Railroad Forums 

It is currently Wed May 08, 2024 4:52 pm

Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

Discussion related to commuter rail and rapid transit operations in the Chicago area including the South Shore Line, Metra Rail, and Chicago Transit Authority.

Moderators: metraRI, JamesT4

 Forum rules

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by Chicagopcclcars
 
Tadman wrote:So it seems the beef is that locals want a single-seat ride with CTA fares rather than Zone C/D Metra fares. I don't like that a bit. You have to may more to ride a longer distance. What's next, CTA fares to Kenosha or South Bend? The crazy thing is, a ride on Metra to downtown is like 25 minutes on MED or RI-Main while a CTA red line ride from 95th is probably more like 35-50 minutes. Way to win big, guys, you just got really slow single-seat ride downtown.
Hope this doesn't ruin our friendship.....I'm in favor of the Red Line extension and totally against Gray Line as it applies to the MED main and the Blue Island MED branch. The cost differencial has already been covered. People in Roseland do not want to become the MED Historical Society either. MED stations, locations, facilities, equipment can never offer the convience and price and service that the Red line does. There is almost no ADA on Metra Electric. There are pages and pages of this discussion on the YahooGrpoup Chicagotransit, which is open to reading by all.

David Harrison

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by justalurker66
 
Chicagopcclcars wrote:"Complicated....expensive...restrictions" I never could understand the objections raised, especially objections from those living completely outside a project's impact area. Isn't that what we have engineering firms for....to design complicated structures that get the job done. Money...we still have a lot of resources in Chicago.
I try to remain realistic ... especially when someone's project is likely to be spending federal tax dollars. If Chicago is so flush with cash why is the federal government paying for Englewood? Why are fares going up on Metra? If Chicago is so flush with cash they should be able to better fund their RTA and never ask for federal money again.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:So we take down a few residentials....at 95th along Burnside AV there is quite a bit of illegal drug activity so their loss is the ccommunity's gain.
So I assume that this project is not in your back yard? When is the last time you went through the Cottage Grove and 95th St area? Or is that area too gangster for you?
Chicagopcclcars wrote:I still don't see a source for your $30 million figure for the 95th flyover.
You're having trouble reading. The $30 million figure was for Matteson and a source was provided. You made the claim that a 95th St flyover would be easier than Matteson. Do you honestly believe that a flyover up and over eight tracks of CN-IC railroad and across major local roads can be done for less than $30 million? Honestly? What price do you have in mind?

Perhaps you are more familiar with lightweight elevated cars and routes that can make tight 90 degree turns and not so much on freight railroads like the UP and CN-IC. Big railroads take more effort and expense and a connection at 95th and Cottage Grove certainly is not trivial.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by justalurker66
 
Chicagopcclcars wrote:I'm in favor of the Red Line extension and totally against Gray Line as it applies to the MED main and the Blue Island MED branch. The cost differencial has already been covered.
I'm glad you are against the Gray Line. My preference on the Red Line is "no build", with a second choice being along side the UP (with that line remaining in place). The stations to the west make more sense than using the I-94 alignment with less residential area to serve. I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere than on Red Line. There has to be something else CTA needs more.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:MED stations, locations, facilities, equipment can never offer the convience and price and service that the Red line does. There is almost no ADA on Metra Electric.
You get what you pay for. CTA bus and rail provide a CTA level of service at a CTA price.

Metra has ADA at 23 of their 49 MED stations ... the stations that are not ADA are mostly flag stops and limited service stations. Calling that level of service "almost no ADA" is far from accurate - but if that upsets you feel free to take the money one would spend on extending the Red Line (and relocating the UP, if part of the project) and spend it on upgrading MED stations to ADA. The Red Line extension will provide four new stations, one just blocks from the existing ADA compliant 115th St Kensington station. I wonder how many MED stations could be upgraded to ADA for the price of the Red Line extension. Perhaps spending the money on ADA upgrades would be money better spent.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by CHTT1
 
The Gray Line will never be a viable option. It is an idea that has been pushed for a number of years by a single transit advocate. , RTA Metra and the CTA have never taken it seriously. Every now and then it will surface in news reports, but nothing has ever resulted from the proposal.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by Chicagopcclcars
 
justalurker66 wrote:
Chicagopcclcars wrote:"Complicated....expensive...restrictions" I never could understand the objections raised, especially objections from those living completely outside a project's impact area. Isn't that what we have engineering firms for....to design complicated structures that get the job done. Money...we still have a lot of resources in Chicago.
I try to remain realistic ... especially when someone's project is likely to be spending federal tax dollars. If Chicago is so flush with cash why is the federal government paying for Englewood? Why are fares going up on Metra? If Chicago is so flush with cash they should be able to better fund their RTA and never ask for federal money again.
OK I did use the word "money" in the same sentence but in no stretch of the imagination did I mean to imply that Chicago has an excess of money for capital projects and for operating budgets. Our main "resource" are a Democratic U.S. Senator and multiple Democratic Congressional Representatives who are looking out for the region's best interests in seeking funding for projects. I don't know what the Republicans are doing. I spent a day reading your prior posts on various topics and it seems you live close by, but in Indiana. "Lo siento mucho."
justalurker66 wrote:
Chicagopcclcars wrote:So we take down a few residentials....at 95th along Burnside AV there is quite a bit of illegal drug activity so their loss is the community's gain.
So I assume that this project is not in your back yard? When is the last time you went through the Cottage Grove and 95th St area? Or is that area too gangster for you?
"Too gangster...." I don't know anyone here in the city that talks like that. I used this intimate example to show that I know the area well...no need to Google. "Last time?.....three weeks ago. It's on a shortcut along east 93rd ST that I use to visit a fellow model railroader.
justalurker66 wrote:
Chicagopcclcars wrote:I still don't see a source for your $30 million figure for the 95th flyover.
You're having trouble reading. The $30 million figure was for Matteson and a source was provided. You made the claim that a 95th St flyover would be easier than Matteson. Do you honestly believe that a flyover up and over eight tracks of CN-IC railroad and across major local roads can be done for less than $30 million? Honestly? What price do you have in mind?

Perhaps you are more familiar with lightweight elevated cars and routes that can make tight 90 degree turns and not so much on freight railroads like the UP and CN-IC. Big railroads take more effort and expense and a connection at 95th and Cottage Grove certainly is not trivial.
Trust me I'm intimately familiar with railroads having modeled and railfanned for 40 years. Last spring I spent an hour with Carl Ice, COO of BNSF in his Texas headquarters. Sometimes I do get around. But I will try and be more careful in my writings because you'll take an inch and run, run, run with it, LOL.

David Harrison

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by Chicagopcclcars
 
justalurker66 wrote:
Chicagopcclcars wrote:I'm in favor of the Red Line extension and totally against Gray Line as it applies to the MED main and the Blue Island MED branch. The cost differencial has already been covered.
I'm glad you are against the Gray Line. My preference on the Red Line is "no build", with a second choice being along side the UP (with that line remaining in place). The stations to the west make more sense than using the I-94 alignment with less residential area to serve. I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere than on Red Line. There has to be something else CTA needs more.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:MED stations, locations, facilities, equipment can never offer the convience and price and service that the Red line does. There is almost no ADA on Metra Electric.
You get what you pay for. CTA bus and rail provide a CTA level of service at a CTA price.

Metra has ADA at 23 of their 49 MED stations ... the stations that are not ADA are mostly flag stops and limited service stations. Calling that level of service "almost no ADA" is far from accurate - but if that upsets you feel free to take the money one would spend on extending the Red Line (and relocating the UP, if part of the project) and spend it on upgrading MED stations to ADA. The Red Line extension will provide four new stations, one just blocks from the existing ADA compliant 115th St Kensington station. I wonder how many MED stations could be upgraded to ADA for the price of the Red Line extension. Perhaps spending the money on ADA upgrades would be money better spent.
I said "Metra Electric has almost no ADA" and you reply "Metra has ADA in 23 of their stations." Like I said I see I must be uniquely accurate and leave nothing to chance. My discussion was only about Metra Electric compared to the Red line extension, not the entire MED. From 63rd ST south to Kennsington and the entire Blue Island Branch, there are only TWO ADA stations. In my mind that qualifies as "almost no ADA." Lets stay within the ballpark. And those mainline MED stations are "stations" only in name. You first walk through a cave almost a 1/3 block long, called a viaduct or underpass by most, the city calls them a subway. Then you hike up the stairs enclosed in another cave-like passageway. Each one is a crime, a mugging, and robbery, beating, and rape waiting to happen. There are no lines of sight, you are completely isolated. There is almost no pedestrian traffic on the surrounding streets either. The MED mainline in this part of the city has outlived its usefulness completely.

David Harrison

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by justalurker66
 
Chicagopcclcars wrote:Our main "resource" are a Democratic U.S. Senator and multiple Democratic Congressional Representatives who are looking out for the region's best interests in seeking funding for projects.
So, in other words, you're asking me to pay for it ... along with taxpayers across the entire nation. Since I'm paying for it shouldn't I get a say in the project?
Chicagopcclcars wrote:"Last time?.....three weeks ago. It's on a shortcut along east 93rd ST that I use to visit a fellow model railroader.
About the same for me ... although I was following the Cottage Grove route along the CN-IC (one of the lines I specifically pay too much attention to) which put me right under the proposed connection.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:But I will try and be more careful in my writings because you'll take an inch and run, run, run with it, LOL.
You still have not explained how a connection at 95th St and Cottage Grove would be easier than the Matteson connection. Are you conceding that point?
Chicagopcclcars wrote:In my mind that qualifies as "almost no ADA."
Again, we could take the money which would be spent extending the Red Line to four more stops, one near an existing ADA station on the MED, and convert several of the MED stations to ADA standards. At the end of the project Chicago would end up with more ADA stations overall.

As with other transit systems, the MED has upgraded stations based on ridership. For cost it would probably be easier to upgrade the BI stations at ground level. The flag stops between 63rd and 115th would be more expensive. But it could be done if those congress people directed their attention to the existing line.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:You first walk through a cave almost a 1/3 block long, called a viaduct or underpass by most, the city calls them a subway. Then you hike up the stairs enclosed in another cave-like passageway. Each one is a crime, a mugging, and robbery, beating, and rape waiting to happen. There are no lines of sight, you are completely isolated. There is almost no pedestrian traffic on the surrounding streets either.
Sounds like you are writing for the "do not visit" brochure. Stated the way you put it, perhaps those that don't live in the area are smarter than those who do!

Looking at the recent crime map for the area there is more going on near the UP alignment than the CN-IC. It seems that those "crimes waiting to happen" are still waiting to happen. That doesn't mean that I'd walk around the area after dark flashing cash or items that could be fenced. But that applies to everywhere near Chicago. One tries not to be stupid.

CTA has their share of crime at stations. Perhaps providing CTA stations in the neighborhood will just provide those criminals easier access to the rest of the city for only $2.25 per trip? Or attract more victims to travel west toward the UP alignment instead of east toward the CN-IC. The actual crime problems in that area are not the fault of MED and will not be solved by CTA rail. You certainly are not promising that the new CTA stations will be crime free, are you?

If crime at MED stations is a problem then we could take the money which would be spent on a Red Line extension and improve security along the MED. Building a new line with less stations over a mile away doesn't get rid of the viaducts.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:The MED mainline in this part of the city has outlived its usefulness completely.
The main line gets people from the suburbs to the loop quite nicely. And for those who live in the area and are aware of their surroundings the additional stops along the MED can shorten their walk home. The stations wouldn't be there if they were unused death traps. They serve a valid transportation use.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by doepack
 
CHTT1 wrote:The Gray Line will never be a viable option. It is an idea that has been pushed for a number of years by a single transit advocate. , RTA Metra and the CTA have never taken it seriously. Every now and then it will surface in news reports, but nothing has ever resulted from the proposal.
And if that continues to be the case, so much the better. I've followed the Gray line discussion over at Yahoo off and on for almost a decade, and I have to say, I admire the passion this guy has for his project. I think he's dead wrong, but still: If you toss aside the many logistical barriers (i.e., fare collection, one or two person train operation, equipment storage, plus the Kensington problem being among the main issues), there's still this little thing called demand. Last time I looked (6 months ago), both the SC & BI lines had moderate crowding on rush hour trains (majority seats were taken, but no standees), with lower ridership during off-peak hours, and half-empty trains at best for the nighttime shuttles. Introducing frequent CTA-type rapid transit services to these two branches, one of which (Blue Island) has no Sunday or holiday service would be grossly wasteful, for all the obstacles that have to be at least studied first, let alone overcome...

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by GWoodle
 
Passenger wrote:Trying to start a non-pie in the sky, non-alternate universe discussion.

What previously discussed plans might realistically be on the table now?

The only ones I can think of are:
1) Extending the Orange line to Ford City.
Should have been done years ago. Do a west line branch out to Harlem/63

2) Extending the Red line further south along the median.
If not in the median, find some community center & build it there, away from the expressway with room for shops & park & ride lots

3) United Center station at Paulina and Madison.
THe Pink Line runs nearby. May work someday with a new Cubs ballpark & college basketball arena.

Are any of these really likely? Any others I missed?
Some may want one of the West Lines to go to Oakbrook Mall.
Fliers may want a crosstown route linking Midway with O'Hare directly

Anyone here with inside dope? ;)

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by Chicagopcclcars
 
justalurker66 wrote:
Chicagopcclcars wrote:
You still have not explained how a connection at 95th St and Cottage Grove would be easier than the Matteson connection. Are you conceding that point?
No I am not conceding that point. The Matteson junction complex allows a train from any direction to enter the junction and exit in any direction. Sort of like a streetcar grand junction. The Matteson junction must be 10 or 12 times the square foot measurement of the proposed 95th ST/ Cottage Grove connection. Except for a highway bridge, it looks like the entire construction is on elevated embankment and at the surface. But there is at least four sets of double crossovers and controlling interlocking signals to allow for the directional changes. What a model railroad club operation a model of that would make.

95th ST /Cottage Grove would merely be a two track curved structure with about 110 degrees of curvature from the already elevated and grade separated CRI&P over the IC and the MC (love how the city plats use the original RR names) with an incline between Cottage Grove and the MC. There would be no crossovers, interlockings, as it would be more desirable to keep the two railroads separate, operationally.

Any engineer "worth his salt' could design the structure...the radius and desired speed limit would be the determining factor. A 300 feet radius would confine the curve almost to present property limits east of Cottage Grove and north of 95th ST; but severly limit speed. The curve in the south east quadrant (from the MC to the CRI&P) is about 250 ft and is used daily by mainline transfer freights.

A better design would be elevated, either using through girders or a center pier design and would curve west of the intersection, requiring property acquisition alongside Burnside AV and 95th ST. The crossing over the IC/ MC would be south of 95th ST, slicing off a corner of Chicago State University in the process. I don't see anything prohibitive about putting a connection here. I see a large benefit of vacating the rightofway for a future Red line extension plus eliminating ten dangerous street crossings. And I must repeat...I am not an engineer and have no idea what this connection would cost but if the City of Chicago thinks it is feasible, and proceeds with the project, who am I to object.
David Harrison

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by Jenner
 
3) United Center station at Paulina and Madison.
THe Pink Line runs nearby. May work someday with a new Cubs ballpark & college basketball arena.
When performing some research for my circle line alternative (which has no shot at all, but I think it might be better than the CTA's version), a near-west side study determined that the residents wanted a station at Damen/Lake, which would also serve as a station for the United Center.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/da ... y_Area.pdf

There's also been some discussion with having a Clinton or Canal St subway for Union and Olgivie stations, presumably from the Blue line, and the Blue line would no longer go into the Loop. Personally, I'd like to see a new outer loop circular subway system using the Clinton, Grand, Michigan Ave, Roosevelt St path, or you could enlarge the north/south boundaries by going Clinton, Chicago Ave, Michigan Ave, and 18th st. This would allow Metra commuters to have easy access to Michigan Ave (shopping), Grant Park, Navy Pier, and connections to all the CTA L lines. This would benefit the western business district by providing transit. Near 18th St, you have access to McCormick Place and Soldier Field, which would also benefit developing the business district further south.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by Tadman
 
David, sure doesn't ruin our friendship. I really like your work and I think we just agree to disagree on this one.

I'm not exactly a Grey Line fan either, I'm in hopes that with the new MED equipment the ADA problems will become less of an issue. I think because MED is such a different railroad than the rest of the system that its been unfairly ignored. It's a really valuable service that has much higher frequencies than most of the diesel system and should be equally well and/or better funded and maintained, something RTA and Metra have missed the boat on. I used to work in the Heights and I'd ride MED a few days/week. It was a bit of a museum, and that's not good when people rely on it to get to work every day. The new equipment will offer riders a fast and bathroom-equipped ride downtown. What may be useful is a new station near Altgeld Garden, as residents there have to find their way to Kensington or Riverdale.

Also, has there been any thought of using the PRR Panhandle ROW? I used to have a good customer on 127th just off the Panhandle ROW, it appears to be intact.

I actually know this area fairly well, I had a lot of customers in Hegewisch and Blue Island, in addition to the one on 127th, so I've driven the Vermont/127th/130th corridor quite a lot, in addition to the Halsted Corridor. When the Bishop Ford was torn up in '06, I would take Halsted to I-57 if I drove home from the Heights.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by justalurker66
 
Chicagopcclcars wrote:No I am not conceding that point. The Matteson junction complex allows a train from any direction to enter the junction and exit in any direction. Sort of like a streetcar grand junction.
Two wyes connected by a curved track built mostly on flat vacant land. $30 million.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:Except for a highway bridge, it looks like the entire construction is on elevated embankment and at the surface. But there is at least four sets of double crossovers and controlling interlocking signals to allow for the directional changes. What a model railroad club operation a model of that would make.
1:1 scale is a bit more expensive ... and while robust the connection is still limited (and could be done with single crossovers at four locations - just before the wye turnouts).
Chicagopcclcars wrote:95th ST /Cottage Grove would merely be a two track curved structure with about 110 degrees of curvature from the already elevated and grade separated CRI&P over the IC and the MC (love how the city plats use the original RR names) with an incline between Cottage Grove and the MC. There would be no crossovers, interlockings, as it would be more desirable to keep the two railroads separate, operationally.
Look at Englewood ... which was merely a two track structure (expanded to three) with a cost over $100 million (even when designed as two tracks).
Chicagopcclcars wrote:Any engineer "worth his salt' could design the structure...the radius and desired speed limit would be the determining factor. A 300 feet radius would confine the curve almost to present property limits east of Cottage Grove and north of 95th ST; but severly limit speed. The curve in the south east quadrant (from the MC to the CRI&P) is about 250 ft and is used daily by mainline transfer freights.
Design is only the first step ... building it costs money. And staying within (or almost within) the current property would be difficult. The Metra/CN-IC ROW is fully used. To expand the ROW, a retaining wall would have to be built along Cottage Grove to expand the ROW wide enough for at least two additional tracks. This expansion would have to be long enough along the ROW for the approach to the bridge (whether at 95th St or south of 95th St) plus an interlocking south of the incline. A new interlocking would be needed south of the approach, perhaps even as far south as Kensington (about 3 miles, including the incline) to avoid interference with CN's thoroughfare tracks (which are used for connections to BRC and NC as well as keeping the mains clear for Amtrak and other through trains).

We're basically talking about expanding an eight track mainline to a ten track mainline for at least the majority of those three miles - including expanding the width of the viaducts. Not trivial. (And that doesn't consider what needs to be done after turning the corner to the west.)

With a new interlocking needed south of Kensington to connect the UP to the CN-IC and the additional UP traffic through Kensington Interlocking the plan becomes even more of a non-starter. UP will not want to stop their trains and wait in line behind CN, CSS and NICTD to get through that bottleneck. Reality isn't trivial.
Chicagopcclcars wrote:I am not an engineer and have no idea what this connection would cost but if the City of Chicago thinks it is feasible, and proceeds with the project, who am I to object.
The City of Chicago is not participating on this forum, you are. It is your claim that this connection would be easier than Matteson, not the City of Chicago's. Simply put, I disagree with your assessment that the 95th St connection would be "easier" than Matteson. Hopefully this more in depth look will allow you to see the error in your thinking.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by justalurker66
 
Jenner wrote:There's also been some discussion with having a Clinton or Canal St subway for Union and Olgivie stations, presumably from the Blue line, and the Blue line would no longer go into the Loop.
I don't see the current Blue Line leaving the loop ... but the thought of a "ribbon" shaped has crossed my mind.
Trains headed inbound from O'Hare would turn south under Clinton or Canal St, stop at Union/Ogilvie and then turn east following the path of current trains from Forrest Park they could then run back south at Clinton or Canal St and west to Forrest Park (completing the loop). Trains from Forrest Park would turn north at Clinton St, do the loop and head out to O'Hare. Or the Blue Line could be split into two operating services (O'Hare, Loop, back to O'Hare and Forrest Park, Loop, back to Forrest Park).
Signage would be most important, with trains leaving O'Hare and Forrest Park being signed for "The Loop" then changing to their outlying destination after leaving Union/Ogilvie.

Re: Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

  by justalurker66
 
Tadman wrote:Also, has there been any thought of using the PRR Panhandle ROW? I used to have a good customer on 127th just off the Panhandle ROW, it appears to be intact.
It is intact from 105th St south as a trail. North of 105th St there would be issues, but Red Line along I-57 to 107th St then to the south would work to 127th St. The trail shares a rail bridge across the river - with the alignment occupied by rails southeast to Dolton.
 Return to “Chicagoland Commuter & Transit”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -