Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
As I suspected, the 2-track subway is less expensive than the 4-track elevated, and it's the same price as the 3-track elevated. (Otherwise why would CTA even consider a subway?)
The Scoping Book has no information about travel times. If the 2-track subway can substantially shorten up the travel times versus an elevated option, it might be worth it. Otherwise, I'd say the 3-track elevated is the better deal, provided the elevated stations are built to some basic comfort level - unlike the last round of Brown Line stations.
I'll take a value-engineered subway station over a value-engineered elevated one any day. There's no wind or freezing rain in the subway.
...
|
While it would be nice to be in a subway station waiting for a train during the winter, and while I generally prefer subways over elevated trains, in this instance I'd prefer the 4-track rehab as long as they created all-day express service. It's only 5% more than 3-track or subway, it creates a more true express service, and maintains more of the existing commercial-street ties to the "L" service. Plus, I think the "L" is part of what makes Chicago unique, and having outside views during the ride is a nice perk.
I think the worst possible choice would be the 3-track option if for no other reason than it has the highest operating costs, while not offering any service benefits over the 4-track option. I'd take a 5% increase in infrastructure investment for reduced operating costs and more efficient (and reliable) express service any day of the week.
What I don't quite visualize is how they would install new elevated structures. Would they build one set of tracks in the adjacent alleys and then remove the embankment and then build the third and fourth set of tracks?