Not to mention the ME is by far the best way to get to the MSI from the Loop area! ;) Nothing against the Hyde Park Express buses, but the ME is quicker, and more spacious. Heh

Yes, ME needs to be absorbed into CTA so it can run as part of the core network and have its schedule beefed up a bit.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I’m thinking about hopping on the Metra with the fam to go to Chicago Blues Fest

The only thing is, as of 2020 I decided to stop renting out my downtown condo garage space to tenants (demand plummeted last year, of course) and simply keep it for my own use. So the promise of “free” downtown parking makes the train less necessary.

Except that I still enjoy riding the Metra. It’s also a fun experience for kids and, of course, you don’t have to worry about drinking and driving. We can literally ride our bikes from my house to our Metra station.

I’ve been pointing out for years that RLE is an incredibly bad transit investment, with a cost per new rider that must be approaching $100 ($6 was historically the general FTA threshold for worthwhile projects). Transit should be put where there’s density (of residents or jobs). Not where it’s cheap; or to pay political debts.

The core of the problem is that the Red Line Extension runs through an empty area. Fewer than 2000 people—total—live within a quarter-mile walk of all 4 RLE stops combined. The entire last mile runs through sludge drying beds and a sewage treatment plant. The entire Riverdale Community Area has fewer than 2500 households.

Every single household within a mile of the new terminal (about 3000 households) could be built a new $300,000 home within walking distance of an existing Green Line station for less than half the cost of this boondoggle—and the Red Line wouldn't thereafter be wasting countless service hours running empty trains back and forth to the forest preserve.


https://i.imgur.com/oE8A6Hd.jpg

As I remember the original Red Ahead plan, the goal was to increase capacity on the Red/Brown/Purple lines by 50%. This would be done as follows:

1. The Belmont flyover would allow the number of trains running in each direction on the north-side mainline to increase from 44 per hour (22 on each track) to 56 per hour (28 on each track).

2. Longer term, the number of cars on each train would increase from 8 to 10 on the Red line and from 6 to 8 on the Purple line.

The Howard, Kimball and 98th St yards are already full and Orange line trains are currently being sent to the Brown during peak times. So a 50% increase in Red/Purple/Brown capacity would require a new large train yard and 130th St was selected as the best place to put the yard.

Now, the Belmont flyover is close to completion and I assume will me its goal.

I don’t know about plans to increase the length of the trains. Are the new Lawrence – Bryn Mawr Stations being built to handle 10 car trains? If they are, then the City's plans are on track and we need the new yard at 130th St.

It is still very hard to reconcile how an agency would see the RLE as having more potential than a Brown Line subway connection to the Blue @ Jeff Park. The whole thing wreaks of political favor.

Five years ago, the cost of Red Ahead was estimated to be $4.7 billion for RPM on the north side plus $2.3 billion for RLE on south side for $7 billion in total. $2 billion was funded in the final days of the Obama administration. Which leaves $5 billion remaining, plus a couple billion for cost increases.

For this you get a 50% increase in capacity on the north side mainline. In other words the Red, Brown and Purple lines will be able to deliver 50% more northsiders to their jobs downtown every day. Which is worth way way more than extending the Brown Line to Jeff Park.

Or put another way, I see the vast majority (say, 90%) of the benefits of Red Ahead (including RLE) going to riders on the north side.

If the new railyard was not a factor in the ability for increased service on the north side Red, the RLE to 130th compared to the benefit of a Brown extension to Jefferson Park (and even interlining to O'Hare) wouldn't even be close.

Yes :)

Talk about tail wagging dog!

There are lots of cheap places to put a new yard near 95th, or turn back every other train at Chinatown to match where the boardings actually are. RLE is possibly the most expensive possible solution short of digging a massive underground cavern.

we have one of those too, don't we?

I'm guessing the CTA would need a pocket track south of Chinatown to accomplish that at peak headways but yea still waaaay cheaper than doing the RLE even if you have to rebuild a bridge to accommodate it.

As I understand it, the CTA's goal is to run 28 10-car trains per hour on the northside Red line during rush hour. A round trip to 95th St and back takes 2 hours; so that's 56 trains running at a time.

A turn back in Chinatown cuts the round trip to 80 minutes. So if all the trains turned back, there'd be 37 running at a time (two thirds of 56). And if half the trains turn back then the number running is 47. Times 10 cars per train is 470 cars on the line at a time.

Between 12:30 and 5 in the morning, trains are 15 minutes apart which is four per hour. Which means 8 trains on the line at a time. Or 80 cars.

So 390 cars need to go to a train yard at night. And the Howard and 95 St yards at at capacity. A Chinatown turnback won't help with this. Which is why the CTA needs another big yard.

As for a cheaper alternative, just name one. I personally think $5 billion spent on Red Ahead is a good investment.

Personally I would extend the Red Line one stop down the Bishop Ford with a transfer to Metra Electric at Chicago State. New yard just east of there, either along 99th St or in the middle of the Bishop Ford/Stony Island interchange.

I would support a one stop Red Line extension that would remain in the median of the Bishop Ford with a new terminal station at 103rd. There is plenty of room for a large southern Red Line yard in the vicinity of I-94/103rd/Stony Island. The median r.o.w. south of 103rd disappears making 103rd the reasonable and cost effective terminal. Options could include a large park-n-ride facility as well as the potential for an infill station at Chicago State University with possible ME infill station, though being already served by ME @ 95th, would probably be redundant.

Wow ardecila, do we share a brain or something?:haha: That's some funny stuff...

Great minds as they say:tup:

Build new yard to the east of the Skokie shops to stash rolling stock for the Red Line peak service.

No RLE.

Thanks Ardecila and Busy Bee. I'm not sure what I think's the best site but those are good options.

K1052: Are you talking about Skokie shops in Skokie?

yes

Cold Take: I would much rather see additional orange line stops between downtown and Midway, plus extensions of the green line in Woodlawn and Englewood. Would serve way more people in transit-starved neighborhoods.

A healthy transit agency in a healthy city in a healthy state in a healthy country should and would be able to do both and then some.

Let's see. In what parts of the city might new transit investment actually result in usage?

https://i.imgur.com/ZAGHenB.jpg

It's almost like there should be a line that connects those spokes, no? Maybe call it the Circle Line or or Mid-City Transitway or something;):P

From https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...expansion-plan

My thoughts:
- Improved Hiawatha service is a no-brainer. Not sure about all of the extensions if they could impact ontime running, although in principle they are all very worthwhile. They may consider adding a stop at some west Milwaukee Suburban Location as well (maybe downtown Tosa or a park and ride at Mayfair road might make sense), though I have my own selfish reasons for wanting that (in-laws live in Brookfield). A Green Bay stop better have car rental service to capitalize on people going to Door County.
- Doubled service to Detroit is big, especially with the improvements on that line. I do wonder how it will continue to Toronto though given the current station location though. Will it go through Port Huron/Sarnia from Detroit, or through Windsor? The former makes more sense to me (adds Port Huron / Detroit service!) though I don't have any knowledge about the track between Detroit and Port Huron.
- Not sure if Iowa City makes sense without rerouting the California Zephyr through there (and Des Moines) as well. In which case a second frequency to Des Moines (and maybe even Omaha) would make it more worthwhile.
- I hope something can be done about the run time to Indianapolis. It's a natural market but the Cardinal takes 5 hours when it should take 3.

To clear things up a little-

-There are 8 scheduled round trips planned between Chicago and Indy, 4 continuing to Louisville, 4 continuing to Cincinnati. CHI-IND times are to be improved to 3 hours 30 minutes. Amtrak promises a top speed of 110mph.

-There will be two different routes served between Chicago and the Twin Cities. The Empire Builder and at least one CHI-MSP train will run through LaCrosse; at least one will run through Eau Claire (the document is unclear as to how many trains will run thru Eau Claire). But 4 round trips total.

Seems like a lot of resources will have to go to pay for improvements the Class Is will demand to both expand service on the LaCrosse route and start a new routing through Eau Claire, not to mention adding Madison into the mix.

-The one planned round trip CHI-DET-TOR is supposed to use Michigan Central Station as its Detroit stop. Hopefully, more trains follow.

-More than a half an hour is supposed to be trimmed from the Illini/Saluki. Don't know whether that is simply through track/signal improvements on the old IC main or not. The state pledged $100 million to the effort.

Once Amtrak can get the Illini/Saluki off the St. Charles Air Line (when CREATE Grand Crossing is finished), perhaps another 15-20 minutes can be shaved off the runtime.

-Biggest disappointment - No further round trips CHI-STL look to be in the works. While the Phase 1 speed improvements to 110mph Joliet-Alton will eventually happen, the plan seems to assume that Phase 2 of the corridor and its promised speed improvements (Chicago-Joliet on the Metra-Rock Island, Springfield 10th Street and Flyover, and Granite City-St. Louis) won't happen by 2035.

Here's a link to the entire Amtrak 2035 Corridor Vision document.

Yeah, thanks! Looks like you should have written that article instead of Greg Hinz! I obviously didn't get a chance to actually read the document...

The biggest problem I see is that there is all this new service to Chicago and to Cleveland/Toledo but no additional service between Chicago and Cleveland. I guess if the schedule of the LSL and CL were changed so tjeud be more useful for that connection that would help, but not completely.

Thanks for providing Amtrak's link with all the juicy details. Here's a list of reduced trip times contained in the link. I hope I found them all.
Reduce trip times between Carbondale – Chicago
Reduce trip times between Boston – Portland – Brunswick
Reduce trip times by increasing speeds up to 125 mph Harrisburg – Philadelphia
Reduce trip time New York - Niagara Falls
Reduce trip time New York - Albany
Reduce trip time between New York City - Montreal
All the remaining improvements within the link involved more frequencies or new regional trains.

Largest changes required in new legislation are (1) legal authority to sue railroads for train delays, (2) quicker STB resolutions of required track improvements for additional passenger trains, and (3) changes to existing law where states are no longer required to ante up capital costs for new regional trains and 5 years of freebies before contributing to O&M costs.
All three changes to the law are needed for this expansion plan to work.
Good luck with that!

well, they also included that this time, CHI-STL service will actually be improved (for passengers, not just freight...)

They promised a speed increase to 110 mph, but not a reduced travel time.
"Lincoln Service Chicago – St. Louis
The Illinois Department of Transportation is implementing speed increases to 110 mph; the vision includes:
• 4 round trips between Chicago – St. Louis with speeds up
to 110 mph
• 1 round trip runs through to Kansas City in the Missouri
River Runner service
The Lincoln Service vision is for better-than-car trip-times to grow market share and increase mobility options among Chicago, St. Louis, and downstate Illinois communities."
Compare that to the text for the Saluki/Illini
"Illini/Saluki Carbondale – Champaign – Chicago
The Illinois Department of Transportation has funding to improve performance in the next few years; the vision includes:
• Reduce trip times on 2 existing round trips between
Carbondale – Chicago
• 1 new round trip Champaign – Chicago
Better corridor service increases mobility options for Eastern and Southern Illinois to link with Chicago and other Midwest corridors."

Better than car trip times? Huh?
Different web sites report driving times between 4 and 5 hours.
Amtrak's existing schedule is suggest between 5 and 5.5 hours.
Is matching the driving by car time better?
At least it is a step in the right direction.
But trains should be able to do much better than matching or just beating the driving by car time.

Haha, it would be so Amtrak to increase speeds to 110 MPH but then have the train sit in a siding in Granite City for an hour.

The full network approach in Wisconsin seems designed to build more broad support in the state. Easy to protest rail when only Madison and Milwaukee are benefitting, but you might win some people over if you're bringing service to Eau Claire, Green Bay, Oshkosh, Appleton, etc and providing more useful service to the cities along the Empire Builder route.

The Wisconsin GOP is still insane, but hopefully a more broad plan is harder for a Scott Walker type to kill.

Assuming they revive the 2008 plan for Madison service, stations would go in Watertown, Oconomowoc and Brookfield. The Brookfield plan was kinda shakey and Tosa did lobby for the stop to be placed at Mayfair Rd by the research park.

As for rental cars in Green Bay, that's purely up to the free market... if there is a demand for rental cars I assume Hertz or Enterprise or someone will open a location. The likely Green Bay stop is at or near the old CNW station, which has parking available already and plenty of room to add a layover facility, more parking and/or a TOD to the north.

Apparently the Chicago-Indianapolis roundtrips will run at 110 mph

Here's a map of the Midwest station from the document, it's surprisingly pixelated but you can make out some stations

https://i.imgur.com/z1ck5Ci.png

Wouldn't building another yard in the median of the freeway just compound the access issues that already exist for the 98th Street/Dan Ryan yard?

Not in the median of the freeway. Here

The yard could potentially go here: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7125.../data=!3m1!1e3

Here's what I would do if I were king:

First, RLX one stop to Bishop Ford / Cottage Grove / CSU, where a new ME station would be built. Put the yard where I mentioned. I would not be completely opposed to another stop at 103rd street serving Olive Harvey College and a giant park and ride lot.

Then we force Metra to run proper, fare-integrated local service at reasonable. This could look something like:

ME Commuter Service, which would only stop at Kensington/Bishop Ford/57th/McCormick/18th (game days only)/Museum Campus/Van Buren/Millenium. This could run at whatever frequencies Metra thinks are reasonable. Kensington would need some upgrades to be a 2-platform station.

ME Mainline Service from a new stop at 130 st/Altgeld Gardens to Millenium Station, running every 10-20 minutes depending on time of day. It would turn "expressish" north of 53rd street, skipping stops between 53 and McCormick Place. This would of course stop at the new Bishop Ford station. Eventually, some runs could be extended to stations at Brainard/131 and Hegesewich and maybe even Hammond (if NICTD pays for it).

ME South Chicago Service would run at 10-20 minute frequencies depending on time of day. This would pick up local stops between 53rd and McCormick (which would have 2-3 additional stops between 27th and 47th, perhaps at 35th and 41st). Eventually this could be extended to serve the East Side as well.

ME Blue Island service would operate as a branch line, interchanging at Kensington with 20-30 minute frequencies (depending on time of day). More frequencies can't be accommodated without making it double track and are probably unnecessary anyway.


If Metra refuses to do that, then CTA should take over at least 2 of the tracks in that corridor and ME would only operate the "Commuter" service.

Good comments.


I'm not sure it would need double tracking for sake of frequency, but you're probably right it doesn't need double tracking, but it does need ROW modernization. It could use a track rebuild and right of way "definition" through fencing and/maybe along with a parallel bike path. The stations are crap. There also are entirely too many grade crossings at side streets, almost the entire length through West Pullman and Calumet Park (Burr Oak). I'm usually not a fan of closing streets by creating cul-de-sacs, but in the case through this area I think it would benefit, plus the residents might even welcome it. This may allow trains to operate a bit faster, and certainly would cut down of gate bells and train horns.

^ It is not fully a single-track line, there is a passing track at West Pullman station that is exactly halfway between Kensington and Blue Island. With this kind of setup you can space trains every 20-25 minutes, with timed meets occurring at the sidings. If they add two more passing sidings at the quarter-points (at the Ashland and State St stops) they can double the frequency to every 12 minutes at a very low cost, probably $50M or less. Just 1/2 mile of new track total, plus some modifications to platforms.

The Trillium Line in Canada is almost exactly the length of Blue Island branch from Kensington to Blue Island (4.4mi), this is how it operates. Freight is only run at night on Trillium, but on ME it's not run at all. Admittedly, Trillium is fully grade-separated while Blue Island branch is not at all.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/...-single-track/

At a higher cost ($300M or less), they could dis-entangle Blue Island trains from mainline and South Shore trains at Kensington, and run it as a shuttle with timed cross-platform transfers. Kind of a South Side version of the Yellow Line.

^Interesting idea, though I'm unsure what the benefit would be from this arrangement.

There's a few benefits.
-shuttle operation allows higher frequencies on the branch with the same number of operators and equipment as today
-shuttle operation keeps more slots open on the mainline for South Chicago or suburban trains
-potentially it can simplify the diverging moves for South Shore trains by removing one set of conflicts

IMO the suburbs along ME are now very similar demographically to the city neighborhoods north of the Calumet River. On equity grounds, there is just as much need for good transit outside the city as inside. I don't see why we should accept a plan that improves service for city residents but keeps the low-frequency status quo for people in Riverdale, Dolton or Harvey. That means you need to run a lot of trains on the mainline south of Kensington, so it's helpful if you can distangle the Blue Island trains from that.

yeah, I'm not sure faster than 20 min service levels are needed in that area as it's not super high density, though downtown Blue Island could maybe have some TOD. I guess if it helps a shuttle meet trains at Kensington more easily though it might make sense.

Yes, that makes sense (and a 130th st stop would help too on the mainline), but the density goes down quite a bit south of Harvey. The fact that Harvey has the south suburban bus hub though means that frequent service to Harvey is certainly justified.

Edit: I finished drawing up my RLX alternative proposal, with some modifications (only spot-checked, so maybe some egregious errors):

https://i.imgur.com/B7FNnuu.png

Some notes:


- Altgeld Gardens gets service on a "Hammond Shuttle" as well as more frequent, albeit less close service at 130th on the mainline. This may not be completely jusfied service-wise, but politically it would help, and providing Hegewisch with reasonable service would help connect that community more to the city. At that point, it's almost silly not to connect to Hammond, but Indiana would have to pony up a bit.
- Currently the Harvey local takes about 50 minutes. This "mainline service" has several stops added and removed, so hopefully it takes about the same. That's about the edge of what is reasonable I think. With an ~hour service time (including turnaround) it actually works out ok operationally I think.
- I also included a potential South Chicago line extension to Whiting, serving the East Side. This would have new stops on the south side of 95th (near Calumet Fisheries), Ewing, and the State Line (not sure exactly how that would work with the N-S yard there). This could continue to Whiting if Indiana ponies up, and maybe even farther if Indiana pays for it.
- Extending the Green Line to 63rd St makes a lot more sense with good Metra service, I think, although it may not happen.

I'm by no means an expert on train scheduling or the specific capacity constraints of the IC mainline, but I'll take your word for it. I can see how running the Blue Island trains as a shuttle could free up capacity but would the mainline need that much more capacity if they increased frequencies?

Tangentially related: If the Metra RIL gets electrification, would that raise the possibility of any service changes on the existing ME lines? I would like to see one excellent Blue Island station come out of it.

And while we're at it, and to come full circle back to the Red Line Extension, does anyone know if the idea of creating a new Metra line branching off the Metra RIL @ 79th and running down the UP through Roseland and Pullman instead of the bonkers RLE propsal using that row? You could have station at Vincennes/83rd and than maybe one around 95th and then hit all the stations called for in the lame RLE proposal.

I can't imagine that makes much sense unless it's continued to Dolton/South Holland/Chicago Heights or something.

You're right. And thank you for reminding me of my long held hope to see a new Dolton-Cal City-Lansing ME extension along the old removed PRR line to the state line. This would also create the potential to implement the Southeast Service long planned for as they would share tracks to Dolton.

So yes, if Metra RIL electification is pulled off, have a line leave the RIL at 79th, running through Washington Heights, Roseland, Pullman and joining again the ME and then branching SE in Dolton or not joining the ME and continuing through Riverdale then turning SE in Dolton. Oh the potential.

As intriguing as it sounds, the old PRR ROW is not free and clear from Dolton to the state line.

There are houses built on the ROW along Greenwood Ave., between Sibley Blvd. and the Bishop Ford. The ROW would cut through the middle of a Home Depot parking lot at 170th and Torrence, and in Lansing there is a public park and Lansing's outdoor performance space, Fox Pointe to contend with.

But if those obstacles could be overcome, Metra might be able to partner with Amtrak on rebuilding those tracks. As has been mentioned recently, as part of its 2035 Vision, Amtrak plans on 8 round trips between CHI and IND with a 3 and a half hour runtime. Avoiding slow freight traffic getting out of Chicago would be key to reducing travel times.

If the Pennsy tracks could be rebuilt and CREATE Grand Crossing gets done, the new Hoosier State could take the soon-to-be-former Southwest Service tracks out of Union Station, a brief run on the NS Chicago Line (or a set of new, Amtrak-owned tracks) to Grand Crossing, onto the ME to the rebuilt PRR line at Dolton, turning onto the CSX Monon Sub just over the state line.

Failing that, the new Hoosier State might take the same route onto the ME, then onto the South Shore, utilizing the future West Lake extension onto the Monon Sub at Dyer.

Red-Purple Bypass Continues To Progress In Lake View
Chicago YIMBY | BY: JACK CRAWFORD | 7:30 AM ON MAY 31, 2021

(all images below are from the above article... where more are available)
https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/...1/05/6-74.jpeg

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/...1/05/5-91.jpeg

https://chicagoyimby.com/wp-content/.../05/1-319.jpeg

Yes, there have been infringements over the years that would have to be removed, though I think a good 95% is clear. Good points thereafter.

Metra Electric has a lot of potential that could be unlocked at relatively low cost. Hell, there is a full flying junction for the South Chicago branch and four tracks all the way to Kensington. But Kensington itself is a mess and needs to be rebuilt as a two-platform station (or maybe 3 platform). The four track mainline has a lot of capacity, but to unlock it you need to run trains with a lot of precision and predictability.

I'm not sure what Metra means by "electrifying" RID, it's very unclear. There are a lot of overlapping plans for the future of RID that aren't necessarily compatible. It's an appealing corridor for planners because it's publicly-owned, largely grade-separated from other railroads and relatively free of freight.

These are the various ideas that I have heard from planners and officials:
-Shift SWS trains onto RID at 79th St
-Add 3rd track north of 79th St to 15th St
-Shift Amtrak St Louis trains onto RID at Joliet, with a link to Union Station at 40th St
-Shift Amtrak Michigan/East Coast trains onto RID at Englewood, with a link to Union Station at 16th St (instead of 40th) (this would also include Carbondale/New Orleans trains if Grand Crossing is built)
-Electrify RID for Metra operations

My best guess is that Metra needs to increase the average speed of their trains so that they can accommodate the nonstop Amtraks without blowing multiple holes in the daily schedule. Amtrak trains tend to arrive at unpredictable times too, due to freight conflicts elsewhere on the system that cause frequent delays. So it's best to have fast Metra service with plenty of flexibility to slot the Amtraks in whenever they get to Chicago.

The best way to speed up service is to electrify, switch to high-performance trains, and raise platforms to minimize dwell times. This is what Caltrain is doing to accommodate intercity trains on a busy commuter corridor, because it's cheaper than 4-tracking the whole thing. Of course, "electrifying" with battery locomotives does none of this. Same slow-ass trains, but even heavier this time! At least the air is sparkling!

IF St Louis trains move onto RID, they would no longer have a mid-suburban stop at Summit. Amtrak would probably try to replace the Summit stop with another stop along the RID corridor. I would probably assume Midlothian since it's the closest to the Tri-State and has a very nice stationhouse with room for an Amtrak ticket agent. However, Blue Island has a strong case to host an Amtrak stop if they want it, with multiple bus connections existing and the ME transfer. They could probably support a parking structure and certainly a more elaborate station.

I think only the Beverly/Morgan Park Branch of the RID really makes sense for electrification? Not sure there's much case past Blue Island.

Well certainly the "Suburban Branch" of RID would see benefits from electrification, yeah. But you lose a lot of the scheduling benefits if you don't go all the way to Joliet.

Trains going south of Blue Island could probably express north of there to achieve a speed that is comparable to Amtrak, but between Joliet and Blue Island the diesel-hauled trains would still provide an obstacle to Amtrak since they're making a lot of stops in the suburbs. That's why IDOT's original plan for the St Louis corridor included a 3rd track along the entire RID from Joliet to 15th St. But if they can electrify at Caltrain prices, full electrification is cheaper than a 3rd track.

I'll put it another way: right now, the scheduled time on Rock Island from Joliet to 35th is 37 miles in 60 minutes at an average speed of, well, 37mph. (35th is roughly where the St Louis trains would break off to go to Union Station). Per IDOT's own planning documents, St Louis trains can cover the same distance in only 25 minutes at an average speed of ~90mph. So unless Metra gets faster or Amtrak goes slower, or you add passing tracks, this means there needs to be a ~45-minute gap between Metra trains every time an Amtrak comes through!

Slowing down Amtrak doesn't help achieve the goal of "high speed service" to St Louis, and adding passing tracks is tricky because you need to know exactly where/when the meets occur. But Amtrak trains arrive at unpredictable times, so you need to basically add a full 3rd track to the entire shared line - very costly. Speeding up Metra trains with electrification is the best way to get Metra and Amtrak to share a high-quality schedule, and offers more bang-for-buck in terms of speeding up Metra trains from the status quo, which passing tracks cannot offer.