red line AA meetings

[Guest metralink]

Anyone going to next week's Red Line Alternative Analysis meetings to talk about the extension options for the Red Line south of 95th St?

Any guesses as to which routing options will be proposed?

In the past, the route following I-94 to 130th was proposed, wonder if this will be the alighment?

[Busjack]

No, but most of the recent talk and the map in the Moving Beyond Congestion Plan have it running along the railroad ROW around Stewart Ave. Down the Bishop Ford would preclude walk-up traffic. However, ROW plan would seem to conflict with that for the Metra Southeast Service. Also, the open median in I-94 ends around 103rd (before it turns into the old Calumet Expressway), but the lack of median in the NW Tollway doesn't seem to have deterred the Metra STAR plan.

BTW, this is the only New Start I support, since the passenger count at 95th and the number of buses routed into that station indicate that the demand is there. As previously noted, 352, 353, and 359 could be cut back to a 115th or 130th station. Also, a 130th shuttle could serve Hegewisch and Altgeld.

[Guest metralink]

but the lack of median in the NW Tollway doesn't seem to have deterred the Metra STAR plan.

just because STAR is going down the median doesn't mean its the best.

why not just build a subway, dig up one of the N-S streets (King, Michigan, Halstead, anything elsse?) put the subway in and rebuild the neighborhoods, economic development around the station stops, or go with the elevated, probably cheaper option then digging tunnels.

[Busjack]

why not just build a subway, dig up one of the N-S streets (King, Michigan, Halstead, anything elsse?) put the subway in and rebuild the neighborhoods, economic development around the station stops, or go with the elevated, probably cheaper option then digging tunnels.

You could ask that at the meeting. On an abstract level, a Michigan subway would make more sense, but you identified the problem, the cost. I know of someone who proposed an elevated on Michigan, but 63rd proved that that doesn't help the neighborhood, and I think that the "transit advocate" who proposed that lives in Buffalo Grove (I could be wrong, but there is evidence in his writings to that effect). Other scuttlebutt indicated that it would be an elevated over the ROW previously mentioned.

[Busjack]

It looks like the first stage Alternatives Analysis presentation followed some of metralink's suggestions.

Personally, I don't think that the BRT alternative meets the objective of reducing congestion at the 95th St. station, unless the loading area were somehow located in the paid area of the station, not the bus terminal.

[Busjack]

CTA posted the Second Screen on its site.

It looks like one "transit expert's" idea to build a Michigan Ave. L is out. So are subways and trench routes.

It also seems that Michigan Ave. didn't cut it with regard to some of the factors metralink mentioned.

The real question is how they would be able to build on an elevated alignment on the Halsted route? Certainly not over the street (ala Lake and 63rd). Maybe that's a way to knock out that alternative at the environmental impact statement stage, and get back to the Stewart railway alignment they have always wanted.

[sw4400]

why not just build a subway, dig up one of the N-S streets

Well, if the Red Line is anywhere near Ashland around it's termination point(according to #9, it stops at 95th, near a Red Line station, if Mr. CTA is correct on the N9 at night). Hence, the aforementioned Ashland Subway plan brought up a few years back, which could take the Red Line down as far as 130th, or however far the CTA was planning/is planning to extend the Red Line to.

[Busjack]

Well, if the Red Line is anywhere near Ashland around it's termination point(according to #9, it stops at 95th, near a Red Line station, if Mr. CTA is correct on the N9 at night). Hence, the aforementioned Ashland Subway plan brought up a few years back, which could take the Red Line down as far as 130th, or however far the CTA was planning/is planning to extend the Red Line to.

It seems you quoted me quoting someone else, and thus puts this out of context.

Also, the proposals now are to use either Halsted or the railroad row near Stewart. If Ashland was ever in the mix, it never was part of this New Start study. Also, Ashland doesn't run south of 95th, but angles into Beverly, and thus is too close to the RI.

Apparently, you also need to look at the map on the 9 schedule. True, the N9 ends up at 95/Dan Ryan, but that's because it essentially traces the 95W route for 2 miles between Ashland and State. They aren't going to build a 2 mile subway to get to Ashland-95th, from which you can't get south of there, anyway.

[artthouwill]

It seems you quoted me quoting someone else, and thus puts this out of context.

Also, the proposals now are to use either Halsted or the railroad row near Stewart. If Ashland was ever in the mix, it never was part of this New Start study. Also, Ashland doesn't run south of 95th, but angles into Beverly, and thus is too close to the RI.

Apparently, you also need to look at the map on the 9 schedule. True, the N9 ends up at 95/Dan Ryan, but that's because it essentially traces the 95W route for 2 miles between Ashland and State. They aren't going to build a 2 mile subway to get to Ashland-95th, from which you can't get south of there, anyway.

I always thought I-57 would be the best routing for a Red Line extension to Burr Oak (127th) with stops at Halsted, 103rd, 111th/Monterey/115th, 119th, and Burr Oak. The question would be how to build a bridge over EB -I-94 Bishop Ford lanes without blocking the current Red line railyard?

[jcmellencamp78]

I always thought I-57 would be the best routing for a Red Line extension to Burr Oak (127th) with stops at Halsted, 103rd, 111th/Monterey/115th, 119th, and Burr Oak. The question would be how to build a bridge over EB -I-94 Bishop Ford lanes without blocking the current Red line railyard?

I agree! That would serve more people and is more central. By going down 94, you are serving a smaller population. Bus Feeders would serve most of your proposed stations going E/W.

[Busjack]

I agree! That would serve more people and is more central. By going down 94, you are serving a smaller population. Bus Feeders would serve most of your proposed stations going E/W.

Except that, as mentioned, it would come too close to duplicating the RI. Apparently it was never considered.

[jcmellencamp78]

Except that, as mentioned, it would come too close to duplicating the RI. Apparently it was never considered.

Yes but then maybe the RI could run more Express Trains and skip the Beverly Stops. I know it was mentioned it is just a good idea in my opinion. I live off the RI in the South Suburbs, and it would make my commute faster if we could skip all the Beverly Stops.

[artthouwill]

Except that, as mentioned, it would come too close to duplicating the RI. Apparently it was never considered.

Not really, at least not moreso than the Purple duplicating the UP-N.

[jcmellencamp78]

Not really, at least not moreso than the Purple duplicating the UP-N.

Good point. Plus, it is not as if the UP-N just runs the length of the Purple Line. The same is true of the Rock Island and the idea of running down Interstate 57. Also, I believe a Milwaukee District Line runs parallel to the Blue Line from Jeff Park. AND a Metra Line runs parallel to the Green Line in Oak Park. These three actually have stops right next to each other. If the Red Line ran down I-57, the RI stops would be about 7 blocks away at Longwood Drive.

[trainman8119]

Good point. Plus, it is not as if the UP-N just runs the length of the Purple Line. The same is true of the Rock Island and the idea of running down Interstate 57. Also, I believe a Milwaukee District Line runs parallel to the Blue Line from Jeff Park. AND a Metra Line runs parallel to the Green Line in Oak Park. These three actually have stops right next to each other. If the Red Line ran down I-57, the RI stops would be about 7 blocks away at Longwood Drive.

Actually, it is the UP-NW that runs along the Blue Line into Jeff Park. In fact the old C&NW fought

tooth and nail to stop the CTA extension to Jeff and then to O'Hare. Needless to say, they lost.

As for the Green Line, again, UP, but it is the UP-West Line. In both cases, the suburban commuters were there long before the CTA L trains.

[Busjack]

In both cases, the suburban commuters were there long before the CTA L trains.

I guess you are saying from the 1850s.

In any event, the Purple Line, and some others mentioned were built during the era of free enterprise. Apparently rapid transit companies were willing to compete or cooperate with steam railroads, interurbans, and streetcars. (Don't forget, the North Shore also used those tracks). However, it is questionable whether federal funds would be used, especially to compete with another entity also receiving federal funds (Metra). That would also go against the Auditor General's recommendations (although, as yesterday's news points out, no one has followed them).

[artthouwill]

I guess you are saying from the 1850s.

In any event, the Purple Line, and some others mentioned were built during the era of free enterprise. Apparently rapid transit companies were willing to compete or cooperate with steam railroads, interurbans, and streetcars. (Don't forget, the North Shore also used those tracks). However, it is questionable whether federal funds would be used, especially to compete with another entity also receiving federal funds (Metra). That would also go against the Auditor General's recommendations (although, as yesterday's news points out, no one has followed them).

Should not cost be a factor? Certainly building a line within an expressway median would be cheaper than land acquisition, environmental studies,materials to build an elevated structure, etc. I don't believe a Red Line extension via I-57 would steal current Metra customers, but shorten travel times and some CTA and Pace routes for customers would currently transfer to the Red Line at 95th. For instance, the 352 could be shortened to 127th as well as the 359, the 108 would be eliminated and the 8A would serve both a 99th station and terminate at 127th.

[Busjack]

Should not cost be a factor? Certainly building a line within an expressway median would be cheaper than land acquisition, environmental studies,materials to build an elevated structure, etc. I don't believe a Red Line extension via I-57 would steal current Metra customers, but shorten travel times and some CTA and Pace routes for customers would currently transfer to the Red Line at 95th. For instance, the 352 could be shortened to 127th as well as the 359, the 108 would be eliminated and the 8A would serve both a 99th station and terminate at 127th.

The only valid comparison is to the cost of the elevated, since shortening the bus routes would happen wherever the extension ended.

As for the r.o.w. issue, maybe it should have been raised in the Screen 2 hearings. I now think, having reviewed those materials, that a Halsted subway would make sense (especially if a stimulus plan would pay for it), but, of course, I have no influence.

[jcmellencamp78]

Should not cost be a factor? Certainly building a line within an expressway median would be cheaper than land acquisition, environmental studies,materials to build an elevated structure, etc. I don't believe a Red Line extension via I-57 would steal current Metra customers, but shorten travel times and some CTA and Pace routes for customers would currently transfer to the Red Line at 95th. For instance, the 352 could be shortened to 127th as well as the 359, the 108 would be eliminated and the 8A would serve both a 99th station and terminate at 127th.

I also don't think a Red Line Extension down 57 would steal customers away from the RI. Let's get the figures for the RI of people who board in beverly. I take the RI a lot and most boardings occur from Midlothian and south of that.

[dauber]

And of course, there are those who if they had the choice between the Red Line and RI would choose RI for its speed and comfort.

[pudgym29]

Actually, it is the UP-NW that runs along the Blue Line into Jeff Park. In fact the old C&NW fought tooth and nail to stop the CTA extension to Jeff and then to O'Hare. Needless to say, they lost.

As for the Green Line, again, UP, but it is the UP-West Line. In both cases, the suburban commuters were there long before the CTA L trains.

It is my understanding that the 'reason' the C&NW fought to prevent the CTA from extending the West-Northwest route beyond Logan Square was that it had entered into a compact in 1962 with the CTA whereas, in exchange for letting the Lake St. "L" eliminate its street running between Lockwood and Harlem by relocating the tracks on the C&NW structure, CTA agreed to not pursue the northwest side expansion.

[Busjack]

It is my understanding that the 'reason' the C&NW fought to prevent the CTA from extending the West-Northwest route beyond Logan Square was that it had entered into a compact in 1962 with the CTA whereas, in exchange for letting the Lake St. "L" eliminate its street running between Lockwood and Harlem by relocating the tracks on the C&NW structure, CTA agreed to not pursue the northwest side expansion.

Probably correct, and as Krambles points out, became moot when RTA/Metra assumed responsibility for the commuter rail service.