A new Red line

[TheTransitJock]

The Red line is always crowded with passenger with trains that are narrow as hell. While the CTA is trying to study new seating configurations, putting seats on some trains like New York trains. Don't we have enough new york here, first it started with the the advertiment on top of cabs, and now Marshall Fields is gone and replaced by Macy's, what the hell. Sak's fifth avenue and S##%, what's going on here? I thought of an idea that would keep the seats intact, and still have standing room, and it starts with the red line. what if the cta constructed a new red line, that is all subway, and have express track for the purple line. The new red line will be with wide cars like that of Toronto TTC Subway. The new line will run peralell to the existing line which will be used by the yellow line to send it downtown for the first time ever. The new Red line will start at linden and end at 130th and Indiana, making it cta's longest Line 4am to 1am daily, and howard and 95th at all times. I know something like this might be impossible for cta, but hey, it might happen. and if not, we just be packed in like sardines.

[Busjack]

The real questions are:

• Where are you going to come up with the $20 Billion needed to construct a parallel subway line (especially when CTA always claims to have $7 Billion of unmet capital needs, before expansion)?
• Given that Chicago, since 1892, has used uniform car sizes so that cars can be used anywhere on the system, how can you convince CTA to the contrary now (also indicating that since none of your proposed cars can run on the current system, CTA would have to build a parallel system, as indicated above)?
• Why extend north of Howard, when it doesn't have the traffic to justify more than a 2 car train off hours, or 6 rush, especially when you know that Evanston and Wilmette will have objections to digging up their cities?

The talk about a Clinton Street connector between North and Clybourn and Chinatown might provide an alternate Red Line, thereby relieving some congestion, but that seems to be only a glimmer in planners' eyes.

[Amtrak41]

< Don't we have enough new york here,>

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! You want more New York there if you want 2 different width cars. NYCT is stuck with the "A" and "B" Division forever. But I agree, I didn't like seeing Marshall Fields, stand-alone Osco's, BankOne, WaMu (both NY/NJ and Seattle), and SportMart become Macys, CVS, Chase, and Sports Authority.

I don't like IRT interiors on the CTA, but you have to have a uniform-sized fleet. Maybe they could stretch the car length 3 feet to be like IRT and PATH to get more capacity, along with some platform extensions. The CNS&M cars were 54 feet. But I think that is as much as you can ask for.

[ChicagoNova]

< Don't we have enough new york here,>

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! You want more New York there if you want 2 different width cars. NYCT is stuck with the "A" and "B" Division forever. But I agree, I didn't like seeing Marshall Fields, stand-alone Osco's, BankOne, WaMu (both NY/NJ and Seattle), and SportMart become Macys, CVS, Chase, and Sports Authority.

I don't like IRT interiors on the CTA, but you have to have a uniform-sized fleet. Maybe they could stretch the car length 3 feet to be like IRT and PATH to get more capacity, along with some platform extensions. The CNS&M cars were 54 feet. But I think that is as much as you can ask for.

I pretty much thought about it too: extending the Red Line trains to operate to/from Linden (which probably would replace the Purple Line), but then you'd have to expand the stations so they can be long enough to accommodate 8-car trains. All stations South Blvd. to Linden are only long enough to support 6-car trains.

[jajuan]

I pretty much thought about it too: extending the Red Line trains to operate to/from Linden (which probably would replace the Purple Line), but then you'd have to expand the stations so they can be long enough to accommodate 8-car trains. All stations South Blvd. to Linden are only long enough to support 6-car trains.

Again how do you pay for it with all three service boards stating that they're strapped for cash right now with the last financial reforms down the tubes because the economy tanked, worse on the state levels than is the case on the federal level which unlike the states can print money and run deficits? And how do you get around what we already know will be a battle with Evanston and Wilmette to rip up their streets that would be perceived (and I admit in this case rightly so) to benefit mostly the city?

[geneking7320]

Mini rant: This thread brings out the railfan/dreamer in me.

We know the money for such a thing doesn't exist but it's nice to think about it.

It saddens me that Chicago riders are being subjected to decreasing levels of comfort

in recent years. I'd like to see a rapid transit system that would support 75 foot long cars [ie, MARTA, WMATA, or NYC letter trains] which are 10 feet wide (with NO tapers) and could take the tightest curve at 30mph. At age 55 I won't live to see that here! Couldn't we at least consider lengthening platforms so we could run longer trains? Then we wouldn't have to be stuffed like sardines in the can.

End of mini rant.

Gene King

[Busjack]

Mini rant: This thread brings out the railfan/dreamer in me.

We know the money for such a thing doesn't exist but it's nice to think about it.

It saddens me that Chicago riders are being subjected to decreasing levels of comfort

in recent years. I'd like to see a rapid transit system that would support 75 foot long cars [ie, MARTA, WMATA, or NYC letter trains] which are 10 feet wide (with NO tapers) and could take the tightest curve at 30mph. At age 55 I won't live to see that here! Couldn't we at least consider lengthening platforms so we could run longer trains? Then we wouldn't have to be stuffed like sardines in the can.

End of mini rant.

Gene King

Taking it as it is, that would require the reconstruction of the entire rail system, because anything longer wouldn't get around the Loop, for starters. Probably couldn't even run them on the Red Line, given the subway curve at Division and State.

I had thought possible such things as the 1960s proposals to eliminate the Loop Elevated with a subway, or the Monroe subway into which the Lake line would feed, but I am sure now betting on not seeing them in my lifetime.

There was some talk that the Red Line sides of the Belmont and Fullerton platforms could take 10 car trains. Since there was considerable platform lengthening on the Loop L in the early 1970s so that it could accommodate 8 car Dan Ryan trains, that may be a possibility elsewhere. However, I still wonder whether the subway stations that don't have the continuous platforms have platforms of sufficient length to berth 10 cars, since it would be extremely expensive to dig them up again. Obviously, the Metra solution of "only the first five cars open" won't work at Chicago and State.