CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[Tcmetro]

Originally Posted by ardecila

There is already a mid-block pedestrian plaza spanning between Jackson and Van Buren, so I assume you could enter the Metra concourse from either the east or the west.

The (10 years old) Union Station Master Plan showed the concourse at the base of a new highrise. Office development is not great right now, but it will probably get better in a few years. If Metra/Amtrak want to move faster, they can put in caissons and build the concourse as part of a standalone podium stub for a future tower.

Ah, that makes sense. Looking at the drawing I completely forgot about that building and plaza. Seems like it will be a few years out at the minimum. Would make sense to do in tandem with the Canal St viaduct reconstruction.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Does anyone know if there was resolution on a bus terminal plan?

No resolution, yet, but I anticipate that the city will purchase the existing station.

[SolarWind]

December 26, 2023

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Though not nearly the nugget that was hoped for, it is good to note the long-planned retrofits coming to Union Station that could help increase capacity.


..

There's an online Union Station improvement survery, if anyone wanted to participate: https://chicagounionstation.com/info...ake-the-survey

[nomarandlee]

I have admittedly been rummaging through some RMTransit YouTube videos, which are big proponents of automated light-metros. The argument for more of it in more places has a lot of potential appeal in terms of operational savings and quicker headways. Think Vancouver Skytrain, Docklands Light Railway,

I wonder if the same idea for either new or converted service holds any appeal to some here? It seems that all too far, the current headways of the CTA are truly at unacceptable levels, most hours. The operations budgets will only become more unbalanced far into the foreseeable future. Sure, in all likelihood, it would lessen capacity in trainsets, but perhaps that could be compensated by more frequent service?

Does anyone familiar with the subject or have back-of-napkin estimates of cost savings of automated lines or the (in)practicability of converting some of the L lines to automated lines in the future? Politically and administratively, I am sure the hurdles of such a switch would be seismic, but beyond those.....

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by electricron

You assume the politicians in the Chicago want a more efficient transit system more than they want to provide more jobs on the public bankroll. How wrong you are.

"Politically and administratively, I am sure the hurdles of such a switch would be seismic, but beyond those....."

Oh no, trust me, I get that completely, which is primarily what I was also alluding to when I mentioned political considerations, and it made me reluctant to even bring up the topic. Even if logistically and financially feasible, the reasons you say are likely 80% of the reason it would never happen.

[SIGSEGV]

I mean all operators can be converted to conductors (and new conductors presumably are easier to train than operators). I think you generally want a human on board even if they're not operating the train.

[Busy Bee]

Correct. ATO does not mean no human transit personnel on board. BART still has an operator in the cab in case of emergency or necessary manual intervention. In my opinion a fully automated train with no human transit agency presence is uncomfortably sci-fi, creepy and potentially dystopian and would likely scare off more riders - especially true in this county where actual crime and the perception of crime is a not insignificant issue in attracting and keeping ridership. Airport people movers seem to be the best application.

[Nouvellecosse]

A security guard would be a lot better than a driver since the driver can't really get up and intervene if something is happening throughout the train. All they could do is call the police unless they stopped the train which may cause unnecessary delays

[Jasoncw]

Automated metros have been standard for at least 20 years, and there are a good number of examples stretching back to the 80s. Even most legacy metros around the world have been automated to some degree, and many have gotten to the point where they're fully automated.

I know that the signalling work they've done on the blue line is working towards future automation.

You can't just automate a part of a line, everything needs to be done. In Chicago that's hard because so many lines share track and operations and maintenance facilities. But those lines also have so many other problems too, so idk what the solution is. But any line that you can get 100% isolated from the rest of the system, you can resignal and automated.

Chicago also without a doubt has places where building new elevated metro lines would cost less money over a period of time, compared to running the current bus service. But that would tie up money that's currently needed for everything else.

[Mr Downtown]

Alas, Chicago doesn't build new transit projects where they would serve riders.

We build them to satisfy hazy notions of equity, or "because it's been promised for years."

[Klippenstein]

^I'd love to see that map with Metra lines included

[ardecila]

Love RLE or hate it, there will surely be another big expansion afterwards. And it probably won't be a 40-year gap like the 1993-2030 period since the Orange Line opened.

After all, it's not like CTA was doing nothing during that time - they were busy rebuilding huge parts of the system that hadn't been touched since the 1890s. But by the mid-late 2030s this work should be complete AND we will have the Red Line Extension up and running.

It's not clear what project will come next in the queue, but it will likely be focused on a dense, growing part of the city. Hopefully it is a program of expansion along with new revenues, like LA's Measure R, and not just a single project.

[Randomguy34]

^ I'll take this as a sign of good things to come

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Alas, Chicago doesn't build new transit projects where they would serve riders.

We build them to satisfy hazy notions of equity, or "because it's been promised for years."

I feel like this statement doesn't capture much nuance on the project. The RLE isn't so much a project meant to capture additional passengers, but rather a rail yard extension disguised as an equity project. One of the project's original goals, and I'm taking this directly from a 2009 preferred alternatives report

The 98th Street shop facility is now 40 years old, having been constructed in 1969 as part of the Dan Ryan Line construction project. The 98th Street shop is cumbersome for CTA operations due to its constrained location within an expressway median and access to the facility for materials delivery is difficult because of its grade separation from local streets. The CTA has long recognized the 98th Street shop as being an inadequate facility to support the current and future maintenance needs of the south end of the Red Line and have included the need for an expanded or new 98th Street shop in past capital programs although funding for replacement has not yet been identified.

[URL=https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/Red_Line_Extension_Locally_Preferred_Alternative_Report.pdf[/URL]

The whole goal of the Red Ahead project is to add capacity- from the current 8 car trains to 10 car trains. The 98th Street Shop cannot accommodate 10 car trains. It will need to be moved. Mind you, that expanding capacity was a key part of getting federal funding for the RPM project. So no, this is not a project built solely on "hazy notions of equity".

Of course there is an argument (and a fair one) that this yard expansion project became unnecessarily bloated in the name of equity. This IS a necessary project- but the exact routing and messaging around the project is political.

But there is certainly more nuance to it than you say

[Mr Downtown]

Sounds like back-justification to me. There's a lot of places within 1000 feet of Red Line South where $500m would purchase a big, big chunk of vacant land. One that would be much more convenient for the operators to report to. And one that would allow them to run three trains north for every two they run south of there. Maybe even do it where the Green Line branches could also be served, as originally anticipated for the South Expressway Rapid Transit Line.

[Busy Bee]

Have to jump on the bandwagon here with the notion that the yard need was used as an excuse for the entire extension project. I wholly believe if they had wanted to, with some minor geometry changes to the highway and some creative engineering the expanded yard could have been accommodated within the median of the Bishop Ford, probably with through tracks that could have in theory facilitated a median extension which could have provided Far South Side rapid transit access as well as interfacing with ME with a new interchange station at a likely fraction of the cost.

Mentioned it before but I'm just not in the camp that says median running is SO BAD that it should never be done even if it can provide access to rapid transit at a much lower cost and those saved funds be used to improve and expand transit in the rest of the system... *cough Brown-Blue connector cough*. It's an obvious trade off and much of the "bad experience" of median rail stations have to do with poor station design that does little to isolate the station from all the negatives associated with being in the middle of a highway and integration with the surrounding neighborhood. With better design you could nearly seal the station from those elements including visually and provide sealed conditioned walkways etc to anchoring adjacent TOD developments so the whole thing was nearly seamless like entering a modern subway station. IMO there has been a tremendous lack of imagination on the Cta's part with this entire initiative.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Sounds like back-justification to me. There's a lot of places within 1000 feet of Red Line South where $500m would purchase a big, big chunk of vacant land. One that would be much more convenient for the operators to report to. And one that would allow them to run three trains north for every two they run south of there. Maybe even do it where the Green Line branches could also be served, as originally anticipated for the South Expressway Rapid Transit Line.

Sounds like you are now back-justifying your original comment. Nobody said those other places weren't potential options or that there couldn't have been more creativity from CTA.

The point was that your line about this ONLY being an extension for "equity" and to fulfill and old promise is false. As you admit yourself, they need a new rail-yard. Gluing it to the extension to help get Federal dollars isn't elegant, but it got us the first "L" service expansion in decades.

[Bonsai Tree]

That said, I do question the original capacity-increasing justification for the Red Ahead project. Is the benefit of 10 car trains really that much more important now after the pandemic? Are the originally forecasted increases in service-level even possible given the huge driver shortage and antiquated methods that CTA uses to hire drivers? The capacity increase portion of the project won't even be complete until the Howard Yard is reconstructed in the next phase of RPM - which could be the mid to late 2030s. The entire project from beginning planning to finish will have taken 30 years. That is no way to plan a project. We won't ever be able to get anything finished and justify the original goals of a project when it takes 30 years to complete. Absurd.

I also am not as optimistic about the prospects of a major expansion after Red Ahead is finished. There are huge sections of the system still in dire need of reconstruction and no funding sources currently available. It seems like the CTA can only complete one major project at a time now. The first phase of RPM is currently under construction. Once it's finished in 2025-26, CTA plans on starting the RLE. Once they finished the RLE, they plan on starting the next phase of RPM. There is no plan to do both simultaneously. Late 2030s is optimistic for any expansion-which would need to start planning this decade (probably in 3–4 years) for it to start on time.

The core of the problem is local funding (not federal funding). We cannot rely on the federal government to fund projects in an extreme partisan environment. The cities with the largest transit expansions (LA, Seattle, SF, etc) have completed projects quicker because they actually have robust local funding. The transit TIF (how we are funding most of Red Ahead) is a terrible way to fund a project (and arguably of questionable legality).

PART is a partial savior for regional transit- and if it fails we will be stuck in the same cycle for the next few decades.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Sounds like you are now back-justifying your original comment. Nobody said those other places weren't potential options or that there couldn't have been more creativity from CTA.

The point was that your line about this ONLY being an extension for "equity" and to fulfill and old promise is false. As you admit yourself, they need a new rail-yard. Gluing it to the extension to help get Federal dollars isn't elegant, but it got us the first "L" service expansion in decades.

It sounds like a bad attempt at gotcha in accusing Downtown of using the word "ONLY," which was never used. Saying that there were other options and that the CTA could have used more creativity is really all that needed to be said. That is the crux of the argument, and the rest is just smoke.

Neither you nor Bonsai Tree can refute that equity initiatives and political considerations were primary drivers of the Red Line extension, in contrast to operational necessity, efficiency, and potential passenger capture (which are the major considerations that should matter in PT).

Let us be real here; let us not talk about the virtues of a new rail yard as being the primary justifying motivator, given that no new rail yard should necessitate a 5 billion and 5.6-mile investment. Downplaying the conflation of the two objectives (rail yard with the extension) efforts by dressing it up as "less than elegant" is the kind of speech by officials and transit advocates that makes the public utterly cynical about future projects and funding.

Yet we will feign dismay as the public continues to sour on the CTA/Metra when it is clear that officials are making transparent niche social and political considerations instead of caring about best practices and efficiencies.

Meanwhile, our transit headway will continue to be putrid, optics of crime and grime are rife, and projects that could truly enhance the experience for potentially 100k's riders get put out to the back of the line for decades (at best).