Red-Purple Bypass Project

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

...

I was trying to think where is there an interlocking that's concrete and federal junction comes to mind. I wonder if there is a special support there?

Federal Junction is weird. It's steel supporting the tracks and concrete guard walls along the tracks. Drive under it (or Google Streetview it) and you'll see what I mean.

[BusHunter]

Federal Junction is weird. It's steel supporting the tracks and concrete guard walls along the tracks. Drive under it (or Google Streetview it) and you'll see what I mean.

Now why didn't I think of that!! Googlemaps link below:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1800+S+Clark+St/@41.857532,-87.630209,3a,90y,294.66h,122.27t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sK7aOgChJhkiDVQc_oBYkhA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x880e2c8851c0a761:0xa174aac7a238a8ef!6m1!1e1

Or this one if you want to see it from another angle

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.857757,-87.630216,3a,75y,171.92h,105.12t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYi63KQfOSEJLFqHr-L0sSQ!2e0!6m1!1e1

[Busjack]

Blair Kamin column, with the condemnation and architect's perspective, pointed out that Robert Moses couldn't find anything in NY that he couldn't demolish, and the law changed because of that.

[strictures]

Blair Kamin column, with the condemnation and architect's perspective, pointed out that Robert Moses couldn't find anything in NY that he couldn't demolish, and the law changed because of that.

Except that Moses was against public transportation.

He was for cars only.

The Long Island Parkway was deliberately built with bridges over it that have just nine feet of clearance, so buses couldn't use it.

As they replace worn out bridges, they're raising the clearances.

If you haven't read "The Power Broker" it's a must read for anyone interest in transportation or public policy & government. He made Mike Madigan look like a powerless wimp!

[Busjack]

Except that Moses was against public transportation.

He was for cars only.

The Long Island Parkway was deliberately built with bridges over it that have just nine feet of clearance, so buses couldn't use it.

As they replace worn out bridges, they're raising the clearances.

If you haven't read "The Power Broker" it's a must read for anyone interest in transportation or public policy & government. He made Mike Madigan look like a powerless wimp!

By the time I was in upstate New York, it was too late to make an assessment of that, but about everything in the state, including the Niagara Falls power station and parkway were named after him. He gets the credit/blame for destroying the Bronx with the Cross-Bronx Expressway, and apparently wanted to do the same thing to Manhattan to extend I-495 across it.

That was also about the time the legal concept of "quick take" eminent domain took hold. Before then, the public authority would have to sue first to take property and couldn't take it until the court ruled on compensation, but the theory followed most places now is that the public authority can (after attempting a negotiated purchase) take immediately upon making a deposit, and the owner has to sue if the owner thinks he was lowballed. The reference in in the column to the "legacy of the Moses-Jacobs confrontation" is to the required federal environmental assessment and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, both of which must be followed if there is any federal contribution to the project.

One time when the environmental laws did block a project was the Overton Park case. If you check a map, you'll see that I-40 does not extend across Memphis, because the Save Overton Park committee actually did.

[artthouwill]

Based on the Flyover's proponents, flyovers should be built at Lake/Wells and Wabash/Van Buren. I've had to sit and watch Purple, Brown, Pink, and Orange trains go through while my Green Line train sat trying to go eastvbound to get to Clark/Lake, only to have to wait at Adams/Wabash for Brown and Orange Line trains to clear Van Buren. By the time I got off at 35th, the next Green Line train (which is supposed to be 8 minutes later) was actually right behind us.

Seriously I don't expect that to be done, and I don't think a flyover is necessary for the Brown Line. Years ago, maybe a double deck would've been financially feasible whereas the Evanston trains would run express on the upper level between Clark Junction and Armitage, returning to the express track after the Howard trains descended into the subway. Right now delays are minimal and I don't forsee an increase in traffic that would necessitate a flyover.

[Busjack]

Based on the Flyover's proponents, flyovers should be built at Lake/Wells and Wabash/Van Buren. ...

I've said about as much, but figure how much the condemnation would then cost.

Also, they probably would need another deck on the Wells St. bridge, which CDOT just replaced.

[strictures]

Based on the Flyover's proponents, flyovers should be built at Lake/Wells and Wabash/Van Buren. I've had to sit and watch Purple, Brown, Pink, and Orange trains go through while my Green Line train sat trying to go eastbound to get to Clark/Lake, only to have to wait at Adams/Wabash for Brown and Orange Line trains to clear Van Buren. By the time I got off at 35th, the next Green Line train (which is supposed to be 8 minutes later) was actually right behind us.

Seriously I don't expect that to be done, and I don't think a flyover is necessary for the Brown Line. Years ago, maybe a double deck would've been financially feasible whereas the Evanston trains would run express on the upper level between Clark Junction and Armitage, returning to the express track after the Howard trains descended into the subway. Right now delays are minimal and I don't foresee an increase in traffic that would necessitate a flyover.

I'd like to see the west leg of the Loop L moved to Clinton St, so that the train stations have direct entrances to L stations.

Then they could do a high level bridge over the river & never get stopped when the Wells bridge opens & get a flyover in the process.

But it will never happen & there will never be direct connections to both train stations.

Our corrupt & incompetent politicians just don't have the brains to understand how that would improve the Loop & the city's transportation system as a whole.

[Busjack]

I'd like to see the west leg of the Loop L moved to Clinton St, so that the train stations have direct entrances to L stations....

There was a proposal, maybe 10 years ago, of a 3 level subway under Clinton, with various levels for rapid transit, circulator, and Amtrak.

However, I don't think there are going to be any more Ls, especially in the downtown area, given the need to condemn easements for light and air. That is notwithstanding that some consultant thinks that single column L structures are the answer for everything (except for the Circle Line between Lake and North).

This one probably would have to be at a higher level than the Lake St. L, unless you want to recreate the Tower 18 congestion elsewhere.

[Josh]

Why not work within the existing footprint -

Run the northbound brown track under the other three (crossing over), drop it 1/3 rail car/track height.

As the other three tracks come south from Addison - elevate them 2/3 rail car/track height - forming a full 1 car/track height pass through - and then descending into Belmont Station.

Since the crossover is near to the Belmont stop - the Belmont platform sections might need to be raised to accommodate the needed drop run.

Sounds like a lot of money ? Compared to the current plan - it would be a bargain - using the existing superstructure.

(with some of the saved money soundproof the whole thing - similar to the IIT enclosure)

[Busjack]

Why not work within the existing footprint -

Run the northbound brown track under the other three (crossing over), drop it 1/3 rail car/track height.

As the other three tracks come south from Addison - elevate them 2/3 rail car/track height - forming a full 1 car/track height pass through - and then descending into Belmont Station.

Since the crossover is near to the Belmont stop - the Belmont platform sections might need to be raised to accommodate the needed drop run.

Sounds like a lot of money ? Compared to the current plan - it would be a bargain - using the existing superstructure.

(with some of the saved money soundproof the whole thing - similar to the IIT enclosure)

I answered after you posted on the CTA Tattler, so won't do so again.

[BusHunter]

The only way you could do that is run the flyunder at grade or raise the existing structure. Better to work on one track structure than four. Btw, I was noticing one building on the west side of sheffield north of the brown line turn is being gutted.Maybe for demolition. I don't know what would possess someone to do new construction there now if that's what it is.

[jtrosario]

The only way you could do that is run the flyunder at grade or raise the existing structure. Better to work on one track structure than four. Btw, I was noticing one building on the west side of sheffield north of the brown line turn is being gutted.Maybe for demolition. I don't know what would possess someone to do new construction there now if that's what it is.

Greed. Even on road projects where properties are marked for future condemnation, developers will develop them "while they still can" and place a clause in the sales or rental contract that they are not responsible should a govenmental agency choose to condemn that same property.

If that is one of the identified properties being used for the future brown line flyover, one would have hoped that the city wouldn't issue a permit for major renovations or new construction.

[BusHunter]

Yeah but based on eminent domain wouldn't CTA only be obligated to give them fair market value for the property? If the assessor does not reassess the property before it's sold, how will they then say the property is worth more money? Wouldn't they then take a loss on the new construction costs?

[Busjack]

Yeah but based on eminent domain wouldn't CTA only be obligated to give them fair market value for the property? If the assessor does not reassess the property before it's sold, how will they then say the property is worth more money? Wouldn't they then take a loss on the new construction costs?

Fair market value is not tax assessed value, but appraised value as of the date of the taking. Both sides hire appraisers to testify in court. Until there is a declaration of taking, and CTA has indicated that it isn't taking anything until 2017, the property owner has the right to use the property, and the city is not allowed to withhold permits on that basis.

What I mentioned before was in effect the opposite. Condemnation blight is the damage suffered by a landowner if the threat of condemnation makes the property unsellable, in which case the value is of when the condemnation was threatened. Since appraised value includes the highest and best use, if someone whose property is taken in 2017 says that its highest and best use in 2014 is whatever he intended to construct, that (minus construction cost) is what CTA would have to pay.

But, essentially, CTA has to pay the higher value either way, unless it does not take the property, nor any step to occupy it physically.

jtrosario is correct only in the sense of the highway construction, or maybe more clearly land acquisition for the Peotone Airport. Some in Peotone sold out to the state, but those who refused to do so can use their land as they wish, until such time as it is condemned. That mess has been going on for about 15 years. Now, whether they can sell their farms to someone else may be another question, but in that case, I guess they can always sell to the bankrupt state.

[tuna]

Very interesting analysis in this thread. I also read the Blair Kamin article that was posted here. I am still surprised that there is so much opposition. It seems like a great idea to me.

The north side L is terrible. My daily 4.5 mile commute on the brown line averages about 11mph including stops if there are no "waiting for signal clearance" delays (which there often are). The Munich U-Bahn averages 22mph. And the L is really serves the functions of both their U-Bahn and their S-Bahn, the latter of which averages 31mph across its tracks including stops. What's more, the brown and red line trains are often uncomfortably overcrowded during rush hour. Sometimes you have to wait for multiple trains to pass before one arrives that its even possible to squeeze your way on.

Doing some rough math with the numbers in the 2013 ridership report, it seems that more than 150,000 unique people must ride on the brown, north red, purple, and yellow lines on the average weekday. All those people would be positively impacted by this flyover project. I'm not defending the specifics of how the CTA does capital projects. To be honest their infrastructure is embarrassing. Rail tracks seem to float up and down on the viaducts, too many stations are so old and decrepit they make the Nightly News Special Reports on mold-infested, leaky pipe, crumbling public schools look like episodes of MTV Cribs, and even the newer stations seem incompetently designed. I'm just defending the fact that america, including Chicago, drastically underinvests in urban public transport and has been underinvesting for several decades, and we have a lot of catching up to do to offer the sort of infrastructure that could keep Chicago competitive in the global marketplace.

All the arguments in this thread against the project seem logically indefensible.

The flyover won't save enough time. What's a few minutes to people?

The Blair Kamin article claims that the average delay is 84 seconds. Let's ignore the question of whether this includes the cascading delays as trains have to wait for the trains ahead to clear though Belmont that seem to occur during about every weekday morning and evening rush. And let's round way down. Lets say that each Brown, Purple, Yellow, and Red Line North commuter only saves 30 seconds each way, a total of 1 minute per day. That's at least 150,000 person-minutes per day. That's 2,500 person-hours per day. Times 260 weekdays, thats 650,000 person-hours per year. If you value the average rider's time at $20 per hour, again an extremely conservative estimate of these north siders, that means that in the time value of the riders alone for this project is worth $13 million per year.

Its not a few minutes to a few people. Its a few minutes to many tens of thousands of people. It adds up. It is cumulatively worth a lot. To say that we should ignore the time savings because it is just a minute or two per person is the same logic as saying we should ignore car pollution because any individual car produces negligible pollution that doesn't measurably impact the environment.

This will just move the congestion to the loop entrance.

Firstly there is definitely some capacity that could be added to the red line subway. They could send more red line cars or route some/all purples through the subway.

But besides that, I say, good! Move the congestion to the loop entrance! In software programming its called "iterative development". You don't have the budget and its too risky to modernize the whole system at once. No government is going to plunk down $40 billion to rebuild the whole thing from scratch (or whatever it would cost). You have to develop a sustainable, repeatable program of constant incremental improvement. A brown line flyover is a perfect example of a project that can provide some amount of benefits now and also positions us to take advantage of further incremental improvements in the future, such as straightening kinks or modifying the loop to handle higher capacity and higher operating speeds. This flyover is pretty much a required part of any conceivable plan to improve brown line operating speeds from their current abysmal 10-11mph averages to something approaching first world standards. There's nothing we can do to improve the service overnight, the improvements have to be made incrementally over time.

But... but.... 16 sovereign properties that the city is socializing!

How dare those property owners throw such fits over what amounts to an inconvenience: they will be fully compensated for the value of their property and their moving costs. This is a question of 16 properties versus 150,000 citizens. From the earlier math, I found that at least 2,500 person-hours would be saved per day. CTA riders will save more time each weekday than the residents of those 16 properties are cumulatively alive each weekday.

Its high and loud, its a blight to the neighborhood!

Nobody can deny that the CTA trains squeal around turns horrendously, and create uncomfortable sound levels while just traveling straight down the metal viaducts. But what not all residents might know is that this isn't an inherent attribute of rail. This is a symptom of CTA mediocrity. There are multiple methods for eliminating that squeal, including better maintenance, better lubrication, and different train designs. There are cities in europe where the trams run around so quietly that even on silent streets they can creep up right behind you and you wouldn't even notice until they ring their bell at you. As far the vibrations generated by the vibration of the viaducts, this is something that is sometimes alleviated by rubber mounting pads. Why can't they be implemented in chicago?

Very weird to me that this public transport forum would be so negative to a huge investment in public transport!

[Busjack]

...

Very weird to me that this public transport forum would be so negative to a huge investment in public transport!

I don't know if you live here, but it certainly isn't Europe.

The reasons the system here is so decrepit include:

• Regional planning is nonexistent or a joke. For instance, research and try to explain why the strong arm was placed on the planning agencies to approve the Iliiana Tollway, which our lying governor said would not be built unless it were privately financed and then tried to push through a bill that the Tollway would get first dibs on state transportation money. When this was initially going through the system, some of the transit representatives to the planning agencies voted against it, but apparently the political squeeze was put on them, and they eventually passed it. This Sun-Times article sort of summarizes the process.
• Just about anything proposed is a band-aid on an 120 year old system. The only thing reconstructed from scratch was the part of the Pink Line now on concrete supports, and that was in the early 2000s. There was enough state money to dig up the Red Line South, but the CTA Construction Dept. posted reports claiming in 2007 that it was fixed. More typical was the Brown Line Project, where they spent a half billion, My initial question was "why didn't they do the flyover then," to which the obvious answer became "they didn't have the 1/3 billion for that then." The current Blue Line project is no different--they are just putting patches on a 120 or so year old L structure. Maybe they'll get the 6 mph slow zones up to 15 mph.
• The previous implies the next--as Homer Simpson and Shary Bobbins say, "do a half assed job; that's the American Way." The half billion Brown Line project supposedly included replacing substations, except there were another 2 substations that subsequently had to be replaced. They used wooden planks on the platforms that were not pressure treated and needed to be replaced. So, if you think the Brown Line is bad now, that's after a half billion of work. The Pink Line has slow zones, although having been completely rebuilt. As noted on the CTA Accidents topic, it hasn't been said what caused the recent derailment, but the track and signal system was recently rebuilt.
• Apparently the federal transportation program is a con, in that the feds are more than willing to give out planning grants but not construction money to transit, at least not to Chicago. So, planners scare the you know what out of residents by saying stuff like the Yellow Line terminal should be built on school property, no left turns should be allowed on 16 miles of Ashland Ave., or in this case, the environmental effects Blair Kamin noted, while nothing gets built. (On the historically nothing gets built point, look at the Transit Plans page on chicago-l.org, and add to that various plans for LRV circulators and the like.) Like the Internal Revenue Code has been characterized as "The Accountants and Lawyers Relief Act," I characterize transportation bills as consultants relief acts.
• I don't know if you have researched the apparently dead Fitzgerald Task Force on the manner transit is managed by 4 politically motivated, but at least 3 incompetent of the 4 boards. That's not a way to present a united front on trying to get capital funding, especially when the supervising board is incompetent and the 4 boards fight over bonding authority.
• President Obama announced a "Core Capacity Program" with a suggested (but not appropriated) $120 million budget, and somehow Chicago pols think that they have a sole claim to about $4 billion to build this, the whole RPM, plus the Ashland BRT.
• The undemocratic methods used by the Daley Administration, and certainly Emanuel and his incompetent flunky Claypool do not inspire confidence in the neighborhoods.
• State funding depends on various 5 year bond issues, to cover which license plate stickers keep being increased for purposes unrelated to license plates, beer, liquor, pop, and similar taxes are increased, but only enough to cover the 5 year program. The last one was stuck in litigation for two years, and apparently has run out, or is soon to.
• What CTA has purchased with Gov. Ryan bond money was a waste of money. Look up NABI and Optima. However, those bonds are still outstanding. CTA also wasted reportedly about $217 million on Mayor Daley's useless Block 37 station.
• The Federal Highway Trust Fund (gasoline tax), on which transit relies but to which transit riders do not contribute, is broke. As a result of gerrymandering, we have a congressional delegation which isn't able to bring home that bacon, anyway. Any congressman (Dold, Biggert) who was interested in transit was gerrymandered out of office.

That's probably enough for now, but, essentially, the people who floated this plan cannot be trusted.

[artthouwill]

Very interesting analysis in this thread. I also read the Blair Kamin article that was posted here. I am still surprised that there is so much opposition. It seems like a great idea to me.

The north side L is terrible. My daily 4.5 mile commute on the brown line averages about 11mph including stops if there are no "waiting for signal clearance" delays (which there often are). The Munich U-Bahn averages 22mph. And the L is really serves the functions of both their U-Bahn and their S-Bahn, the latter of which averages 31mph across its tracks including stops. What's more, the brown and red line trains are often uncomfortably overcrowded during rush hour. Sometimes you have to wait for multiple trains to pass before one arrives that its even possible to squeeze your way on.

Doing some rough math with the numbers in the 2013 ridership report, it seems that more than 150,000 unique people must ride on the brown, north red, purple, and yellow lines on the average weekday. All those people would be positively impacted by this flyover project. I'm not defending the specifics of how the CTA does capital projects. To be honest their infrastructure is embarrassing. Rail tracks seem to float up and down on the viaducts, too many stations are so old and decrepit they make the Nightly News Special Reports on mold-infested, leaky pipe, crumbling public schools look like episodes of MTV Cribs, and even the newer stations seem incompetently designed. I'm just defending the fact that america, including Chicago, drastically underinvests in urban public transport and has been underinvesting for several decades, and we have a lot of catching up to do to offer the sort of infrastructure that could keep Chicago competitive in the global marketplace.

All the arguments in this thread against the project seem logically indefensible.

The flyover won't save enough time. What's a few minutes to people?

The Blair Kamin article claims that the average delay is 84 seconds. Let's ignore the question of whether this includes the cascading delays as trains have to wait for the trains ahead to clear though Belmont that seem to occur during about every weekday morning and evening rush. And let's round way down. Lets say that each Brown, Purple, Yellow, and Red Line North commuter only saves 30 seconds each way, a total of 1 minute per day. That's at least 150,000 person-minutes per day. That's 2,500 person-hours per day. Times 260 weekdays, thats 650,000 person-hours per year. If you value the average rider's time at $20 per hour, again an extremely conservative estimate of these north siders, that means that in the time value of the riders alone for this project is worth $13 million per year.

Its not a few minutes to a few people. Its a few minutes to many tens of thousands of people. It adds up. It is cumulatively worth a lot. To say that we should ignore the time savings because it is just a minute or two per person is the same logic as saying we should ignore car pollution because any individual car produces negligible pollution that doesn't measurably impact the environment.

This will just move the congestion to the loop entrance.

Firstly there is definitely some capacity that could be added to the red line subway. They could send more red line cars or route some/all purples through the subway.

But besides that, I say, good! Move the congestion to the loop entrance! In software programming its called "iterative development". You don't have the budget and its too risky to modernize the whole system at once. No government is going to plunk down $40 billion to rebuild the whole thing from scratch (or whatever it would cost). You have to develop a sustainable, repeatable program of constant incremental improvement. A brown line flyover is a perfect example of a project that can provide some amount of benefits now and also positions us to take advantage of further incremental improvements in the future, such as straightening kinks or modifying the loop to handle higher capacity and higher operating speeds. This flyover is pretty much a required part of any conceivable plan to improve brown line operating speeds from their current abysmal 10-11mph averages to something approaching first world standards. There's nothing we can do to improve the service overnight, the improvements have to be made incrementally over time.

But... but.... 16 sovereign properties that the city is socializing!

How dare those property owners throw such fits over what amounts to an inconvenience: they will be fully compensated for the value of their property and their moving costs. This is a question of 16 properties versus 150,000 citizens. From the earlier math, I found that at least 2,500 person-hours would be saved per day. CTA riders will save more time each weekday than the residents of those 16 properties are cumulatively alive each weekday.

Its high and loud, its a blight to the neighborhood!

Nobody can deny that the CTA trains squeal around turns horrendously, and create uncomfortable sound levels while just traveling straight down the metal viaducts. But what not all residents might know is that this isn't an inherent attribute of rail. This is a symptom of CTA mediocrity. There are multiple methods for eliminating that squeal, including better maintenance, better lubrication, and different train designs. There are cities in europe where the trams run around so quietly that even on silent streets they can creep up right behind you and you wouldn't even notice until they ring their bell at you. As far the vibrations generated by the vibration of the viaducts, this is something that is sometimes alleviated by rubber mounting pads. Why can't they be implemented in chicago?

Very weird to me that this public transport forum would be so negative to a huge investment in public transport!

I'm sorry but I believe your logic is flawed here. Unlike the Englewood Flyover that Metra is building, the time savings of 1 minute per day is miniscule. Amtrak and freight trains that travel through the area of 63rd/Wentworth can be delayed up to 3 hours. Now who is really losing time? When that flyover is completed later this year, off peak Metra trains won't see delays there and gridlock of 70 plus freight and Amtrak trains disappear.

Using your logic of a person's time being $20 per hour, one person is losing about 33 cents in a day. Compare that to the minimum of $60 for that Amtrak delay, which doesn't count any costs of time for missed connections to Thruway buses at Union Station or missed flights at the airports. We won't even talk about freight trains that are going through Chicago that spend up to three days in the area because of congestion. These things make the Englewood Flyover justifiable. A one minute delay through the course of 6 hours does not justify a flyover. Even if built, the flyover would not eliminate current SB train conflicts between Brown and Purple Line trains. Even if you routed Purple Line trains through the subway, all you have done is shift the conflict from Brown and Purple to Red and Purple, with Red having as high or higher frequency than Brown Line trains. Thus in reality, if you are blaming the lack of a flyover for delays, you are really only losing 30 seconds in a day.

Lets not forget the delays for convenience sake of Brown and Purple Line trains standing at Belmont and Fullerton stations waiting for REd Line trains so people from these lines can freely transfer to the others anf vice versa (meaning Red Line trains also stand and wait for Brown and Purples). Should CTA stop that practice which probably adds an additional two minutes to each commute on each line?

The best solution years ago would've been to double deck the train lines between Belmont and Armitage and not eliminate the express tracks between Armitage and Chicago/Franklin, but since neither happened, we're where we are now. Perhaps if the CTA can actually get funding for the NSM Red/Purple Line rebuild, perhaps moving the Red Line into a subway and keeping Purple limited stop but elevated would drastically reduce delays.

[Busjack]

.. Perhaps if the CTA can actually get funding for the NSM Red/Purple Line rebuild, perhaps moving the Red Line into a subway and keeping Purple limited stop but elevated would drastically reduce delays.

I was with you to this last sentence, which typifies what's wrong with the consultant process.

One of the alternatives for the RPM was a subway, but essentially north of Addison, since CTA had just put the big bucks into the Fullerton and Belmont station rebuilds. Hence, that wouldn't have affected the Clark Jct. mess.

However, that alternative was soon taken off the table, since $200+ million for the Wilson station, and about $100 million for the Bryn Mawr station indicate that the current footprint is not going to be moved.

But on your general point, the lack of prioritization as typified by the Englewood flyover vs. this one is correct. That's why I got into a snit about the plan Preckwinkle apparently was the face of for a Cook County wide tax basically only for unprioritized CTA projects, without considering Metra and giving lip service to Pace.

[BusHunter]

The consensus seems to be also that they want to increase the frequency of the trains that serve the red line but can't because of the slowdown at belmont. They want to increase capacity because studies say ridership will increase over the next 25 years there. They could probably get alot more out of 10 car trains. I believe somewhere in the future they will have a project that addresses this, but it will either coincide with the opening of the 130th extension or be soon after it.

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/06/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-ctas-red-line-rebuild/

[Busjack]

The consensus seems to be also that they want to increase the frequency of the trains that serve the red line but can't because of the slowdown at belmont. They want to increase capacity because studies say ridership will increase over the next 25 years there. They could probably get alot more out of 10 car trains. I believe somewhere in the future they will have a project that addresses this, but it will either coincide with the opening of the 130th extension or be soon after it.

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/06/19/everything-you-need-to-know-about-ctas-red-line-rebuild/

However, when I raised the issue on the CTA Tattler whether there actually was an operating plan to increase service, I was hooted off.

Also, one has to consider that the 130th extension is supposedly not part of the Core Capacity program, and the last word was "no funding source has been identified."

[tuna]

I'm sorry but I believe your logic is flawed here. Unlike the Englewood Flyover that Metra is building, the time savings of 1 minute per day is miniscule. Amtrak and freight trains that travel through the area of 63rd/Wentworth can be delayed up to 3 hours. Now who is really losing time? When that flyover is completed later this year, off peak Metra trains won't see delays there and gridlock of 70 plus freight and Amtrak trains disappear....

I didn't even know about the Englewood Flyover. That also seems like a very worthwhile project. Of course we should do both. Also, I understand that you are saying "up to three hours vs. 1 minute", and I want to respond that (1) I never meant to imply that a different project (that I didn't even know about) was less valuable and (2) that rather than comparing the delay per person the more logical metric is to compare the cumulative delay across the ridership. Say Amtrak trains are all delayed 3 hours but only 1,000 people ride Amtrak, that's a 3,000 person-hour per day delay. That's what it is important.

[Busjack]

I didn't even know about the Englewood Flyover. That also seems like a very worthwhile project. Of course we should do both. Also, I understand that you are saying "up to three hours vs. 1 minute", and I want to respond that (1) I never meant to imply that a different project (that I didn't even know about) was less valuable and (2) that rather than comparing the delay per person the more logical metric is to compare the cumulative delay across the ridership. Say Amtrak trains are all delayed 3 hours but only 1,000 people ride Amtrak, that's a 3,000 person-hour per day delay. That's what it is important.

If your issue is that there is a dollar value to passenger delay (and CTA admitted that it misrepresented the extent of current delays, more like 84 seconds than 3 or 4 minutes), why don't the people who would be benefited financially pay--i.e. the passengers. Tell us how much fares should be increased to raise the $320 million in bond money, instead of the usual b.s. about "a funding source has not been identified."

And, of course, your "of course we should do both" ignores the limited resources and endorses the lack of regional planning I mentioned. A similar approach was taken with TIGER applications, including a Tollway-Pace one to put CNG express buses on the Tollway (on a route that was later tried with JARC, and failed miserably), and that the feds should pay for the I-294 I-57 interchange, which the the Tollway authority later found to the money to pay for itself. Guess the only grant that was approved--you guessed it--the CREATE grant for the Englewood Flyover.

So. Mr. spend without priorities--you tell Emanuel where the money is, since he can't find it. Maybe raising the average collected fare from $1.10 (see CTA financial reports) to $4.00 may do the job. Or tell us what tax you are personally willing to pay an increased amount to Illinois politicians.

[tuna]

If your issue is that there is a dollar value to passenger delay (and CTA admitted that it misrepresented the extent of current delays, more like 84 seconds than 3 or 4 minutes), why don't the people who would be benefited financially pay--i.e. the passengers. Tell us how much fares should be increased to raise the $320 million in bond money, instead of the usual b.s. about "a funding source has not been identified."...

I look at it with a lot of different facts in mind.

First of all, it would not be economically efficient for the public transport system to be funded by fare collection alone, it would lead to underinvestment and the sacrifice of millions of dollars in benefits to the community. You mention that it is the passengers who benefit financially, but that is just one group; there are some academic studies that indicate that increases in property values are an even bigger generation of value from public transport. Finally, providing efficient public transport that allows poorer people to get around the city to and from jobs at a low cost is a very financially efficient form of welfare.

I also believe that it is the federal government that funds almost all public transport capital projects and so it should be the federal government that foots the bill for this. Illinoisans and Chicagoans pay more than our fair share of federal taxes and we deserve to see some of that money back here reinvesting in our state instead of only going to poorer states and states with lots of retirees. Illinois is consistently one of the worst states for the net difference between the amount of federal taxes that are collected in the state and the amount of federal expenditures that are spent in the state. Similarly, we are also consistently one of the worst states for federal spending as a percentage of federal taxation. Check out this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

In 2013 alone, over $76 Billion was sucked out of Illinois in federal taxes collected that didn't come back. That's the third worst net amount after California and New York, but we actually do much worse than them in percentage terms. They see 68% and 58% of the federal taxes collected back in their states, respectively, while Illinois only sees 44%. The federal government spends trillions of dollars a year. I could easily find hundreds of billions that would be better invested in chicago. Cut bridges to nowhere. Cut agricultural subsidies. Negotiate better deals with pharmaceutical companies for medicare and medicaid. Hold defense contractors responsible for ballooning program costs.

[artthouwill]

I look at it with a lot of different facts in mind.

First of all, it would not be economically efficient for the public transport system to be funded by fare collection alone, it would lead to underinvestment and the sacrifice of millions of dollars in benefits to the community. You mention that it is the passengers who benefit financially, but that is just one group; there are some academic studies that indicate that increases in property values are an even bigger generation of value from public transport. Finally, providing efficient public transport that allows poorer people to get around the city to and from jobs at a low cost is a very financially efficient form of welfare.

I also believe that it is the federal government that funds almost all public transport capital projects and so it should be the federal government that foots the bill for this. Illinoisans and Chicagoans pay more than our fair share of federal taxes and we deserve to see some of that money back here reinvesting in our state instead of only going to poorer states and states with lots of retirees. Illinois is consistently one of the worst states for the net difference between the amount of federal taxes that are collected in the state and the amount of federal expenditures that are spent in the state. Similarly, we are also consistently one of the worst states for federal spending as a percentage of federal taxation. Check out this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

In 2013 alone, over $76 Billion was sucked out of Illinois in federal taxes collected that didn't come back. That's the third worst net amount after California and New York, but we actually do much worse than them in percentage terms. They see 68% and 58% of the federal taxes collected back in their states, respectively, while Illinois only sees 44%. The federal government spends trillions of dollars a year. I could easily find hundreds of billions that would be better invested in chicago. Cut bridges to nowhere. Cut agricultural subsidies. Negotiate better deals with pharmaceutical companies for medicare and medicaid. Hold defense contractors responsible for ballooning program costs.

The problem is that the feds have had to raise the debt ceiling twice within the past year to avoid "defaulting" on the national deficit which keeps going up and up and away. How do you trust a government to fund a system when it can't fund itself? I won't go into an economic dissertation but don't be surprised when the feds go bellyup.

Then the feds have this goofy thing they do in requiring the money it gives out to be spent in a certain amount of time. So most recipients know that if they don't spend, they may not receive anymore and that which they've been given will be taken away. Thus it is smarter to spend foolishly than not to spend at all. For example, there is grant money for BRT. Though it would be smarter (and more cost effective) to just reinstate the eliminated X routes, the money Chicago is getting for BRT has to be spent on BRT (foolishly).