Red Line Extension (RLE)

[Busjack]

WGN News lead-off story that the feds approved the next step for CTA to get $2 billion for RLE.

Update: CTA Press Release.

[strictures]

It wouldn't be needed if that fool Richie Daley had gone along with the mid-1960s plan of moving the South Side Main Line to the IC Mainline to 115th St!

But he wanted the votes he bought from a bunch of South Side ministers & rebuilt it instead, an enormous waste of money as it doesn't enough people, as it's parallel to the Ryan Line less than a mile away!

[artthouwill]

2 minutes ago, strictures said:

It wouldn't be needed if that fool Richie Daley had gone along with the mid-1960s plan of moving the South Side Main Line to the IC Mainline to 115th St!

But he wanted the votes he bought from a bunch of South Side ministers & rebuilt it instead, an enormous waste of money as it doesn't enough people, as it's parallel to the Ryan Line less than a mile away!

Whose idea exactly was it to move the South Side Main Line to the IC Main Line?  How was the IV supposed to operate between Central Station or Randolph Station and points South of 115th?  Was the IC and the South Shore Line supposed to move to the freight tracks and become electrified?  Would CTA have assumed the service on the South Chicago branch? Or would CRA gave taken over the freight trackage rights South of 43rd Street to 115th?  Where would they have put a rail yard?  

[strictures]

8 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Whose idea exactly was it to move the South Side Main Line to the IC Main Line?  How was the IV supposed to operate between Central Station or Randolph Station and points South of 115th?  Was the IC and the South Shore Line supposed to move to the freight tracks and become electrified?  Would CTA have assumed the service on the South Chicago branch? Or would CRA gave taken over the freight trackage rights South of 43rd Street to 115th?  Where would they have put a rail yard?  

The plan was published in the papers at that time.  Made the front page of at least one them as I remember.   The IC Mainline had 10 track then, the widest RR mainline in the world, four under catenary for the commuter lines, two for long distance trains & four freight tracks.  Two of the freight tracks were to be transferred to the CTA south of the St. Charles Airline connection near 14th St.  This was all supposed to be done once the Ryan line went into operation, but it never happened, probably due to lack of money.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, strictures said:

The plan was published in the papers at that time.  Made the front page of at least one them as I remember.

Sort of the same as the Circle Line, the Crosstown Line, the Paulina Line from Ravenswood to the South Side, and anything that @Jstange059 posted as already being implemented. Only thing that came anywhere close was the Gray Line, which raised issues similar to @artthouwill's, and the proponent was coopted and flamed out.

[Nitro]

On 4/17/2014 at 11:11 AM, sw4400 said:

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

This may cause the Red Line to be subjected to FRA Regulations like the PATH here in New York/New Jersey.

[artthouwill]

37 minutes ago, Nitro said:

This may cause the Red Line to be subjected to FRA Regulations like the PATH here in New York/New Jersey.

The Red Line  extension will be built next to the UP freight tracks.  However,the freight tracks are at grade level mostly and the CTA tracks will mostly be elevated.  From Michigan Ave south they can be side by side without any problems as long as there's some separation    CTA already shares embankment with UP on a small portion of the Green Line and CTA runs trains between 2 sets of freight tracks on the Orange line.   Rgw CTA and freight tracks are separated by fences.    

[Nitro]

1 minute ago, artthouwill said:

The Red Line  extension will be built next to the UP freight tracks.  However,the freight tracks are at grade level mostly and the CTA tracks will mostly be elevated.  From Michigan Ave south they can be side by side without any problems as long as there's some separation    CTA already shares embankment with UP on a small portion of the Green Line and CTA runs trains between 2 sets of freight tracks on the Orange line.   Rgw CTA and freight tracks are separated by fences.    

Grade Separation like the Orange & the Green (D) Lines in Boston.

[Busjack]

2 minutes ago, Nitro said:

Grade Separation like the Orange & the Green (D) Lines in Boston.

No, basically grade separation like on the RPM (according to the renderings).

[Nitro]

3 minutes ago, Busjack said:

No, basically grade separation like on the RPM (according to the renderings).

I know about it.

[Busjack]

36 minutes ago, Nitro said:

I know about it.

Then why post a red herring?

[Nitro]

13 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Then why post a red herring?

You have to see the logistics of these projects themselves or whatever challenges may appear. You can't boost your hype for every transit project without criticism or analyzing it logistically. I know this because of someone named BanksRail if you know who he is or not. He mentions a lot about major rail projects in the United States and he's also describes realistic factors about them. He also discusses High Speed Rail though I'm not going to dwell on that since this is a forum for the Red Line Extension only.

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

You have to see the logistics of these projects themselves or whatever challenges may appear. You can't boost your hype for every transit project without criticism or analyzing it logistically. I know this because of someone named BanksRail if you know who he is or not. He mentions a lot about major rail projects in the United States and he's also describes realistic factors about them. He also discusses High Speed Rail though I'm not going to dwell on that since this is a forum for the Red Line Extension only.

I think with documents, consultations and such dating back to 2007 along with a plethora of info on the site shows that it's been looooong analyzed even shows exactly how they plan on routing which from renderings posted show no such issues arising as far as regulations. ?

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Nitro said:

You have to see the logistics of these projects themselves or whatever challenges may appear. You can't boost your hype for every transit project without criticism or analyzing it logistically. I know this because of someone named BanksRail if you know who he is or not. He mentions a lot about major rail projects in the United States and he's also describes realistic factors about them. He also discusses High Speed Rail though I'm not going to dwell on that since this is a forum for the Red Line Extension only.

I  agree with this, but then...

• Why did you propose an L to 49th and Wallace?
• @Sam92 is correct that CTA has studied it adequately. It has also justified it on the bases that passengers on the far south side have a 45-minute bus ride just to an L station, it might encourage TOD in Roseland (I doubt it, but something as to be done), and the route is feasible on an engineering basis. If anything, CTA has over-studied this, in that the NICTD West Lake and Double Track NWI projects are part of the same federal New Starts program, but the NICTD projects will be complete in 2024 while the RLE probably won't break ground until then.

[Busjack]

CTA Press Release that CTA Issues a Request for Proposals (RFP) to Build New Red Line Extension Track Structure and Four Stations.

So, the discussion by the so called transit experts above is essentially moot.

[Sam92]

Looks like somewhere else was discussing a possible 130th st route just like we were at some point here: https://chitransit.org/topic/3648-127th-street-or-increased-service/ . I'd say 359 is the best candidate IMO. The project page says it's due to be sent to 115th but 130th would give the coverage and connect services along 127th. 

[Busjack]

I believe a discussion about bus reroutings if the 130th extension were built was quashed a long time ago as being too speculative, but I couldn't find it. A 130th shuttle between Hegwisch and the Red Line would make sense. Pretty much anything to Blue Island should be Pace (maybe split 348). We had other ideas, such as 353 to 130th, 115, 119 to Michigan-116, 352 to 111th, and interlining 103-106. 355 (which might have covered the 130th shuttle) is now dead. The South Halsted study put a new wrinkle in that plan, by proposing that Pulse still go to 95th and 108 be terminated and replaced by additional 8A service.

I had previously said that the 95th station expansion would become superfluous, but not if it becomes the layover for 3 and 4. Are those buses pulling into the terminal, or laying over on the other side of State St.?

[Sam92]

43 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I believe a discussion about bus reroutings if the 130th extension were built was quashed a long time ago as being too speculative, but I couldn't find it. A 130th shuttle between Hegwisch and the Red Line would make sense. Pretty much anything to Blue Island should be Pace (maybe split 348). We had other ideas, such as 353 to 130th, 115, 119 to Michigan-116, 352 to 111th, and interlining 103-106. 355 (which might have covered the 130th shuttle) is now dead. The South Halsted study put a new wrinkle in that plan, by proposing that Pulse still go to 95th and 108 be terminated and replaced by additional 8A service.

I had previously said that the 95th station expansion would become superfluous, but not if it becomes the layover for 3 and 4. Are those buses pulling into the terminal, or laying over on the other side of State St.?

CTA confirmed a long time ago what the reroute plans were which probably still play out minus some adjustments due to decrowding, and pulse happening since then.  108 gets eliminated, 103/106 is getting combined, 352 was proposed at the time to end at 111th but as you note pulse might change that and I also see the potential for ridership from 95th to south Halsted still being strong enough to retain that plan; 111 combines with the west in of 112 becoming route 111-111th from Pulaski to Corliss. 115 is questionable now because it was still part of the 111 Pullman. The idea back then was a bidirectional loop along 115th, cottage, 95th and Vincennes which no longer makes sense tbh. The Vincennes ridership definitely isn't there. Beverly trips on the 9 get extended, 30 getting extended to the new red line station answers the question of east 130th. 359 is slated to head to 115th but since the distance would be no different and you mentioned anything headed toward blue Island should be handled by pace why not send that to 130th? Reroute it via western to 127th to reduce the duplication with 348  

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

 

I had previously said that the 95th station expansion would become superfluous, but not if it becomes the layover for 3 and 4. Are those buses pulling into the terminal, or laying over on the other side of State St.?

Layovers on state for 3, X4 and the few 4s left that aren't 115th. Still not really enough room for them, and I'm guessing most of 4 was sent to 115th to not crowd state; only 4s that head to the red line are pull-ins. So we're talking every 20 min-1hr headways for those buses. 

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Sam92 said:

Layovers on state for 3, X4 and the few 4s left that aren't 115th. Still not really enough room for them, and I'm guessing most of 4 was sent to 115th to not crowd state; only 4s that head to the red line are pull-ins. So we're talking every 20 min-1hr headways for those buses. 

You answered the question, but I was thinking that if 103, 106, 111, maybe 112, and 119 were yanked out in 6 years, there would then be room.

[Nitro]

On 2/23/2022 at 12:41 AM, MetroShadow said:

Everyone deserves transit, especially those in low-income areas.

Not every neighborhood wants transit, That we can thank NIMBYs and Gated Communities for.

[Nitro]

On 3/7/2018 at 9:26 AM, Busjack said:

 

Apparently we attracted a [fill in the blank] whom I strung along too long challenging his very unsupported assertions, until I finally challenged him to come up with a business case, something he can't do, nor continually argue about. As the two of you indicated above, maybe ignoring it would have been the better course.

The Gray Line would cost less compared to Mid City Transitway, The Chicago Hub, Second Avenue Subway,

Gateway Program, & Penn Station Access because the infrastructure is already there. They could boost the Metra Electric headways or make the Chicago branch 24/7 if they wanted to. I doubt that the 24/7 thing would happen.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

The Gray Line would cost less compared to Mid City Transitway, The Chicago Hub, Second Avenue Subway,

Gateway Program, & Penn Station Access because the infrastructure is already there. They could boost the Metra Electric headways or make the Chicago branch 24/7 if they wanted to. I doubt that the 24/7 thing would happen.

Apparently, though, that train has left the station and derailed. You can look up the history in the Gray Line topic. Maybe something like Fair Transit Chicago can get more people on ME, but the problems still remain of lack of direct connections to the L system and north and west sides, incompatible fare collection methods, and inability to separate local and mainline platforms. `I'm sure NY doesn't require that passengers to Harlem transfer to a commuter train at Penn Station.

[Nitro]

50 minutes ago, Busjack said:

Apparently, though, that train has left the station and derailed. You can look up the history in the Gray Line topic. Maybe something like Fair Transit Chicago can get more people on ME, but the problems still remain of lack of direct connections to the L system and north and west sides, incompatible fare collection methods, and inability to separate local and mainline platforms. `I'm sure NY doesn't require that passengers to Harlem transfer to a commuter train at Penn Station.

I mean look at the Triboro Rx or the London Overground both mimic the subway system. The railroads can run more trains and handle additional capacity. It's amazing when you look at it.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Nitro said:

I mean look at the Triboro Rx or the London Overground both mimic the subway system. The railroads can run more trains and handle additional capacity. It's amazing when you look at it.

Why don't you look at what's going on in Chicago? Your premise that the railroads can handle the traffic is FALSE. If you had read the Gray Line topic, the original theory was that the Highliners were just sitting in the yard midday. Then some consultant told the advocate that the cars would take too long to board and unload, and a new fleet of single-level cars would be needed. The cost of that finally killed the idea.

Now, you answer this question: Shouldn't NYC replace its subway with elevated railroads, like Chicago has, because the subways flood? That's less frivolous than your "why doesn't Chicago do what ... does" line of scattershot.

And if you are arguing costs, after finally securing federal funds, do you think Chicago is going to give $2 billion back so NY can get it?