crossings at Maple and Isabella. There are only two of them, so separating them would be a fairly simple matter, unlike a similar attempt would be on the Brown Line or Pink Line. You might even get away with closing Maple outright and putting in a pedestrian bridge - the sight of a new cul-de-sac ought to warm the hearts of many a Wilmettian.

The brown line doesn't run on the same tracks as the Purple line in the loop. Except for the switching station in the NW portion of the loop I find the above ground L to be very user friendly.

Exactly with regards to the Red & Purple line running during rush in the subway. Redline appears to be at capacity during the rush at this time.

Oh, I should have been more specific... It will free up the inner track space in the Loop for Orange line trains and it will free up the Ravenswood tracks from The Mart to Sedgwick.

From the Mart to Belmont the Brownline and Purple line are the same and treated so by the riders. Doesn't matter between the Mart and Sedgwick which train you take.

Good point with the Orange line.

Is there a great need for more frequent orange line service to/from the loop?

It matters if you're headed to Randolph/Wabash or Washington/Wells. One will be 12 minutes faster than the other.

In theory, Orange could be removed from the Loop altogether, with the new "Purple" line operating Linden-95th and the new "Red" operating Howard-Midway, or vice versa (the decision would best be made by looking at how the overall cycle times and peak demand patterns impact the vehicle requirement). This would also mitigate or eliminate the need for track and signal work at the 13th incline to support a terminal short-turning operation without interfering with the Green Line up above.

However, there are several issues. Firstly, this would only be operable and cost efficient if the service level on both the Dan Ryan branch and at local stations north of Belmont were reduced from their current levels (despite service on the "trunk" between Belmont-Roosevelt being increased), which makes it highly unlikely politically. Secondly, there is the consideration that Purple Line stations can only accommodate 6-car trains.

The point was directed at the two specific points mentioned by the person I was responding to...between the Mart and Segdwick.

I concur totally with you about which side of the loop one will end up at. That is why many transfer between the brown and purple at the Mart as the L heads into the loop. But when I hit Belmont from the north the red line and want the elevated around the loop I will take which ever line comes first the brown or purple at Belmont and ride it to the Mart then change at the Mart depending on what side of the loop I wanted to end up on.

From Greg Hinz's Blog today:

Springfield taking CTA, Metra riders on road to nowhere

The Orange Line currently operates 6-car trains, yes? Running Linden-Midway and Howard-95th trains seems like it would work. Whichever line runs express on the North Main, however, would probably need the full 8 cars. So... what if you made the Howard-95th trains run express on the North Main? Both of the new lines would skip Diversey, Wellington, and Armitage. The Linden-Midway local would have presumably less traffic, with people boarding at local stops and switching to the express at their first opportunity.

Looks like Chicago scored about $36 million from the Feds today for bus projects.

From FTA's website:
The "east-west circulator" is news to me. I'm not sure what alignment it will follow. If I had to guess, based on the description and budget, I'd say it is probably a surface transitway on Monroe Street, possibly including significant closure or reduction of the street to private vehicles, as per the Central Area Action Plan. I dunno how the Navy Pier connection will work... but once the buses cross Michigan Avenue and get out of the Loop, it's already a quick trip to Navy Pier across Grant Park and up Columbus or LSD.

Obviously, this is meant as a proof-of-concept, a test for lines to come. Ideally, it would be two bus lanes, two bike lanes in a cycle track, and one vehicular lane preserved for garage/alley access. I hope eventually they add a ramp down to the Lakefront Busway (which would be right underneath the Art Institute's new bridge). A river tunnel would be great, too, but that'll have to wait until the West Loop Transportation Center gets built.

The Jeffrey corridor is great, too. I'm guessing that, since express service already exists there, the improvements are only targeted at signal priority or lane closure, south of 67th. I don't even know if $11 million is enough for that, unless CTA somehow has a huge pot of local matching funds sitting around somewhere.

I believe the Orange runs 8 car trains, at least when I've been on it.

^Orange is 8 cars in rush periods, and 4 cars outside of peak.


I assume the Navy Pier BRT is going to run on Carroll Ave., which would be a "Surface Street", although I assume more than $24.65 million would be needed for entire corridor, as the railroad bridge would need a total rehab and perhaps an elevation as well. Perhaps the city will provide matching funds through a TIF.

that alternate universe is known as Toronto

on the more current topic of discussion, in the article about circulator and bus grants, it was pointed out that a 79th street BRT is envisioned, this is the east west link in the proposed Outer Loop LRT or BRT line correct? with the heavy rail alternative in this section running parallel to the rail ROW btwn Midway & 87th Red Line.

I had never seen a locally preferred alternative floated, so might this BRT plan splitting the line into a Cicero branch and 79th branch be a way of expediting the process?

Great news on the Govt funding for the first stages of what will hopefully be a citywide BRT network

^ According to the city's website, the transitway seems to follow an alignment along Madison in the Loop, not Carroll Avenue.

I'm not sure if I like that. Seems like such an alignment gets you from Union Station to Navy Pier. But what about River North and Mag Mile?

Hmm. Leave it to the city to pull a whole new project out of their ass to take advantage of a new grant program. The Central Area Action Plan calls for an underground busway or surface busway on Monroe Street, but now the city has switched to a split configuration on Washington/Madison and Canal/Clinton, at surface level.

I have no idea what existing bus routes will take advantage of the new bus lanes, or what new routes will be created afterward.

The CDOT press release does claim that an intermodal center will be built south of Union Station! Finally, we can do something with that god-awful parking lot.

About River North and Mag Mile - the Carroll Street Transitway will undergo an Alternatives Analysis soon, remember. That's a big-investment project, unlike the window-dressing that was announced today. Converting Lower Wacker to transitway operation will also be considered.

Dedicated or shared with autos? I can't imagine in a million years Lower Wacker lanes would be permanently conceded to a busway lane.

I don't know. That's what the study would determine.

If a Lower Wacker alignment WAS chosen, then they would probably install boarding platforms at 2-3 points, using loading dock and riverwalk space. I don't think the buses would get dedicated lanes, though.

I know this isn't transit, but IDOT is planning a diverging-diamond interchange in Naperville at I-88 and Route 59. There's currently only one existing in the USA, in Springfield, MO, although several others are under construction.

I just thought it was interesting because IDOT is usually super-conservative when it comes to roadway design, but apparently somebody decided to jump on the latest trend. I hope this means more experimentation and open-mindedness on the part of those who design our road and transit facilities.

^ I hope IDOT wisens up to the benefits of rural roundabouts at the confluence of state routes, particularly downstate. I can't tell you how many crazy three way route crossings there are where you have to turn your head like an owl to check for oncoming traffic, not to mention how surprisingly confusing who has the right of way can be if you aren't used to these intersections, with traffic cutting in front of you. It can be startling and confusing, and would be safer and much more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention, easier on gas, if large roundabouts replaced these outmoded rural confluences.

New Ravenswood Metra station
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3...21d757e1ab.jpg
vxla / flickr

Wow! Beats the heck out of what's there now!

Wow that actually looks good. I have to say I am very pleasantly surprised by this. Metra seems to be getting serious about making halfway decent city stations.

Specifically about this design: this looks very promising, but with traditional throwback designs - and specifically ones by production architect Fitzgerald - the devil will be in the details.

Honestly all the new train stops look the same to me. Red brick, attempt a retro look, just looks blah to me.

Does it include a walkway on the overpass so patrons can enter and exit from the south side of Lawrence?

Looks good.

Why are they building this again?

Sure, I would have liked to see something sleek, clean and modern. But frankly I'm shocked to see a full length canopy here. I can look the other way with the architecture if the train station actually looks like a train station and not a long stretch of asphalt with a couple squat park shelter shacks in the middle. This will be nice.

This Metra stop has found favor with Northsiders. In general the reliability of Metra, seating availability-(not on inbound morning rush), and 1 stop service into the Loop has led to increased ridership. A sheltered platform with protected stairwells would really enhance the experience and further increase patronage.



http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...commuters.html


Metra releases new UP North Line timetables
July 16, 2010 3:31 PM | 4 Comments | UPDATED STORY

Metra today released proposed new schedules on its Union Pacific North route later in conjunction with a major program to rebuild century-old bridges on the line.

The new schedules will start Aug. 21 and are available on Metra's web site. Thousands of commuters will be affected.

Train times will vary by about two minutes, Metra said.

Public meetings on the new schedules will be held July 29 at the Waukegan City Hall, 100 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Aug. 2 and the Lake Forest City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath Rd. and Aug. 4 at the Evanston Public Library, 1703 Orrington Ave.

The first phase of the $185 million project is expected to start next month.

Although the 22 bridges that need to be rebuilt are on Chicago's North Side, riders on the entire line will be affected because the project will force northbound and southbound trains onto a single track at work sites, officials said.

As a result, Metra is revising UP North arrivals and departures, and some trains will skip certain stops. Rush-hour commutes will be affected most because that's when the majority of trains run, Metra said.

With nearly 10 million passenger trips a year, the UP North is Metra's third-busiest line, after the BNSF and the Electric lines.

As part of the program, Metra is also building a new Ravenswood station, the most-used stop on the UP North and ninth-busiest of all stations. Currently, passengers must wait for trains on an open platform south of Lawrence Avenue.

The new station will be fully accessible for the disabled. It will also accommodate longer trains than the old platform could.

-- Richard Wronski

As noted, the ridership at this station is the highest of any on the UP North line. I can understand why. When I lived just 5 blocks west of the station, a couple times I opted to take Metra down to the loop as opposed to the brown line. The total travel time is essentially cut in half (approximately 30-32 minutes on the brown line from Damen to Washington/Wells, while about 15-18 minutes on Metra). Of course it's only useful if your schedule lines up pretty closely to when Metra makes its stops at Ravenswood.

Presentation on the River/Navy Pier Bike Path flyover:

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ion7-15-10.pdf

While this is a nice project, for $40 million I can think of at least 100 other transportation projects around Chicago that would be a higher priority if there is any discretion in the money. If it's federal money exclusively for bike paths, then great, full speed ahead.

:previous:

Thanks for that link.

That is a pretty big and important plan, I doubt it could be done as designed for only 40 million. It needs to done though.

Quite a substantial tunnel for the bike path under Solidarity Drive (just south of Shedd) was completed last year. I don't know what funded that, but maybe the source(s) are the same.

Relocating Metra to the north side of Lawrence puts it right next to the mixed-use development proposed for the current Sears lot. Perfect combo. May a large TOD blossom here.

Also starting next spring Lawrence ave will be reduced from a 4 lane street to 2 lanes in that area. With wider sidewalks, wider bike paths, and new streetscaping.

^ What?! That is an E-W artery, and it will be only busier (especially with people entering/exiting/stopping/standing) as the new station and TOD develop! As long as they are re-doing the viaduct, why can't we have our cake and eat it too with lanes as well as sidewalks and bike paths?

Why does it need to be four lanes? With the exception of Western to Ashland, Lawrence Ave only has two travel lanes from at least the Kennedy to Lake Shore Drive. Maintaining the increased road capacity in that one mile stretch from Western to Ashland won't do much for drivers traveling along Lawrence since it's already only two lanes both east & west of there. For drivers traveling up/down Western and turning onto Lawrence to go to the Ravenswood TOD/Metra stop, I can't imagine the time savings of one mile's worth of four lane roadway is that much better than two travel lanes.

And as someone who lived on Lawrence Ave between Western & the Ravenswood stop, I would have gladly welcomed the improved streetscape project in order to turn that stretch of Lawrence into a more pedestrian friendly environment. If you want people to be willing to walk to the new TOD, making the walk there more pleasant is a great way to encourage greater foot traffic in the area.