95th Red Line Station Rebuild

[BusHunter]

They have some pretty interesting station renderings for the new 95th/red line station here.

http://www.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/index.html?story=23862966

I'm kind of surprised they are considering putting $240 million into one station, but it should be nice and spacious. I don't seem to agree with the intermodal type bus station bays. I would think for $240 million they should just build an enormous bridge over the Dan Ryan expressway and have the buses pull into bays. Really they need to raise or lower 95th so the station could be all in one piece. But I guess that's what they are trying to achieve with the pedestrian bridge.

[Busjack]

They have some pretty interesting station renderings for the new 95th/red line station here.

http://www.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/index.html?story=23862966

I'm kind of surprised they are considering putting $240 million into one station, but it should be nice and spacious. I don't seem to agree with the intermodal type bus station bays. I would think for $240 million they should just build an enormous bridge over the Dan Ryan expressway and have the buses pull into bays. Really they need to raise or lower 95th so the station could be all in one piece. But I guess that's what they are trying to achieve with the pedestrian bridge.

First I take this as a concession that there isn't going to be the 130th extension in the conceivable future, or CTA would not have to expand the bus boarding areas that much, as most of the buses could go to stations at 103rd or 115th.

While the environmental assessment indicates that they are condemning land on State, that's only a staging area, so that wasn't going to become a bus terminal. Maybe you are going along with my thought that the existing bus terminal should have been extended north to 93rd. CTA wasn't going to assume IDOT's job of changing the 95th St., bridge (was that rebuilt with the Dan Ryan in 2005?) nor build something like Harlem-Higgins or Howard with multiple ups and downs to get to the platform. The rationale for this seems to be that the platform can be extended to get to either headhouse.

[Sam92]

First I take this as a concession that there isn't going to be the 130th extension in the conceivable future, or CTA would not have to expand the bus boarding areas that much, as most of the buses could go to stations at 103rd or 115th.

While the environmental assessment indicates that they are condemning land on State, that's only a staging area, so that wasn't going to become a bus terminal. Maybe you are going along with my thought that the existing bus terminal should have been extended north to 93rd. CTA wasn't going to assume IDOT's job of changing the 95th St., bridge (was that rebuilt with the Dan Ryan in 2005?) nor build something like Harlem-Higgins or Howard with multiple ups and downs to get to the platform. The rationale for this seems to be that the platform can be extended to get to either headhouse.

The platform is indeed getting extended to accomodate two 8-car trains on each side (Currently looking for the link on that) but the renderings show that as well. You can see the end of the platform reaching all the way under 95th street to where the beginning of the yard currently is.

[BusHunter]

First I take this as a concession that there isn't going to be the 130th extension in the conceivable future, or CTA would not have to expand the bus boarding areas that much, as most of the buses could go to stations at 103rd or 115th.

While the environmental assessment indicates that they are condemning land on State, that's only a staging area, so that wasn't going to become a bus terminal. Maybe you are going along with my thought that the existing bus terminal should have been extended north to 93rd. CTA wasn't going to assume IDOT's job of changing the 95th St., bridge (was that rebuilt with the Dan Ryan in 2005?) nor build something like Harlem-Higgins or Howard with multiple ups and downs to get to the platform. The rationale for this seems to be that the platform can be extended to get to either headhouse.

It does make alot of sense to extend the terminal to 93rd, but I think they are trying to address the multiple kids seen darting through traffic on 95th to get to the station. Having a station on both sides of the street is the solution to that according to them, but I don't understand why the station is so expensive it's not requiring underground excavation so what's is it the steel costs. You would probably say the consultants!! Would it really be that expensive to construct a bridge like Harlem/higgins for the buses? I think the money would be better spent building an extension at least to 103rd or 111th, who is being served at 130th/stony isn't that heavy industrial anyway.

[Busjack]

It does make alot of sense to extend the terminal to 93rd, but I think they are trying to address the multiple kids seen darting through traffic on 95th to get to the station. Having a station on both sides of the street is the solution to that according to them, but I don't understand why the station is so expensive it's not requiring underground excavation so what's is it the steel costs. You would probably say the consultants!! Would it really be that expensive to construct a bridge like Harlem/higgins for the buses? I think the money would be better spent building an extension at least to 103rd or 111th, who is being served at 130th/stony isn't that heavy industrial anyway.

That much work (second headhouse, second bus terminal, bridge, platform extension, another 3 elevators, probably a complete remodelling of the existing headhouse and bus terminal) is going to cost. Compare it to the say $212 million for Wilson and maybe $80 million for Bryn Mawr (my quick recollections).

The main issue with going south is I don't think they really have a right of way for it, regardless of what they say about building an elevated structure along the existing freight tracks. Considering the estimated $1 billion cost of the extension, building through the mudhole between 115th and 130th can't be the big cost.

I'm also not sure about your reference to "children crossing over 95th," as, at the moment, all buses stop in the terminal or on the north side of 95th. The justification for this project was that the bus terminal was too crowded.

[BusHunter]

That much work (second headhouse, second bus terminal, bridge, platform extension, another 3 elevators, probably a complete remodelling of the existing headhouse and bus terminal) is going to cost. Compare it to the say $212 million for Wilson and maybe $80 million for Bryn Mawr (my quick recollections).

The main issue with going south is I don't think they really have a right of way for it, regardless of what they say about building an elevated structure along the existing freight tracks. Considering the estimated $1 billion cost of the extension, building through the mudhole between 115th and 130th can't be the big cost.

I'm also not sure about your reference to "children crossing over 95th," as, at the moment, all buses stop in the terminal or on the north side of 95th. The justification for this project was that the bus terminal was too crowded.

The reference to the kids was talked about in the city newspapers, i think the tribune went as far as to say one of the politicians had been informed of this and the station on both sides of the street was then discussed. I'm sure there's considerable foot traffic there just because a bus stops somewhere doesn't mean everyone wants something from that side of the street. It's like saying no one will cross Milwaukee at jefferson park because all buses stop on the east side of the street.

If they are going to build south of 95th, is that going to interfere with 98th yard cutting off a few tracks? I would think they would need to expand 98th yard.

By building bridges they will need dual elevators on each end and dual elevators to go to each platform, so I count at least 4 elevators.

[Busjack]

....

If they are going to build south of 95th, is that going to interfere with 98th yard cutting off a few tracks? I would think they would need to expand 98th yard.

By building bridges they will need dual elevators on each end and dual elevators to go to each platform, so I count at least 4 elevators.

It depends on how far the platform extension goes. There is room about to the curve into Stony Island Ave., but again that gets into whether they will get around to the extension and a yard at about 122nd.

I don't know that they need dual elevators, and I assumed the elevator already existing between the platform and station house.

[BusHunter]

It depends on how far the platform extension goes. There is room about to the curve into Stony Island Ave., but again that gets into whether they will get around to the extension and a yard at about 122nd.

I don't know that they need dual elevators, and I assumed the elevator already existing between the platform and station house.

They have to have that many elevators unless they want to build a longer elevator shaft from platform to mezzanine to bridge. Then maybe they can do it with 2 elevators. It kind of boggles the mind, if they were concerned with foot traffic south of 95th, why not just build a south side of the street entrance like Montrose/Blue line? By building two bus stations, have they considered all the riders who will transfer from one bus to the next, (example #95E to #95W)

The platform to 93rd extension would work better, by making a bigger station with all the buses together, add the south side entrance and that should satisfy all needs and concerns i would think.

[CircleSeven]

They have to have that many elevators unless they want to build a longer elevator shaft from platform to mezzanine to bridge. Then maybe they can do it with 2 elevators. It kind of boggles the mind, if they were concerned with foot traffic south of 95th, why not just build a south side of the street entrance like Montrose/Blue line? By building two bus stations, have they considered all the riders who will transfer from one bus to the next, (example #95E to #95W)

The platform to 93rd extension would work better, by making a bigger station with all the buses together, add the south side entrance and that should satisfy all needs and concerns i would think.

With the two station houses on each side of the bridge, there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't merge the #95E & #95W into the #95 again, from "The Plaza" to Buffalo (I didn't say bring the 83rd leg back though), with adjustments of the schedules/headways, etc. (the #381 can go back to their proper headways from State Street on west, with limited stops if necessary from State to Western). Merging the two would eliminate some of the bus flow going into and parked in the terminal. They can discharge passengers at state, and whoever wants to travel further (east or west of 95th, give or take) can do so. Pick up the passengers who's going further out and leave, just like the other east-west bus routes.

But even if you have that overpass, I strongly doubt folks will stop crossing the street. If they're really want to transfer to another bus an their bus is there, on the other side, they're not going to spends an extra minute going inside one station house, jump up some steps, run towards the over pass, go down those stairs, get out of the other station house, to get on that bus, and lets hope that bus doesn't leave at that point. Most likely, folks are going to cross that street on the other side, and get that bus.

[Busjack]

... By building two bus stations, have they considered all the riders who will transfer from one bus to the next, (example #95E to #95W)

I'm sure that's the only justification for the bridge, since one wanting the board rapid transit can just go down from the respective station house to the platform.

With the two station houses on each side of the bridge, there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't merge the #95E & #95W into the #95 again, from "The Plaza" to Buffalo (I didn't say bring the 83rd leg back though), with adjustments of the schedules/headways, etc. (the #381 can go back to their proper headways from State Street on west, with limited stops if necessary from State to Western).....

Except CTA doesn't save money by upping CTA service west of State from every 20 to 10 minutes. Pace 381 was going to run every 20 minutes anyway.

If this was prompted by BusHunter's comment about maybe having to cross the bridge, I see that point, but CTA isn't going to increase the interval west of State under the current thinking.

[BusHunter]

Probably the temptation is to put the eb buses on one side and the wb on the other. Maybe they should interwin the buses more in an effort to not have so many e-w transfers over the bridge. Too bad they couldn't put all the owl service buses on one side. Maybe they could restrict the use of one side as much as possible. I would definitely consider putting all the pace buses on one side.

[artthouwill]

They have some pretty interesting station renderings for the new 95th/red line station here.

http://www.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/index.html?story=23862966

I'm kind of surprised they are considering putting $240 million into one station, but it should be nice and spacious. I don't seem to agree with the intermodal type bus station bays. I would think for $240 million they should just build an enormous bridge over the Dan Ryan expressway and have the buses pull into bays. Really they need to raise or lower 95th so the station could be all in one piece. But I guess that's what they are trying to achieve with the pedestrian bridge.

Looking at the renderings, a few things jump out at me.

The main purpose is to spread out the people flowing from trains to headhouse among two headhouses. Considering that this is the busiest rail station in the CTA system, that makes sense.

I would problaby put the west buses, 29, 95 (EB), 108, 112, 352, 359, 381, in the south terminal, N5, N9, 29, 34, 95 (WB), 100, 103, 106, 111, 115, 119, 353, 395 and Greyhound in the north terminal. I assume making 95E and 95W a single route with EB buses serving the south terminal and WB buses serving the north terminal. I also have the 29 serving both terminals, but staging at the south terminal. I chose this setup as to increase traffic flow along 95th, eliminating the need for buses to make left turns from 95th, thus backing up traffic (the lone exception being Greyhound buses inbound to Chicago coming from the west on 95th). A case could be made for putting all of the owl routes, N5, N9, and 34 into one terminal, which would go into the north terminal along with Pace 395.

[jajuan]

I'm sure that's the only justification for the bridge, since one wanting the board rapid transit can just go down from the respective station house to the platform.

Except CTA doesn't save money by upping CTA service west of State from every 20 to 10 minutes. Pace 381 was going to run every 20 minutes anyway.

If this was prompted by BusHunter's comment about maybe having to cross the bridge, I see that point, but CTA isn't going to increase the interval west of State under the current thinking.

Who says that what is now 95W couldn't remain at 20 minute intervals if were combined with 95E? That's like saying every bus on the 71 can't be run past 73rd/Exchange and by extension that the old 27 South Deering couldn't merged into the old 71 to make the current 71 71st/South Shore. If the 71 operate with half its buses terminating at its old terminal and the other half at the 112th/Torrence terminal, it should be possible to operate a theoretical new combined 95 in a similar fashion with some buses continuing to terminate at 95th/Dan Ryan while the others terminate at the Plaza at 20 minute intervals.

[Busjack]

Who says that what is now 95W couldn't remain at 20 minute intervals if were combined with 95E?... it should be possible to operate a theoretical new combined 95 in a similar fashion with some buses continuing to terminate at 95th/Dan Ryan while the others terminate at the Plaza at 20 minute intervals.

It would theoretically be possible, but then you (1) probably need different boarding/departing areas depending on if its is a through or turn back bus (2) will confuse the bleep out of a rider on E. 93rd who won't be able to figure out whether to take the local or wait another 10 minutes for the through, not realizing that they could have transferred to 381. Or maybe they think they can avoid the transfer charge. If someone is paying with a bank card, it sure makes a difference whether to wait 10 minutes and pay $2.25 or risk the transfer and pay $4.50, or more in point, being dumbfounded when the driver says that the 95th terminal is the end of the route.

Of course, the latter would also unbalance the west side, as it would provide a clear fare incentive for a through rider to avoid the Pace bus.

[jajuan]

It would theoretically be possible, but then you (1) probably need different boarding/departing areas depending on if its is a through or turn back bus (2) will confuse the bleep out of a rider on E. 93rd who won't be able to figure out whether to take the local or wait another 10 minutes for the through, not realizing that they could have transferred to 381. Or maybe they think they can avoid the transfer charge. If someone is paying with a bank card, it sure makes a difference whether to wait 10 minutes and pay $2.25 or risk the transfer and pay $4.50, or more in point, being dumbfounded when the driver says that the 95th terminal is the end of the route.

Of course, the latter would also unbalance the west side, as it would provide a clear fare incentive for a through rider to avoid the Pace bus.

I'm sorry but it's not rocket science. There's nothing that's said that the boarding areas can't be on the same side of the terminal. And more importantly, how freaking hard can it be to read the difference between '95 to 95/RED LINE' and '95 to EVERGREEN PLZ' or however a theoretical destination for the Plaza would look? Folks do similar all the doggone time on the 67 when it comes to short turns on that route at 69th/Western and through trips to Ford City, on the 71 for short trips to 73rd/Exchange and through trips to 112th/Torrence and even on the 79 for short trips to 79th/Western and through trips to Ford City. If they manage on those three routes with no confusion, it's possible to do similar with a theoretical combining of 95E and 95W. How about we stop with this notion that CTA riders or certain sections thereof are totally inept and lack any form of literacy and comprehension skills. As for the 381, it runs all the way to Moraine Valley College so not everyone that boards is going to the Plaza. Nor does it get all of it's ridership from the 95E. There are about eight other routes from both CTA and Pace operating east of the current terminal as well as the Red Line itself from which its riders could be transferring. So it's a bit of a stretch to say a combined 95 would have it hurting for riders.

[Sam92]

I'm sorry but it's not rocket science. There's nothing that's said that the boarding areas can't be on the same side of the terminal. And more importantly, how freaking hard can it be to read the difference between '95 to 95/RED LINE' and '95 to EVERGREEN PLZ' or however a theoretical destination for the Plaza would look? Folks do similar all the doggone time on the 67 when it comes to short turns on that route at 69th/Western and through trips to Ford City, on the 71 for short trips to 73rd/Exchange and through trips to 112th/Torrence and even on the 79 for short trips to 79th/Western and through trips to Ford City. If they manage on those three routes with no confusion, it's possible to do similar with a theoretical combining of 95E and 95W. How about we stop with this notion that CTA riders or certain sections thereof are totally inept and lack any form of literacy and comprehension skills. As for the 381, it runs all the way to Moraine Valley College so not everyone that boards is going to the Plaza. Nor does it get all of it's ridership from the 95E. There are about eight other routes from both CTA and Pace operating east of the current terminal as well as the Red Line itself from which its riders could be transferring. So it's a bit of a stretch to say a combined 95 would have it hurting for riders.

Speaking as someone who lives by the 95E, I see the pairing (or shall I say re-pairing LOL!) of 95E as the potential to actually pick up ridership with the fact that the new 95 93rd/95th would provide a straight shot from east to west without the need for a transfer/wait to another route (and waiting between buses can a pain outside of peak with the wide headways of routes there). The greatest area of growth I could see is between Western (especially Vinncense, forgive me for misspelling that street btw) and Cottage Grove for those riders who would formerly be switching between the current 95E/111/115/100 on the east to 95W/381/112/352/108 on the west. And Im with Jajuan, all it takes is for some to read the sign to know if it's short turn all though I kinda see a bit more of 2/3 between 92/Buffalo and The Plaza.

[jajuan]

Speaking as someone who lives by the 95E, I see the pairing (or shall I say re-pairing LOL!) of 95E as the potential to actually pick up ridership with the fact that the new 95 93rd/95th would provide a straight shot from east to west without the need for a transfer/wait to another route (and waiting between buses can a pain outside of peak with the wide headways of routes there). The greatest area of growth I could see is between Western (especially Vinncense, forgive me for misspelling that street btw) and Cottage Grove for those riders who would formerly be switching between the current 95E/111/115/100 on the east to 95W/381/112/352/108 on the west. And Im with Jajuan, all it takes is for some to read the sign to know if it's short turn all though I kinda see a bit more of 2/3 between 92/Buffalo and The Plaza.

Good point, Sam. And since 95th between Western and the Red Line is within city limits, it only makes sense that CTA would provide more of the service along that stretch if a recombined 95 did succeed in drawing more ridership west of the Red Line terminal.

[Busjack]

I'm sorry but it's not rocket science....

Then, instead of going at length, why not face my point, which is that it would be awful confusing for riders to figure out whether they have to transfer or not, or wait 10 minutes for a bus with a different destination sign, or argue with the driver that the bus shouldn't be turning around because they didn't see the destination sign before boarding? I don't think I obfuscated that point that badly.

71 isn't relevant, because you are talking about the end of the line, not some buses going through past State to Ford City and other riders having to transfer to 67 to do so. If you are going to 112th, sure, you have to wait for the next bus.

Speaking as someone who lives by the 95E, I see the pairing (or shall I say re-pairing LOL!) of 95E as the potential to actually pick up ridership

...

But you forgot that CTA ashcanned half the 95W trips and gave them to Pace.

[jajuan]

Then, instead of going at length, why not face my point, which is that it would be awful confusing for riders to figure out whether they have to transfer or not, or wait 10 minutes for a bus with a different destination sign, or argue with the driver that the bus shouldn't be turning around because they didn't see the destination sign before boarding? I don't think I obfuscated that point that badly.

71 isn't relevant, because you are talking about the end of the line, not some buses going through past State to Ford City and other riders having to transfer to 67 to do so. If you are going to 112th, sure, you have to wait for the next bus.

But you forgot that CTA ashcanned half the 95W trips and gave them to Pace.

How would it be confusing? All it takes is to read the freaking sign. And I bring up the 71 and other routes because it would be a similar situation. How about you stop trying to act like riders on that side of town are totally illiterate? That's about the only point you're making by saying it would be so confusing. I took note of your point and I rejected it because it's a baseless point given the similar examples I already gave that you're trying to talk your way around and ignore.

[Busjack]

How would it be confusing? All it takes is to read the freaking sign. And I bring up the 71 and other routes because it would be a similar situation. How about you stop trying to act like riders on that side of town are totally illiterate? That's about the only point you're making by saying it would be so confusing. I took note of your point and I rejected it because it's a baseless point given the similar examples I already gave that you're trying to talk your way around and ignore.

Since you don't comprehend my point, I'm done with it.

Anyway, I'm not the CTA planning department, nor calling people on the south side illiterate.

[mkohut]

It does make alot of sense to extend the terminal to 93rd, but I think they are trying to address the multiple kids seen darting through traffic on 95th to get to the station. Having a station on both sides of the street is the solution to that according to them, but I don't understand why the station is so expensive it's not requiring underground excavation so what's is it the steel costs. You would probably say the consultants!! Would it really be that expensive to construct a bridge like Harlem/higgins for the buses? I think the money would be better spent building an extension at least to 103rd or 111th, who is being served at 130th/stony isn't that heavy industrial anyway.

It is a value point.

Even going only to 103/Halsted you can get 103,106,108,352,359 out of the 95th station.

Plus parking.

Also,money save on fuel.

[jajuan]

Since you don't comprehend my point, I'm done with it.

Anyway, I'm not the CTA planning department, nor calling people on the south side illiterate.

And if everything for the route were placed on the same side of the terminal as I proposed could be the case from the start, how complicated could it be to read a destination sigh? You never answered that question. So what point was there to miss?

[qwantae]

They have to have that many elevators unless they want to build a longer elevator shaft from platform to mezzanine to bridge. Then maybe they can do it with 2 elevators. It kind of boggles the mind, if they were concerned with foot traffic south of 95th, why not just build a south side of the street entrance like Montrose/Blue line? By building two bus stations, have they considered all the riders who will transfer from one bus to the next, (example #95E to #95W)

The platform to 93rd extension would work better, by making a bigger station with all the buses together, add the south side entrance and that should satisfy all needs and concerns i would think.

So if they extend the Platform to 93rd, would they have to take off that Walk Bridge overpass I-94 at 93rd?

[Busjack]

So if they extend the Platform to 93rd, would they have to take off that Walk Bridge overpass I-94 at 93rd?

From the plans, it looks like they are extending the platform south, so the question appears irrelevant. BusHunter only mentioned it hypothetically.

[MetroShadow]

I'm sorry but it's not rocket science. There's nothing that's said that the boarding areas can't be on the same side of the terminal. And more importantly, how freaking hard can it be to read the difference between '95 to 95/RED LINE' and '95 to EVERGREEN PLZ' or however a theoretical destination for the Plaza would look? Folks do similar all the doggone time on the 67 when it comes to short turns on that route at 69th/Western and through trips to Ford City, on the 71 for short trips to 73rd/Exchange and through trips to 112th/Torrence and even on the 79 for short trips to 79th/Western and through trips to Ford City. If they manage on those three routes with no confusion, it's possible to do similar with a theoretical combining of 95E and 95W. How about we stop with this notion that CTA riders or certain sections thereof are totally inept and lack any form of literacy and comprehension skills. As for the 381, it runs all the way to Moraine Valley College so not everyone that boards is going to the Plaza. Nor does it get all of it's ridership from the 95E. There are about eight other routes from both CTA and Pace operating east of the current terminal as well as the Red Line itself from which its riders could be transferring. So it's a bit of a stretch to say a combined 95 would have it hurting for riders.

I almost equate this to the time when you would have the X services, and people would flip out because the driver wouldn't let them off on a side street. Same as the the Brown/Purple fiasco: You see "loop" but you don't pay attention to the color.

Bottom line is that people don't pay attention--this is universal and not limited to one side of the city. This might be a good time to at least change the sign codes to reflect the changes, but to also educate the potential changes that would happen to that route. Placement of that bus at the terminal will definitely need to be addressed.