I doubt there will be. It's very unpopular with the freight railroads and expensive to build out. Without access to some other huge pot of cash (like Caltrain is getting) I don't see it as realistic.

Hopefully Metra can at least get the whole locomotive fleet up to Tier III/IV standards between new purchases and rebuilds. AESS on everything would be great too.

I don't if it's emissions, but the fact that electric is just a better technology. Faster acceleration/deceleration, lower pollution, quieter, less archaic all around.

Also, the point everyone makes about "that electricity has to be generated somewhere" is essentially moot in Chicago since we have the highest percentage of our electricity generated by non-fossil sources out of any city of this size on earth due to our Nuclear fleet.

source?

I've heard that too.

Nuclear power does not fall under the category of "renewable energy" because it does deplete the fuel rods and produce waste - for better or worse, many energy activists are leery or downright opposed to nuclear power, so Chicago's huge investment in nuclear power plants is often forgotten in today's debates.

At least in the short-medium term, though, it is far more environmentally-friendly than continuing to burn fossil fuels. It is arguably the best energy source for the Midwest, where sunshine and high winds are very inconsistent (unlike, say, the Southwest or certain coastal locations).

It's pretty clear that electrification is a more environmentally-friendly way to power trains. Honestly the easier thing is to get more people on the trains and fewer in cars, though - the emissions per capita of train travel is far lower than car travel (and the trains just get more efficient the more people are riding).

Emissions is not my primary worry.

^Then what is?

And a good way to do this is to electrify rail transit so it is more competitive with other forms of transit. Electric means better acceleration/deceleration, smother, quieter ride, no loud locomotive belching diesel smoke, just better all around.

More electricity in Illinois is generated by Nuclear plants than by all fossil sources combined:

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL#tabs-4

And that's not even counting the small, but fast growing renewable sector. The numbers are a little less favorable with Nuclear and fossil fuels neck and neck, but we also don't have new, post-Fisk/Crawford, numbers either which will likely show a rise in the percent of energy coming from nuclear reactors. In reality, the electricity in Northern Illinois is basically just being shifted around the grid as needed anyhow so estimates that try to tease out Chicago's energy consumption from the rest of the state are a bit silly to begin with.

There are very few places on earth where more energy is produced by non-fossil fuels than fossil sources and Illinois is one of them. Paris France might beat us, but I don't know if anyone else does. Illinois ranks below France in % nuclear power, but just above every other country with Nuclear power.

Check out the fast acceleration on these big new AC Metra Electric Highliner II's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqFr...eature=related

It's kind of hard to see further electrification of lines happening not just because of the capital investment but also because it would make the railroad (the catenary maintenance, etc.) a more labor-intensive operation to some degree.

But technology marches on, and it's not hard to conceive -- especially in the intraurban context -- an electric train powered by a battery that the train hauls along with it. You could even have a dedicated battery car, just like coal cars could be hauled by the steam locomotives of yesteryear. If battery technology was only good for 1 run out to the suburbs, you could swap out the battery car or just its battery cells at the terminus (hopefully as simply as possible, a la Better Place, the defunct electric car company), or better yet, quick-charge technology seems to be advancing by leaps and bounds, so batteries could be fully recharged during the turnback wait. Or, some combination of traditional electric and hauled battery -- you could build catenaries solely along a few easy-to-maintain stretches and stations along the route, and boost the battery levels when passing those sections.

Probably operational aspects: electric trains accelerate much faster than those powered by fossil fuels.

Of course, I wrote a whole article on this topic! But now I think the better and cheaper way to increase ridership is to change Metra's focus. Run trains more frequently outside of rush hours, and put an end to Metra's war on inner-city neighborhoods.

Why do express trains on the NW line not stop at Jefferson Park, where the Blue Line connection allows access to O'Hare and tons of popular city neighborhoods? Why do stations like Clybourn, Grand/Western, and Halsted (BNSF) suck so hard? Why is there still no transfer fare between Metra and CTA? Metra's gotta be a regional transit system, not a suburban commuter rush hour railroad.

Electrification would be a worthy investment but first we need a mentality change. SEPTA in Philly tried to do this for decades and ran into opposition from unions, wealthy suburbs, and the whole gamut of people in the railroad industry who benefit way too much from the current, dysfunctional system.

Will the proposed Ventra app improve commutes?
 

http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/ct...,4262002.story

By Tracy Swartz, @tracyswartz | RedEye
12:11 p.m. CDT, October 15, 2014

In an act of unprecedented cooperation between Chicago's transit agencies, the CTA, Metra and Pace suburban bus system Wednesday unveiled their plan to create an app that can be used to pay for rides on all three transit systems......

A GOOD START -- The next step is to find away to coordinate fares so you get a discount on rides using multiple Agencies, instead of being able to pay a separate full fare for each, just using the same fare instrument.

Leanne Redden named executive director of RTA
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...015-story.html

By Richard Wronski,
Tribune reporter

Leanne Redden, at a February RTA board meeting, was named executive director of the RTA on Wednesday, taking over for Joe Costello, who resigned the post earlier this year......

That's a theoretical aspect, much beloved by juicefans, that doesn't much affect actual operations. Metra Electric takes 21 minutes to serve 10 stations (Ivanhoe to Matteson) over 10 miles. UP-North takes 23 minutes to serve 10 stations (Davis to Ravinia) over 10 miles. How much of that small difference is acceleration and how much is high platforms/lower boarding volumes or absence of grade crossings on Metra Electric?

Even if you want the acceleration possible with big electric traction motors, it's not especially important whether you're carrying the generator around with you or leaving it miles away in Dresden. Onboard batteries and regenerative braking—or even just a higher idle rate for the prime mover— can give you more tractive effort to the motors without the expense of stringing and maintaining miles of catenary.

It's particularly strange to fixate on electrification when talking about the Rock Island Suburban line, which is all still dark (unsignaled) territory with a grade crossing every 660 feet.

I think we all agree that electrification does provide a better ride but as of now I don't see any line where it would make financial sense. I think a better short term solution would be to put in longer switches, continue replacing track to cut out slow zones and make the long slow transition to lighter trains that comply with the new standards.


*All my knowledge is DIY, so take everything I say with a grain of salt and feel free to ridicule my ignorance!

If you have reduce ID fare, but you don't have one. You have to go to transit center to get your reduce ID fare.

I don't mean like a senior or student discount card; in some other cities in the world if your ride is over more than one Agency (like starting on a CTA "L", then transfering to a Metra commuter train, then transfering to a Pace suburban bus); you don't pay full fare on each, you get a combo deal and overall discount on those three rides. (like an all-inclusive vacation)

Understand?

true b/c I neither have, desire to have, or ever plan on having a smartphone.

Electrification isn't a net cost at all since as long as a line carries a reasonable amount of traffic, any short term start up cost is canceled out by the long term savings in fuel cost. So for frequent urban or commuter transit service, it's the better option regardless of any other benefits.

You have NO IDEA [ NO IDEA ] of what you're missing out on, my favorite is the "Star Chart", the Most Absolutely Bestest Toy in The Whole Darn Universe. Through GPS and internal Gyros, wherever you aim the phone - it shows the Stars and Celestial Objects (with names), even pointing straight down at the ground.

GET ONE.......

Electricity isn't free. Even if it's a couple of cents cheaper than diesel or gas per thousand BTU or per megajoule, the overhead will need to be replaced hundreds of years before the capital cost of electrification could ever be recovered.

No it's typically recovered anywhere from 10-30 years depending on how busy the route is and the electricity prices.

^What sources may I examine that will support your figures?

this is all good for you, but metra needs additional fare collection options. i may be willing to buy a specific device, such as a transponder for toll payment, for that purpose, however i feel that riding public transit and purchasing a smartphone are mutually exclusive.

OF COURSE Metra needs several different options, besides smartphones; maybe even different options for different Lines.

Briefly le_brew, what do you have against them? (one doesn't have to let oneself be seduced into it continously -- and they are very, very useful information sources, besides making calls).

briefly this:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...googlenews_wsj

Regarding electrification, the environmental and operational costs are secondary. The main benefits are reduced trip time and better ride conditions due to acceleration and improved air quality for passengers.

You are absolutely correct about this, and you can either choose to deal with this manifestation of 2014 (as I do, with full knowledge), or go without the personal intrusion. (as you choose to do) Everybody's Happy!!

Kind of obscure, but good news from CREATE - the massive 75th Street project just completed all environmental reviews and was approved by the Feds. The project includes demolishing almost 30 homes for a new Metra flyover, so approval is great news. It also includes two additional flyovers, track reconfigurations, signal upgrades, and viaduct replacement.

http://www.rtands.com/index.php/trac...treet-cip.html

Still no funding for this thing, but hopefully IDOT can find money for design and land acquisition.

I've seen several electrification cost benefits anaysis over the years, not sure how many of them are online. The basic enconomics are explained in here which explains that when there is fairly high train frequency, electrification is supported on an economic basis. It looks like the economic case includes not only fuel savings but also things like greater reliability and reduced maintenance costs.

I believe the recent GO electrification study is also available online.

Museum Campus Planning Meeting
 

Tomorrow at 6:30pm: http://www.grantparkconservancy.com/...5-B805C3235012

It is. Cost estimated at $1.8 billion, possible savings of as much as $18 million per year. That's a 100 year payback period, even if you assume the money is free, with no opportunity or borrowing cost.

The time savings? For the longest lines . . . .
"between 5 and 10 minutes per trip."

Maybe there would be less expensive ways to save 3-7% of running time.

How Metra’s New 30-Year Plan Could Reshape Chicago Regional Rail
 

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/chic...al-rail-future

One of the more salacious details to come out this year about mismanagement at Metra, Chicago’s primary commuter regional rail agency, involves a job applicant with no particular qualifications.......

Madison/Wabash
 

I posted this originally on the Chicago development thread but was told that this would fit much better here (I didn't know this thread existed). But does anyone know the exact date when the Madison/Wabash demolition will begin? I heard spring 2015 then early 2015. Honestly I wish that the station house would be restored since it's still possible.

Cermak/Green Line 10/20/14


http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a4...D720/ry%3D480/

There's really nothing worth saving. It's a mess of pigeon shit-covered beams and a lame Neoclassic facade that has all the depth and richness of a theater set:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-1393985536...n-20140304/480
source

With a proper restoration though, it could look like this...

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im.../quincy14t.jpg

I mean it is the last remaining house of the original Wabash stations. About a month ago, I went down to photograph the entire stop and while it was in bad shape, I've heard from a few different sources that it's structurally fine. That's the last of it's kind and honestly it has some unique personality.

I get the historical value of it, but architecturally, even fully restored (and I don't know what that photo from chicago-L.org is even based off of), it's still an ersatz Classical house (and a not-so-good one, at that).

It's the Quincy/Wells stop on the west side of the loop.

Crazy, I didn't even recognize that! Love the interior of the Quincy (even if it's a bit kitschy), but the outside is just OK.

To be allowed to modernize the rest of the Loop L, CTA agreed in the 1980s to restore and preserve the Quincy station (it actually turned out to be pretty much a complete reconstruction). The preservation ship has sailed on the other station houses.

Now if I could just get someone interested in preserving the PWA Moderne subway stations before it's too late . . .

What do you have in mind?

5-10 minutes is significant savings depending on where you start your trip. From any commuting distance it is sizable savings.

If anybody goes between Chicago and Detroit as often as I do, this might be interesting:

http://greatlakesrail.org/~grtlakes/...ublic-hearings

There will be a presentation and public testimony at Union Station's Union Gallery Room (off the great hall) on Wednesday 10/29 at 5:30 (doors open at 4, presentation starts 5:30).

You can review the proposal documentation online now at the above url

I see 3-7% time savings per trip, system wide, for decades, as a pretty big deal. For comparison, the $425m Circle Interchange rebuild is projected (by CDOT) to save regional drivers 1.2 seconds per trip. The $1.3b+ Illiana is projected (by MPC) to ease regional congestion by 1%.

To bring METRA into the 21st century we have got to start somewhere. And if other tactics to save running time are discovered, those should be implemented as well.

^ Those reductions in time come with intrinsically reduced energy consumption, which can be thought of as offsetting costs of the investment. Reductions in railcar running times do not have a corresponding reduced energy consumption.

-------------------------

There is some kind of construction or refurbishment going with the Brown Line viaduct at Division - is this just something minor, or are they possibly enabling a wider Division right of way here? Or maybe a foundation for a future station?

Electrification would be bringing Metra into the 20th century, when it was necessary to eliminate steam locomotives. At this point it would be a very expensive grace note. It's not the first improvement you'd make, it's about the 38th, something you'd do if you had unlimited money or free electric power.

The first thing to speed up Metra would be to halve headways, as GO is doing. That's not huge for everyday commuters who always catch the same run, but for casual users in the region it effective cuts their trip time by half or two-thirds. Shorter signal blocks, cab signals or PTC, third tracks for express trains, high platforms, eliminating grade crossings, higher-speed turnouts, custom gearing ratios, multiple-unit powered cars, step-on crews . . . there's a lot of things any expert would look to do before electrification even came up.

Even more obscure, and not part of CREATE, but one of the big railroads proposed a while back the doubling in size of a railyard not far from the 75th St corridor - I believe just west of the Dan Ryan and south of Garfield Blvd. This also involved demolition of houses and was less than welcome by the neighborhood. Has this plan moved forward at all?