Extending the existing CTA system (realistic future?)

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.
2) Extending the Red line further south along the median.
3) United Center station at Paulina and Madison.

Are any of these really likely? Any others I missed?

Anyone here with inside dope?

I'm not that familiar with the Chicago system but how easy would it be to integrate the South Chicago Branch into the L? That seems like a route worth pursuing.

P: Your CTA Thoughts:
1-Midway Line to Ford City or better yet 95/Cicero area...
2-A Dan Ryan extension to 103rd or further using one of the median strips S of 95/State
is a thought-provisions have been in place since the DRE line was built for the future...
3-A station adjacent to the United Center would be a good thought even though there
never was a CTA station adjacent to the old Chicago Stadium...

M&E: There has been talk of a replacement line for ME's South Chicago Branch but I feel
that a light rail line would be possible...The CTA should have possibly rebuilt or extended
S the Jackson Park line instead of allowing NIMBY local opposition to truncate this L route...

SEE: www.chicago-l.org for more information about the CTA...MACTRAXX

The red line extension is likely to go west then south along the UP railroad to 130th St, not along I-94. It would make sense to run the line where the people are mostly between the Metra Electric lines instead of going east and not have many people to serve (other than those taken from the ME line) until 130th St.

As far as converting the MED South Chicago or Blue Island lines to CTA, please don't. They work nicely as Metra lines. I suppose people would rather pay CTA fares than Metra fares and save a few bucks but lower fares doesn't make CTA more cost efficient to run and the lines need some place to connect to the rest of the system that isn't just a way to undercut Metra's successful line.

Unfortunately the south-ward red line extension is most likely along UP. According to the geniuses suing CTA, it's "underserved" which prevents people in that area between the Bishop Ford and I57 from getting jobs.

Underserved like Lenny and Carl at Moe's bar... You've got Metra Electric on east, Rock Island at west, and Blue Island branch on the south, and Red line on the north. Red line service is a giant waste of money here. Nowhere in that area is more than a mile from rail transport, it's loaded with busses, and some a-holes are suing the city.

Tell you what, I'm going to get some people from my part of Lincoln Park, sue the city because the Fullerton L station is 0.7 mile walk to the east, and see how that pans out... After all, it's no *fair* that the UP-north doesn't stop in my area...

Some days I hate people.

If you really want the behind the scenes of possible CTA "L" expansion, may I recommend Chicago Transit at Yahoogroups...there's over five years of discussion there including the Gray Line, the Red Line extension, the Circle Line, digging up Block 37, etc, etc, etc.

David Harrison

Tadman wrote:Unfortunately the south-ward red line extension is most likely along UP. According to the geniuses suing CTA, it's "underserved" which prevents people in that area between the Bishop Ford and I57 from getting jobs.

The adjacent Metra Lines are mostly Zone C (Zone D along the south). The new Metra fares are $4.25 One Way/$121.00 monthly in Zone C, $4.75/$132.25 in Zone D. CTA fares are $2.25 One Way/$86.00 monthly ... closer to the new $3.00/$85.50 Zone B Metra fares. There is a difference in class of service but I see price being one of the reasons people in the area want the CTA line.

The real target, however, isn't the people between MED and RI ... it is the people who live in the project south of 130th St and car commuters. 130th St would be a good place to get off of I-94 (or not get on it if coming in on 130th St). It would become the major southern park-and-ride station - with the $86 monthly go anywhere on CTA rate. The stations between MED and RI are a bonus ... and given the choice of running down the UP and running down I-94 the UP path would at least have people on both sides of the track.

I'm not sure how many would want a CTA quality park-and-ride when MED and NICTD are not too far away ... but the line will get riders.

Reportedly, the city is looking into vacating the Union Pacific rightofway by relocating the UP south of 87th ST to cross the Dan Ryan Expressway at 91st ST and turn south onto the Canadian National( former IC) at 95th and Cottage Grove, following that elevated rightofway to join up with the present UP viaduct at 118th ST.

David Harrison

Chicagopcclcars wrote:Reportedly, the city is looking into vacating the Union Pacific rightofway by relocating the UP south of 87th ST to cross the Dan Ryan Expressway at 91st ST and turn south onto the Canadian National( former IC) at 95th and Cottage Grove, following that elevated rightofway to join up with the present UP viaduct at 118th ST.

That would be an expensive and difficult project. They would need a curved double track flyover at 95th St to cross Metra and the road network. If the traffic on UP is heavy it could interfere with Amtrak and other CN-IC uses. If traffic is light then the cost may be too high for the benefit.

I assume this is being pushed as part of the red line plan? Create doesn't seem to know about it and has the existing route remaining on their plans (including a grade separation on the segment proposed to be vacated). It is easy to talk about vacating someone else's ROW until you are handed the bill.

Relocating the UP would be nothing compared to the interchange CN is building with itself south of Matteson.

David Harrison

Chicagopcclcars wrote:Relocating the UP would be nothing compared to the interchange CN is building with itself south of Matteson.

Do you really expect to be able to build a bridge up and over the Metra lines at 95th St within the footprint available for $30 million? Really?

The Matteson project (which is complete and was dedicated back in November) was built in a more open space than what is available at 95th and Cottage Grove. I'd say it would be closer to $100 million - over three times the expense of Matteson - than "nothing".

justalurker66 wrote:

Chicagopcclcars wrote:Relocating the UP would be nothing compared to the interchange CN is building with itself south of Matteson.

Do you really expect to be able to build a bridge up and over the Metra lines at 95th St within the footprint available for $30 million? Really?

The Matteson project (which is complete and was dedicated back in November) was built in a more open space than what is available at 95th and Cottage Grove. I'd say it would be closer to $100 million - over three times the expense of Matteson - than "nothing".

I have no idea what it would cost...but anything is possible. Where does the $30 million figure come from?

David Harrison

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/cn-mark ... -4705.html

It isn't a simple connection and Matteson has some physical constraints, but nothing like the restrictions at 95th and Cottage Grove where Metra/CN-IC fill the embankment with eight tracks (not four) with major streets right next to the embankment.

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.

justalurker66 wrote:http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/cn-mark ... -4705.html

It isn't a simple connection and Matteson has some physical constraints, but nothing like the restrictions at 95th and Cottage Grove where Metra/CN-IC fill the embankment with eight tracks (not four) with major streets right next to the embankment.

"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. 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. I still don't see a source for your $30 million figure for the 95th flyover. Happy New Year.

David Harrison