If I ran Transit for one day...

[Rail Introvert]

 

[Busjack]

22 hours ago, Rail Introvert said:

 

Old stuff. Actually several things new and impossible. He's willing to destroy Albany Park, which I assume the neighborhood is going to protest vociferously. Throwing in stuff like a new subway starting at Western, and the cost of boring, he doesn't say how much it would cost or who would pay for it.

One thing I noted on the channel page is "Not associated with BTHS."  A search for that came up with Brooklyn Technical High School. Their main project is extending the 7 Line to Queens. I think we have another (possibly more intelligent) version of @nitro.

 

[Sam92]

On 2/23/2024 at 8:38 PM, Busjack said:

Old stuff. Actually several things new and impossible. He's willing to destroy Albany Park, which I assume the neighborhood is going to protest vociferously. Throwing in stuff like a new subway starting at Western, and the cost of boring, he doesn't say how much it would cost or who would pay for it.

One thing I noted on the channel page is "Not associated with BTHS."  A search for that came up with Brooklyn Technical High School. Their main project is extending the 7 Line to Queens. I think we have another (possibly more intelligent) version of @nitro.

 

 

On 2/23/2024 at 2:58 PM, Rail Introvert said:

 

Maybe an X81 would be a better substitute due to ROW issues. Or just bringing back X80

[artthouwill]

5 hours ago, Sam92 said:

 

Maybe an X81 would be a better substitute due to ROW issues. Or just bringing back X80

Two things

1.  Is the law banning construction of L routes over city streets still in effect?  If so, that would mean tunneling would be the only ( and very expensive) way to extend the Brown Line to Jefferson Park.   Other than that, the law would have to be changed. 

2. The X80 was the first of the X routes and was originally designed to connect the north side to the Blue Line  in lieu of a  Brown Line extension.   Irving Park was chosen because it has two lanes in each direction and has better traffic flow than Lawrence  .  This works well for those who can make the bus their first ride.  But if someone begins their trip in the NSM,  especially with luggage, they are going to opt for the single transfer downtown. 

[Busjack]

5 hours ago, Sam92 said:

 

Maybe an X81 would be a better substitute due to ROW issues. Or just bringing back X80

X80 would make more sense if the object were the original one to connect La Linea Rojo to La Linea Azul to O'Hare (according to the car card), as Irving Park is wide enough; Lawrence is too congested. On the other hand, a Lawrence Shuttle between Kimball and Jefferson Park with one stop at Pulaski (pronounced Pool-las-sky in NY; I'm not kidding) might make sense.

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Is the law banning construction of L routes over city streets still in effect? 

I don't know if there is such a law, but CDOT or CTA would have to condemn the adjoining property owners' easements of light and access. Won't happen. Places where new structures are being built (RPM) are subject to preexisting easements for transportation purposes (originally held by the C, M & StP).

[artthouwill]

10 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I don't know if there is such a law, but CDOT or CTA would have to condemn the adjoining property owners' easements of light and access. Won't happen. Places where new structures are being built (RPM) are subject to preexisting easements for transportation purposes (originally held by the C, M & StP).

Supposedly that law lead to L structures being built in or near alleys or other abandoned or between r.o w., expressway medians and the like.  However there was consideration for building the Orange Line extension to Ford City over Cicero Ave south of Marquette.  I also think building the RLE over Halsted was considered before ultimately choosing the UP r.o.w.

[Busjack]

40 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

Supposedly that law lead to L structures being built in or near alleys or other abandoned or between r.o w., expressway medians and the like.  However there was consideration for building the Orange Line extension to Ford City over Cicero Ave south of Marquette.  I also think building the RLE over Halsted was considered before ultimately choosing the UP r.o.w.

Most of that stuff was Alternatives Analyses that never progressed. The Orange Line one was to be the side of Cicero, but, in any event, IDOT would have to agree to let CTA build on Cicero or the parkway adjoining it. IDOT even had to agree to Pace building Pulse shelters adjoining Milwaukee Ave., including in Chicago, even though it is marked Ill. 21 only NW of Harlem.

On the other hand, as a matter of property law, CTA could have built an elevated structure on the old North Shore Skokie Valley Route transportation easement, although there was not going to be any funding after the locals said it was not the Locally Preferred Alternative.

[Tcmetro]

A Brown-Blue connection is going to be very expensive and I believe (if they ever fix the wait times) it is faster to take Blue+bus or walk from the Loop to either Pulaski/Lawrence or Elston/Lawrence. It would be way more beneficial for northsiders to get to O'Hare with improvements to every east-west bus line.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

A Brown-Blue connection is going to be very expensive and I believe (if they ever fix the wait times) it is faster to take Blue+bus or walk from the Loop to either Pulaski/Lawrence or Elston/Lawrence.

I didn't follow this one.

2 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

It would be way more beneficial for northsiders to get to O'Hare with imprIIovements to every east-west bus line.

In effect. Pace did this with Dempster Pulse. We kicked around a couple of ideas for 80 and 81, and I suppose 92 could be beefed up. However, we kicked around a long time ago that there wasn't a good way to get from the Devon (Rogers Park and West Ridge) area to O'Hare, without extending 155 into unproductive Pace territory. That still seems to involve taking a southbound bus to Foster. It used to be possible to make a transfer at Devon-Kedzie to 82 to Belmont-Blue Line, but there is no longer a direct connection at Devon-Kedzie at most times.

[Tcmetro]

55 minutes ago, Busjack said:

I didn't follow this one.

One of the benefits of a Brown Line extension is new stations at Pulaski and Elston. The Brown Line is so slow from the Loop that taking the Blue Line and the 53 bus to Pulaski/Lawrence or the Blue Line and walking to Elston/Lawrence are similar in travel time. Basically the Brown Line extension would give a one-seat ride to those areas but wouldn't really be faster.

[strictures]

23 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Two things

1.  Is the law banning construction of L routes over city streets still in effect?  If so, that would mean tunneling would be the only ( and very expensive) way to extend the Brown Line to Jefferson Park.   Other than that, the law would have to be changed. 

 

It was called the Adams Law from 1904 I believe & it must have been repealed at some point, because a search of the Illinois Compiled Statutes found no laws regarding elevated tracks over streets.

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, strictures said:

It was called the Adams Law from 1904 I believe & it must have been repealed at some point, because a search of the Illinois Compiled Statutes found no laws regarding elevated tracks over streets.

The Tribune had a letter to the editor on it and how Yerkes circumvented it. That seems to be the only reference in Google to it.

However, there is still 610 ILCS 130, the Elevated Railroad Approval Act, which is, in substance, the described Act, so it is still in force.

My analysis of its current applicability is that (1) the city itself (CDOT), rather than a "person or corporation" (i.e. private entity) would be building the L, and (2) even if the petition requirement is still in effect, the city or CTA would still have to use the power of eminent domain to take the adjoining owners' easements.

 

 

[artthouwill]

2 hours ago, Tcmetro said:

Ravenswood is one of the busiest stations on the Metra system, and there's no reason to believe this won't see similar success.

There's a lot of latent demand to the West Loop, and more stops on the UP-N help alleviate the lack of movement on the Clinton St subway plan.

I suppose the question would be what is the Clinton subway plan?

1.  If it was meant to be a Red Line bypass of sorts, with alternate trains serving the Clinton West Loop corridor, then my guess is that it was too cost prohibitive to execute. 

2.  An expensive but more doable project would be to use a Clinton subway to connect the Lake Street/Milwaukee tunnel to the  Ida B Wells tunnel of the Forest Park branch.   That way a subway "loop" could be formed and the Blue Line branches could be separated.  For instance  O' Hare branch trains could operate clockwise around the loop and Forest Park trains could operate counterclockwise around the loop.  Frequencies for each branch could be set without necessarily affecting the other.  If funds became available  then extending the Clinton subway to  accommodate alternating Red Line trains could still be in the future.

3.  I know the intent of the original post was to chide CTA for not providing the Red Line bypass which is part of the reason UPN traffic is so heavy in the city.  Not only is it expensive,  but it requires the subway to be very deep as you have Metra tracks and the Chicago River to contend with .

[Busjack]

8 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

suppose the question would be what is the Clinton subway plan?

1.  If it was meant to be a Red Line bypass of sorts, with alternate trains serving the Clinton West Loop corridor, then my guess is that it was too cost prohibitive to execute. 

 

It was supposed to be multilevel, but the CTA component was supposed to be a Red Line straight shot from about North/Clybourn to 18th/Clark. I don't remember anything about alternating trains or what they would put in the State St. subway.

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, artthouwill said:

An expensive but more doable project would be to use a Clinton subway to connect the Lake Street/Milwaukee tunnel to the  Ida B Wells tunnel of the Forest Park branch. 

Doing some research dug up a chicago-l.org article citing Crain's that such was proposed in 2002. A $1B price tag then would probably be $3B now (considering that RPM and RLE have doubled since 2006).

A city report with both Blue and Red Line options is here.

[Tcmetro]

It was so high level that they never really got to that stage of details. Regardless, the city has allowed full scale development of the original West Loop (West Loop Gate these days) and  the new West Loop (Fulton Market/Randolph St) without any improvement to the infrastructure. 

[Busjack]

4 minutes ago, Tcmetro said:

It was so high level that they never really got to that stage of details. Regardless, the city has allowed full scale development of the original West Loop (West Loop Gate these days) and  the new West Loop (Fulton Market/Randolph St) without any improvement to the infrastructure. 

...other than the Morgan station. One thing in what I cited above which apparently still on the table is moving SWS to LaSalle St. Station.

I previously mentioned that with reports of LaSalle St. office vacancies, a post-Covid restructuring should consider moving transit resources to the West Loop area. First step might be bring back the Morgan-Racine bus between IMD and Fulton Market and connect to something to the north side.

[Tcmetro]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

...other than the Morgan station. One thing in what I cited above which apparently still on the table is moving SWS to LaSalle St. Station.

I previously mentioned that with reports of LaSalle St. office vacancies, a post-Covid restructuring should consider moving transit resources to the West Loop area. First step might be bring back the Morgan-Racine bus between IMD and Fulton Market and connect to something to the north side.

We can just call Morgan a delayed replacement for the Halsted/Lake station. 

There's a lot that can be improved in the bus network as well. Bringing back Morgan-Racine makes sense (moreso with the context of recent expansions like 31st, Ogden, Pullman Shuttle) as well as maybe more through routes in the downtown area from north/south to west.

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

Doing some research dug up a chicago-l.org article citing Crain's that such was proposed in 2002. A $1B price tag then would probably be $3B now (considering that RPM and RLE have doubled since 2006).

A city report with both Blue and Red Line options is here.

Relative to what I mentioned earlier,  the Blue Line Loop is in the report.   Relative to what you mentioned,  another level is suggested reroute the Red Line through the Clinton Street subway corridor, freeing up capacity for other services in the State Street subway but further studies would be required.

My most logical guess would have been to route the Purple Line through the State Street subway and connect to the. SsM ( Green Line).  This way  North sides wouldn't lose their State Street connection  and Overstreet the Brown Line.  Or there route the Brown Line through the State Street subway and connect to the SSM,  BUT I think the frequency might be too high.

[Busjack]

9 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

route the Brown Line through the State Street subway and connect to the SSM,  BUT I think the frequency might be too high.

What's really needed is some sort of better turnback just south of Roosevelt. From what I understood when the Dan Ryan was closed, trains had to go to 35th?Bronzeville.

One thing I noted in the RPM video was that service concepts, such as full time Evanston Express, haven't been studied yet.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, artthouwill said:

Or there route the Brown Line through the State Street subway and connect to the SSM,  BUT I think the frequency might be too high.

I just remembered the more logical solution--thru route the Orange and Brown lines through the one or the other of the subways.

[geneking7320]

How much more yard capacity would be needed to connect the Brown and Orange lines?

[Elkmn]

Maybe like a couple sidings. It'd be really beneficial for a small 100 car yard in or around the loop for extra service on the pink, brown, orange and purple lines.

[Elkmn]

I just did a bit of back of the napkin math, but repurposing the parking lots at Wabash and Van Buren into a yard/maintenance facility would allow for storage of at least 16 8-car trains, which could be an extra 5-6 trains for the Pink, brown and orange lines during rush (if yards are at full capacity). It could also allow trains coming into the loop to end there instead of run back to their terminals near empty, if the CTA wanted that.