Jump to content
sw4400

Red Line Extension (RLE)

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to follow the logic about the CTA wanting to extend the Red Line to 130th via a shared elevated embankment with a Union Pacific Freight Line. Are they saying that they will lay third rail next to existing freight tracks and share said tracks with a freight line? Initially, I thought not and that would be impossible, but when you put "share" in the context, that changes the meaning.

If this is being read correctly, does the CTA realize what kind of delays they are in for from 95th to 130th? Freight Trains can be anywhere from 100-200 cars in length and cause "Freight Delays" on all Metra lines where Metra and Freight co-exist.

Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to follow the logic about the CTA wanting to extend the Red Line to 130th via a shared elevated embankment with a Union Pacific Freight Line. Are they saying that they will lay third rail next to existing freight tracks and share said tracks with a freight line? Initially, I thought not and that would be impossible, but when you put "share" in the context, that changes the meaning.

If this is being read correctly, does the CTA realize what kind of delays they are in for from 95th to 130th? Freight Trains can be anywhere from 100-200 cars in length and cause "Freight Delays" on all Metra lines where Metra and Freight co-exist.

Story

Other stories indicated that third rail and freight operations can't coexist.

Basically, one has to go to the Red Line Extension Alternatives Analysis page. The last thing posted there is the Stage 3 analysis of 2009, which indicates in the second pdf that somehow the consultants think that a "single column" concrete elevated structure would work on either S. Halsted or the railroad right of way. Page 13 has such a structure to the left of the railroad, and the railroad itself is at grade.

There seems to be the issue whether there is enough room next to the rail right of way to build that structure, or whether a conventional L structure (essentially a "double deck") would need to be built over the freight tracks.

I can't put my fingers on from where I remember this, but the Sun-Times seems to have the most comprehensive coverage, including a map of the UP alternative on either the east or west side of the tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to follow the logic about the CTA wanting to extend the Red Line to 130th via a shared elevated embankment with a Union Pacific Freight Line. Are they saying that they will lay third rail next to existing freight tracks and share said tracks with a freight line? Initially, I thought not and that would be impossible, but when you put "share" in the context, that changes the meaning.

If this is being read correctly, does the CTA realize what kind of delays they are in for from 95th to 130th? Freight Trains can be anywhere from 100-200 cars in length and cause "Freight Delays" on all Metra lines where Metra and Freight co-exist.

Story

I think you are incorrect. The Union Pacific freight line is NOT AN EMBANKMENT. The freight tracks are surface level tracks with street crossings every two block with lights and crossing gates. The freight line comes elevated south of 115th St. where it goes southeasterly to cross the CN/ Metra Electric District and then goes back to surface operation.

The Red Line plan calls to an elevated "L" right-of-way structure like the Orange line built next to the UP.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are incorrect. The Union Pacific freight line is NOT AN EMBANKMENT. The freight tracks are surface level tracks with street crossings every two block with lights and crossing gates. The freight line comes elevated south of 115th St. where it goes southeasterly to cross the CN/ Metra Electric District and then goes back to surface operation.

The Red Line plan calls to an elevated "L" right-of-way structure like the Orange line built next to the UP.

That only covers south of 115th. Like you said, north of 115th is surface. So the question is, what is CTA proposing? Are they looking for surface rail next to the UP tracks (separated of course) or are they looking to build an elevated structure on the remaining row next to or above the UP tracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That only covers south of 115th. Like you said, north of 115th is surface. So the question is, what is CTA proposing? Are they looking for surface rail next to the UP tracks (separated of course) or are they looking to build an elevated structure on the remaining row next to or above the UP tracks?

Go back and read my post here, and follow those links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, building an elevated structure above Halsted St from 99th to 127th or so would probably be the best alternative as far as having the largest potential ridership. Building an L along the old CWI would be OK as far as 115th St, but after that you are in no-mans-land all the way to Altgeld Gardens. However, I can see massive NIMBY problems with Halsted St. Somehow I really doubt that anything will ever come of this, as the money involved would seem to be too huge to be feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing the East UP and West UP alternatives showing the high number of abandoned lots along each choice, and with the depressed land and housing values in that area it doesn't seem as expensive as say the Brown line flyover condemnations will be(per lot). There were references to relocation and/or rebuilding options in that same area.

There's a lot of empty lots in the immediate area, many times even next to where a house may be taken for the right-of-way, although if it were me, I'd choose to be relocated a little further from the elevated tracks, but walking distance to a station.

Also, why even bring up other choices if the preferred alternative is already chosen?

The way I read the latest statements along with the older information is that perhaps there's some negotiation with UP(and CREATE funding?) to build a side-by-side elevated embankment similiar to how the CTA and UP share an embankment in Oak Park on the Green Line. The differences today is that there is a minimum spacing required between heavy rail and freight that would separate them a bit on the Red Line extension.

Off topic(but sort of the same) - Even though the Red Line extension will need to follow the minimum federal requirement for side-by-side separation of freight and heavy rail, the future Blue line rehab/extension/I-290 widening through Oak Park and Forest Park will need an exemption to that rule - as IDOT already has 2 plans to move the Blue line closer to the freight tracks there to accomodate road widening. (1 plan removes one freight track with standard lanes and shoulders, the other leaves the three freight tracks with minimal roadway shoulders, such as just East of Oak Park Ave where the "trench" is narrowest.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Also, why even bring up other choices if the preferred alternative is already chosen?

....

While something might be called that, they can't make the final determination until the environmental impact statement process is complete. This seems reinforced by the "About" page, which says:

Several alternatives, which included different routes and technologies, were considered during the Alternatives Analysis process. The alternatives were then narrowed down through public and agency feedback to the four alternatives described here. These alternatives are being analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

There was a similar thing for the Yellow Line--a LPA was announced, but then a "scoping hearing" for the EIS was announced, and the mayor got a big turnout to kill it.

Claypool said something about delays weren't on his watch, but the red tape has been going for 7 years, and the press release indicates that the environmental impact analysis grant was in 2011. I really doubt that they want to get this off the schneid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps more hair raising was the revelation out of this weeks open house that CTA wants to lay claim on 259 properties to send the Red line to 130th. Wow!! This make the Brown line flyover acquisition look like child's play.

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/14/cta-could-consume-259-properties-for-red-line-extension.php

There's also a Sun-Times link here.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/hundreds-parcels-may-be-needed-red-line-extension-cta/tue-05132014-936pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps more hair raising was the revelation out of this weeks open house that CTA wants to lay claim on 259 properties to send the Red line to 130th. Wow!! This make the Brown line flyover acquisition look like child's play.

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/05/14/cta-could-consume-259-properties-for-red-line-extension.php

There's also a Sun-Times link here.

http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/hundreds-parcels-may-be-needed-red-line-extension-cta/tue-05132014-936pm

While the number of properties is higher, I bet the value isn't.

Anyway, it just seems at this stage to be an environmental analysis of alternatives, and not sending notices to the property owners, which they did do on the north side.

Also, this seems a consequence of regardless if they have a right of way next to the UP, land is going to be needed for stations and bus terminals. The only existing setaside seems to be at 115th and Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.transitchicago.com/redeis/default.aspx

Two reasons for creating this is, one, for the future, if they hopefully do get started, and, secondly, to ask a question that I didn't feel was too appropriate for any other current topic. 

Question: The plans stated that each station would have bus facilities. Are they all going to be like the ones on the Orange Line, or full-fledge bus terminals like Jeff. Park, 95th, Midway, etc.

Edited by Kevin
Mod note: Moved to existing (buried) topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly similar note, I was wondering how bus service in the area would change after the extension is opened. Would the CTA reduce service on or eliminate some routes? (Has this been asked before?)

 

I imagine that they might cut back the #103 and #106 to the 103rd station. Is there a lot of ridership on the #112 between the 95th station and 103rd/Vincennes? If there isn't, I think they would reroute it to the 103rd station, so it could still serve as a Red Line feeder route for Julian HS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly similar note, I was wondering how bus service in the area would change after the extension is opened. Would the CTA reduce service on or eliminate some routes? (Has this been asked before?)

 

I imagine that they might cut back the #103 and #106 to the 103rd station. Is there a lot of ridership on the #112 between the 95th station and 103rd/Vincennes? If there isn't, I think they would reroute it to the 103rd station, so it could still serve as a Red Line feeder route for Julian HS.

​Both CTA and Pace are working on a plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.transitchicago.com/redeis/default.aspx

Two reasons for creating this is, one, for the future, if they hopefully do get started, and, secondly, to ask a question that I didn't feel was too appropriate for any other current topic. 

Question: The plans stated that each station would have bus facilities. Are they all going to be like the ones on the Orange Line, or full-fledge bus terminals like Jeff. Park, 95th, Midway, etc.

​You haven't defined what the distinction is, and the quick answer is that they are no where close to doing architectural renderings. The only thing that was said was that the city was saving land at 115th between State and Michigan for station facilities. It also appears from what was said about the very preliminary environmental assessment stage that they would have to condemn land for stations at 103rd and 111th.

On a slightly similar note, I was wondering how bus service in the area would change after the extension is opened. Would the CTA reduce service on or eliminate some routes? (Has this been asked before?)

 

I imagine that they might cut back the #103 and #106 to the 103rd station. Is there a lot of ridership on the #112 between the 95th station and 103rd/Vincennes? If there isn't, I think they would reroute it to the 103rd station, so it could still serve as a Red Line feeder route for Julian HS.

​We've debated that before (most recently yesterday with respect to 127th/130th), but no they don't have any plans, and I have frequently noted that by borrowing $200 million to construct a $240 million bus terminal at 95th, either they are wasting a lot of money or admitting that the extension is not happening in the conceivable future. If you consider the bus lines that have been said can be fed into stations further south (stations supposed to be at 103rd/Stewart, 111th/Stewart, 115th/Michigan and 130th/Altgeld), that basically leaves only 29, 34, 95E, 95W, S. Cottage, S. King Dr.. S. Vincennes, and 381 for 95th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Nearly a year later and not a peep about this project.   Is this a pipe dream? 

Nothing new on the CTA page since 2014, but it then said (and still says) that EIS hearings in 2016..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Busjack said:

Tribune article that the Red Line Extension Tortoise is to the next bureaucratic stage, with possible completion by 2026.

If CTA is hoarding 5000s for this, they will need to be rehabbed by then.

If they rehab the 5000s, then changing the seat layout is a must.

2. I'm against any expansion until the North Side Mainline is fully rebuilt. Fix up what you already have, before you expand the system.

The same goes for Metra, which wants to add a station on the UP North Line at Peterson, while Rogers Park & Clybourn are dumps! The sole reason for that proposed station comes from Ald. O'Connor, whose wife has extensive real estate properties in the area that would benefit from a station.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTA artist drawing of proposed 103rd St. station next to the Union Pacific Villa Grove sub. It is kinda cool to compare elevated plans never carried out versus actual construction like Ashland Ave on the Green line, actual Orange construction, Pink rehab lined up with a TV split screen of 1950s plans for the elevation of the Ravenswood which was duplicated in part with the Engelwood Ashland project. 

DH

ct-cth-cta-103rd-street-station-jpg-20160929.jpg

P1020446.JPG

P1030647.JPG

P1030772.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, strictures said:

2. I'm against any expansion until the North Side Mainline is fully rebuilt. Fix up what you already have, before you expand the system.

The same goes for Metra, which wants to add a station on the UP North Line at Peterson, while Rogers Park & Clybourn are dumps! The sole reason for that proposed station comes from Ald. O'Connor, whose wife has extensive real estate properties in the area that would benefit from a station.

Any funding for any project is separate.

With respect to either RPM or the extension, the issue in either case is whether the FAST Act ever provides a path to eventual funding. Obviously, the path mentioned in the article for the extension apparently comes to fruition, if at all, at the earliest in 2022.

The article also mentioned TIFs for the local match, but a Transit TIF established within one-half mile of the Red Line between Lawrence to Howard has nothing to do with a Transit TIF in Roseland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Any funding for any project is separate.

With respect to either RPM or the extension, the issue in either case is whether the FAST Act ever provides a path to eventual funding. Obviously, the path mentioned in the article for the extension apparently comes to fruition, if at all, at the earliest in 2022.

The article also mentioned TIFs for the local match, but a Transit TIF established within one-half mile of the Red Line between Lawrence to Howard has nothing to do with a Transit TIF in Roseland.

It has nothing to do with the funding, it has to do with priorities. The existing system is more important than expanding the system. Once the existing system is running at optimal capabilities, then you build on new extensions.

The sole reason for the 130th extension is being driven by politics. The multi-billion dollar cost is not currently cost effective for the number of people who will actually use it. Expanding bus service to those areas, especially making some of them express or limited routes would give places like Altgeld Gardens far better service & could do that quite quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strictures said:

It has nothing to do with the funding, it has to do with priorities. The existing system is more important than expanding the system. Once the existing system is running at optimal capabilities, then you build on new extensions.

The sole reason for the 130th extension is being driven by politics. The multi-billion dollar cost is not currently cost effective for the number of people who will actually use it. Expanding bus service to those areas, especially making some of them express or limited routes would give places like Altgeld Gardens far better service & could do that quite quickly.

Sure arguably anything could be done more quickly in Roseland, like integrating the Metra Electric. But those aren't happening either,

But your statement is essentially the equivalent to that the Douglas should not have been fixed because the Roscoe flyover is needed.

If the money is available (and note, any money for the extension is not now available, thus establishing a certain order of priorities), there isn't a reason why two projects can't proceed at once (as the Dan Ryan and Jefferson Park extensions did in 1969-70), and if your criterion is that the entire system has to be in a state of good repair before any expansion, that will never happen, given that construction has a service life of 40 years, and, for instance, the Congress line also has to be rebuilt, and the Logan Square segment has to be made accessible. So, no extensions  until you are dead, I assume.

On the other hand,since you bring up priorities, I don't recall you saying anything about King Richard II wasting $300 million of CTA money on Block 37.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, strictures said:

It has nothing to do with the funding, it has to do with priorities. The existing system is more important than expanding the system. Once the existing system is running at optimal capabilities, then you build on new extensions.

The sole reason for the 130th extension is being driven by politics. The multi-billion dollar cost is not currently cost effective for the number of people who will actually use it. Expanding bus service to those areas, especially making some of them express or limited routes would give places like Altgeld Gardens far better service & could do that quite quickly.

I believe that there are many people that will benefit from the Red Line extension.   There's a heavy south suburban ridership from routes like 352, 353, and 359 that currently feed 95th,  with 352 already offering limited stops in the city and 359 operating express north of 119th.   How do you justify the far south side not having L service but suburbs like Evanston,  Skokie,  and Wilmette do?   This isn't negating the need for a rebuilt north main and Purple Line structure through the aforementioned Evanston.   To say that the North Side should come before the South Side is ridiculous.   Whichever project the government funds first will be the first one done.

Most Evanstonians and North Siders aren't going past downtown.   Many far South Side rs and South Suburbanites go past downtown.   If you have a hour plus commute,  why wouldn't it be beneficial to you if the CTA could cut 30 minutes or more off of your travel time or even 15 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

This isn't negating the need for a rebuilt north main and Purple Line structure through the aforementioned Evanston.  

RPM only extends to Rogers Ave.

6 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

that currently feed 95th

As I have indicated though, the current 95th station expansion is inconsistent with alleviating that soon. Maybe not with alleviating that in 2027.

7 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

To say that the North Side should come before the South Side is ridiculous.   Whichever project the government funds first will be the first one done.

That's certainly the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By BusHunter
      There is an article today that talks about the brown line flyover. I'm surprised they have to demolish up to 16 houses for this? Can't they just build over the existing structure?
       
      http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140417/lakeview/ctas-belmont-station-bypass-16-lakeview-buildings-needed
    • By newport
      (starting a new thread since this topic really didn't fit under the Red-Purple Modernization thread)

      It looks like the Dan Ryan branch track project is going to roll out as someone else originally projected many weeks ago – a complete shutdown of the south branch of the Red Line from just south of Roosevelt to 95th. Subsequent to that post, I had heard that the CTA was going to offer a second option of weekend-only work for 4 years, but that the preferred plan was the complete 5-month shutdown. They had decided to present the second, weekend-only option, in order to give the appearance that they were offering the community and aldermen an option.

      Well, it now looks like the weekend-only closures option is not seriously being considered. They are going with the complete shutdown plan. The complete Dan Ryan branch shutdown will begin in spring 2013 and last through the summer.

      The details are basically as Mayfield laid out weeks ago:
      Red Line will shut down completely from south of Roosevelt station to 95th in spring 2013 The shutdown will continue for 5 months Southbound Red line trains will be rerouted to Green line tracks after stopping at Roosevelt and will serve all Green line stops to Ashland/63rd Express bus shuttles will run from Garfield Green station to 63rd, 69th, 79, 87th, and 95th Red. there will be other additional supplemental bus service
      One thing that changed since Mayfield outlined this plan is that the CTA intends to offer some free and discounted fares to some riders affected by the shutdown. This helped to ensure the support of the aldermen, at least in one office I am aware of. Not sure of the extent of these free fares. This is still under discussion. I heard possibly free shuttle buses and free fares boarding at Garfield Greenline station.

      Also, the CTA has reached out to and received the support of the Chicago Urban League (for support on hiring issues?). As I hear it, the big selling point is the number of jobs this project will create.

      This information is for your information and discussion. I have no official proof I will post, and no official sources I will identify. Doing so would probably cut off my source of info.
      .

    • By BusHunter
      Looks like they are putting a switch in from track 1 to track 2, just south of Lawrence/Red line. I guess that's part of the preliminary work that needs to be done before the project will start. Looks like they are starting at track 1 and working they're way to four, unlike both Belmont and Fullerton/Red line which was the opposite.
    • By BusHunter
      I took a few pictures of the Clark/Division station on the Red line. At street level, on Lasalle, they already have concrete staircases in place and the big hole over Division has been filled. Looks like they want to open up the street for November. At platform level, they have now opened up an area on the east side of the station and we can now see the decorative ceiling tiles they are installing. They also have one light bar installed, and the marble sheeting on the floor of the station in that section. (pictures from left to right are: Lasalle SE corner, Lasalle NE corner, station ceiling, station lightbar, station floor)




    • By Kevin
      There was some discussion on CTA Tattler today regarding the upcoming Red & Purple Modernization Project public scoping meetings.

      There are more details about all of the proposed alternatives in the Notice of Intent filed with the FTA. (Credit to Hugh Bartling for finding this document.)

      First, there's the "No Action Alternative" which would do nothing. The "Basic Rehabilitation Alternative" would essentially put lipstick on a pig, while the "Basic Rehabilitation with Transfer Stations Alternative" would add Purple Line transfer stations at Wilson and Loyola.

      Both the "Modernization 4-Track Alternative" and "Modernization 3-Track Alternative" would permanently close four stations: South Blvd, Jarvis, Thorndale, and Lawrence. Both of these options would replace the existing structure and embankment with "modern concrete aerial structure" while also rebuilding most stations. The 3-Track option would allow for Purple Line Express service in only a single direction.

      The "Modernization 2-Track Underground Alternative" would replace most of the existing Red Line structure with a two-track subway. Trains would transition below ground after Belmont, following the Brown Line tracks and then running under Sheffield/Sheridan to the intersection of Sheridan and Broadway, where they would then run under Broadway until returning to elevated just north of Loyola. Subway stations would be constructed at Addison, Irving Park, Wilson, Foster, Bryn Mawr, Glenlake, and Devon/Loyola. Purple Line Express service would be discontinued in favor of more frequent local service. I created a map of what this proposed subway portion would look like. (Not that I actually expect this to ever get built.)

      Public meetings will be held in Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, and Evanston next week to get input on the alternatives.
×