CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[Mr Downtown]

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

[Busy Bee]

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

[SIGSEGV]

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

Anyhow, here are the key details of what Amtrak proposes to do by the end of 2035.

• Expand round trips from Chicago to Milwaukee from seven a day now to 10 a day.

• Continue some of those trains north and west, with four round trips to the University of Wisconsin at Madison, three to Green Bay, Wis., and three to Minneapolis/St. Paul. Trains from the Twin Cities would go even farther north to Duluth, Minn./Superior, Wis.

• Two new round trips a day to another Big 10 town, Iowa City, via Moline.

• Continued improvements on the Chicago/St. Louis line, with one train a day going to Kansas City.

• Two daily trains to Rockford and improved speeds on the notoriously slow line to Carbondale, with a new daily link to Champaign/Urbana.

• Doubled service to Detroit to six trains a day, with one a day traveling at speeds of up to 110 mph to Toronto, the first new international train route out of Chicago in many decades.

• Resumed service to Indianapolis four times a day, with some trains continuing south to Cincinnati and Louisville, Ky.

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.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

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.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo

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...

[SIGSEGV]

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.

[electricron]

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!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by electricron

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...)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

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.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by electricron

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.

[ardecila]

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.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

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.

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.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by electricron

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.

Apparently the Chicago-Indianapolis roundtrips will run at 110 mph

Originally Posted by ardecila

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.

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

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

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.

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?

[Busy Bee]

Not in the median of the freeway. Here

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

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?

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.

[Busy Bee]

Good comments.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

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.

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.

[ardecila]

^ 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.

[Busy Bee]

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

[ardecila]

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.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

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

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.