Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-14-2017, 04:14 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,150,970 times
Reputation: 1283

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I agree, one infill station at Division, Oak, or Chicago between North/Clybourn and West Loop would make sense especially if they're planning on developing Cabrini Green densely.

So I think ideally it'd be Purple Line splitting off after North/Clybourn with a new station at Larabee/Division, Clinton/Lake (Green/Pink line and Ogilvie St Station connection with a subway mezzanine also serving as an underground corridor connection among the three), Union Station (connection to Union Station trains), Clinton/Congress (connection to Blue Line), new station at Clinton/Roosevelt, before finally going east on 16th street to rejoin the Red Line with a potential infill station at 16th and Clark in case Crossrail Chicago's rapid transit line comes into service with an infill station there and/or that massive parcel bounded by the river, Roosevelt, Clark, and 16th Street becomes built up.
Assuming the Clinton St. Subway were completed, I'd like to see the following:
Brown Line stops at Division/Orleans (GOOSE ISLAND!!!)
Purple Line stops at Larabee/Division

I'd also like to see the rerouted Purple Line stop at Chicago/Larabee
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2017, 04:17 PM
 
Location: In the heights
36,921 posts, read 38,855,782 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaniemac View Post
so you want to add more tracks through englewood despite that community area already being served by the red line at 55th, 63rd and 69th and by the greenline at 63rd and halsted and 63rd and ashland?
No, that's in some ways the opposite of what I'm saying.

The red/purple modernization is going to allow for much higher service frequencies on the North Side which currently has very crowded traincars during peak hours. When you run more cars on one end, the North Side, then that means you're going to have a huge "surplus" of capacity to the South Side, such as in Englewood, where the trains will come with great frequency but will be fairly empty. That's bad load balancing.

I'm saying that instead of just running that "surplus" capacity that's going to happen with greater North Side train frequencies, the Red Line on the South Side should be split with a spur going elsewhere where there is currently little to no rapid transit. That's why I'm saying it makes sense for a spur to be built that veers westwards on 47th Street or Garfield (and then connecting to the Orange Line to serve Midway so that there's an employment and transit anchor at the end). I understand that Garfield is the northern border of Engelwood, so are you saying that a load balance spur that goes east on 47th St seems more sensible to you?

I think I agree with that as well, because that slight arc towards the east of the Dan Ryan creates these spaces that makes it potentially possible to build a diverting track--I don't see how that's possible with Garfield without some major disruptions.

I guess it's also confusing that I singled out the Purple Line to run. The Purple Line comes into play because it's both the Red and the Purple Lines that can now run greater frequencies because of the Red/Purple Modernization program and converting it into all day (probably not 24/7, but at least not just during peak commute hours) service also means that the existing set of express tracks on the North Side that are currently only used during peak hours can now run during all hours for express service on the North Side and would probably be easier for people to understand as the line that takes the spur west as it'd essentially look like the Red Line was left as is.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-14-2017 at 04:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 09:11 AM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,962,912 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Just a thought.

The red/purple modernization is meant to greatly increase the capacity for north side transit lines, but running many more trains on the north side isn't commensurate with the current ridership levels for south side stations, so that's a lot of fairly empty trains in the far southern stretches of the South Side.
Err not quite the Dan Ryan(red line) is quite a busy line to itself and could use some extra capacity. It can turn to standing room by 47th street!

Quote:
Meanwhile, there is a vastly underserved by rail portion of the South Side in the stretch of land between the Orange and Red Lines on the South Side. So what if then some trains currently serving the the Dan Ryan branch were routed west at some point, so some of the additional service allowed by the red/purple modernization goes down a new branch?

As an example of how this would run, a spur is built south of the Garfield Station and new tracks are built heading west on Garfield/55th St with several intermediate stops either as elevated or cut-and-cover style subway until it joins with the Orange Line at the Midway airport station. All day Purple Line services are resumed, but they now route through the State Street Subway and go down the shared Dan Ryan branch with the Red Line until going down the new Garfield/55th St branch.
This isn't load balancing. It is building a new line. Excess trains could be

1. Dead ended, There are switches and crossovers at certain points on the system. The train could be sent north again at some point before 95th.

2. Trains on the loop can be sent down any line that connects to the loop. The train could be sent directly to midway. In fact there have been plans to through route the Brown line to the Orange line. It could also ride over the loop to the Dan Ryan(and use the old connection), and the Green line(both lake and the old south side mainline). Or even return as something else the famous Ravenston (a train that changes from Evanston express(Purple line) to Ravenswood(brown line) in the loop.

3. There is a connection between the subways around Washington and State(built after 9/11). The train could be switched between the Red and Blue lines.

4. You don't need to build a connection off the Dan Ryan to move the train west. The State Street subway has two south side exits. The original subway exit would puts the train on the old south side main line(Green line) past Roosevelt. The newer one opened in the 90ies that connects the subway to the Dan Ryan(creating the Red line as we know it today). The best bet would be to connect the 63/Ashland station of the Green line to the Orange line as was suggested in the Circle line plan. It would also be cheaper since less track would need to be built. The train would exit out on to the Green line head south to 63rd then head west to the Orange line.

5. The reason why the Purple line does not run all day relates to funding not technical issues. The Purple line competes with the Brown line, Red line and Metra North line. From time to time the CTA gets additional funding and tries longer hours on the Purple line. The result is a slight increase in Ridership, but the increase in Ridership does not cover the additional costs. At rush hour when ridership is highest, the Purple line helps take some of the load off the other two. When ridership drops the CTA is more interested in saving money than providing a quick ride so they cut service.

Last edited by chirack; 03-15-2017 at 09:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Chatham, Chicago
796 posts, read 918,636 times
Reputation: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Err not quite the Dan Ryan(red line) is quite a busy line to itself and could use some extra capacity. It can turn to standing room by 47th street!



This isn't load balancing. It is building a new line. Excess trains could be

1. Dead ended, There are switches and crossovers at certain points on the system. The train could be sent north again at some point before 95th.

2. Trains on the loop can be sent down any line that connects to the loop. The train could be sent directly to midway. In fact there have been plans to through route the Brown line to the Orange line. It could also ride over the loop to the Dan Ryan(and use the old connection), and the Green line(both lake and the old south side mainline). Or even return as something else the famous Ravenston (a train that changes from Evanston express(Purple line) to Ravenswood(brown line) in the loop.

3. There is a connection between the subways around Washington and State(built after 9/11). The train could be switched between the Red and Blue lines.

4. You don't need to build a connection off the Dan Ryan to move the train west. The State Street subway has two south side exits. The original subway exit would puts the train on the old south side main line(Green line) past Roosevelt. The newer one opened in the 90ies that connects the subway to the Dan Ryan(creating the Red line as we know it today). The best bet would be to connect the 63/Ashland station of the Green line to the Orange line as was suggested in the Circle line plan. It would also be cheaper since less track would need to be built. The train would exit out on to the Green line head south to 63rd then head west to the Orange line.

5. The reason why the Purple line does not run all day relates to funding not technical issues. The Purple line competes with the Brown line, Red line and Metra North line. From time to time the CTA gets additional funding and tries longer hours on the Purple line. The result is a slight increase in Ridership, but the increase in Ridership does not cover the additional costs. At rush hour when ridership is highest, the Purple line helps take some of the load off the other two. When ridership drops the CTA is more interested in saving money than providing a quick ride so they cut service.
I don't even live on the southwest side, but I have long been a proponent of getting more CTA rail service southwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2017, 12:51 PM
 
Location: USA
5,738 posts, read 5,410,916 times
Reputation: 3668
A new subway line through a sparsely-populated area of the South Side? Seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2017, 12:54 PM
 
28,455 posts, read 84,957,533 times
Reputation: 18725
Default It's all part of his ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
A new subway line through a sparsely-populated area of the South Side? Seriously?
...railroad fantasy...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79R4XuSaODk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2017, 02:30 PM
 
Location: In the heights
36,921 posts, read 38,855,782 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Err not quite the Dan Ryan(red line) is quite a busy line to itself and could use some extra capacity. It can turn to standing room by 47th street!



This isn't load balancing. It is building a new line. Excess trains could be

1. Dead ended, There are switches and crossovers at certain points on the system. The train could be sent north again at some point before 95th.

2. Trains on the loop can be sent down any line that connects to the loop. The train could be sent directly to midway. In fact there have been plans to through route the Brown line to the Orange line. It could also ride over the loop to the Dan Ryan(and use the old connection), and the Green line(both lake and the old south side mainline). Or even return as something else the famous Ravenston (a train that changes from Evanston express(Purple line) to Ravenswood(brown line) in the loop.

3. There is a connection between the subways around Washington and State(built after 9/11). The train could be switched between the Red and Blue lines.

4. You don't need to build a connection off the Dan Ryan to move the train west. The State Street subway has two south side exits. The original subway exit would puts the train on the old south side main line(Green line) past Roosevelt. The newer one opened in the 90ies that connects the subway to the Dan Ryan(creating the Red line as we know it today). The best bet would be to connect the 63/Ashland station of the Green line to the Orange line as was suggested in the Circle line plan. It would also be cheaper since less track would need to be built. The train would exit out on to the Green line head south to 63rd then head west to the Orange line.

5. The reason why the Purple line does not run all day relates to funding not technical issues. The Purple line competes with the Brown line, Red line and Metra North line. From time to time the CTA gets additional funding and tries longer hours on the Purple line. The result is a slight increase in Ridership, but the increase in Ridership does not cover the additional costs. At rush hour when ridership is highest, the Purple line helps take some of the load off the other two. When ridership drops the CTA is more interested in saving money than providing a quick ride so they cut service.
It's load balancing because there will be a surplus of service on the South Side due to the increased frequency meant to meet the ridership demands of the North Side after the Red/Purple Modernization plan is completed. Your alternatives are great. I have a few questions on them.

I think short-turning is a good option, but where will you make that short turn? I think the (1) option you listed is probably the best, but where would that happen during peak operation?

For (2) isn't there a peak capacity for the Loop segment of tracks? Can you really run the increase in ridership through the Loop operationally without a hitch? Does CTA release numbers of sorts on what amount of peak capacity is used for different branches?

(3) This is interesting--which branch of the Blue Line would you run the additional trains out to? Does it connect at both points where the two intersect?

(4) This sounds fine to me. So instead of exiting out of the Red Line around 47th or Garfield, you'd run the "excess" Purple Line down the Green Line and then build new tracks extending west from 63rd/Ashland? I think it might work, but that's actually more tracks that would need to be built than if you spurred off the 47th Red Line stop to the Orange Line though less than off Garfield. You'd probably also have to swerve it a bit northwards so it goes down 63rd street rather than on the plots just south of it otherwise it's a lot of demolition that would need to occur. Maybe then there should be no additional tracks built, but the Purple Line follows the Red Line subway then comes back out on the Green Line serving one of the branches at the end. Do you know if that original subway exit be used for short-turning?

(5) I know that, but as the North Side increases in population, it might be something to re-visit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
A new subway line through a sparsely-populated area of the South Side? Seriously?
It's an extension off of an existing route (Red Line) that then goes connects to another existing line (Orange Line). It'd give direct service to Midway without transfer for a large swath of people and serves some new residents with a direct line. For 47th, it's some residential with Canaryville and Back of the Yards and then a lot of industrial lots. Garfield is a lot more residential, but that's a lot more in track that needs to be built. It can also just not be built. I'm not married to this idea, I was just floating it as one possible way to deal with the increased frequency. It can make more financial sense to shunt the Purple Line down the subway with the Red Line and then short-turn it somewhere past the Loop if there's a reasonable place to do so instead of creating the linking spur between Red and . With that, it might still be reasonable to run the Yellow Line with a larger trainset down the current route of the Purple Line during peak hours, because apparently that odd short-turning operation at the Howard Street Station is actually a limiting bottleneck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2017, 11:30 PM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,962,912 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
It's load balancing because there will be a surplus of service on the South Side due to the increased frequency meant to meet the ridership demands of the North Side after the Red/Purple Modernization plan is completed. Your alternatives are great. I have a few questions on them.

I think short-turning is a good option, but where will you make that short turn? I think the (1) option you listed is probably the best, but where would that happen during peak operation?

For (2) isn't there a peak capacity for the Loop segment of tracks? Can you really run the increase in ridership through the Loop operationally without a hitch? Does CTA release numbers of sorts on what amount of peak capacity is used for different branches?

(3) This is interesting--which branch of the Blue Line would you run the additional trains out to? Does it connect at both points where the two intersect?

(4) This sounds fine to me. So instead of exiting out of the Red Line around 47th or Garfield, you'd run the "excess" Purple Line down the Green Line and then build new tracks extending west from 63rd/Ashland? I think it might work, but that's actually more tracks that would need to be built than if you spurred off the 47th Red Line stop to the Orange Line though less than off Garfield. You'd probably also have to swerve it a bit northwards so it goes down 63rd street rather than on the plots just south of it otherwise it's a lot of demolition that would need to occur. Maybe then there should be no additional tracks built, but the Purple Line follows the Red Line subway then comes back out on the Green Line serving one of the branches at the end. Do you know if that original subway exit be used for short-turning?

(5) I know that, but as the North Side increases in population, it might be something to re-visit.
1. It can happen anywhere where the CTA installs a switch. The Blue line for instance sometimes terminates at UIC halsted and runs back towards O'hare. In the Old days when the trains used to have paper banners for signs they would print alternate locations where the train could be terminated other than the terminus. Cermak or 35th would make good spots to turn around.

2. The loop used to have more trains all day back in the 40ies. The increase would be dived between the State Street Subway and the Loop.

3. No idea as this is just used for non-revenue moves(i.e. trains that don't carry passengers)

4. Possibly(no expert) but you should be able to short turn somewhere along the green line. You could also run the line over the loop and exit out heading to Midway

5. Not likely to happen any time soon. It would be cheaper to add service on the red line or brown line than run the purple line during off peak hours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2017, 08:34 AM
 
Location: broke leftist craphole Illizuela
10,326 posts, read 17,336,680 times
Reputation: 20321
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
I like this.
I don't think the current ridership of the yellow line justifies tying up 4 car trains on that segment of line. If they ever get around to extending it to Old Orchard Mall/Cook Co Courthouse that might change. Also the 4 car trains won't be enough to accommodate riders going from Howard to the Loop except during real off hours. As a result the yellow line will almost always be a shuttle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2017, 09:06 AM
 
Location: In the heights
36,921 posts, read 38,855,782 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
1. It can happen anywhere where the CTA installs a switch. The Blue line for instance sometimes terminates at UIC halsted and runs back towards O'hare. In the Old days when the trains used to have paper banners for signs they would print alternate locations where the train could be terminated other than the terminus. Cermak or 35th would make good spots to turn around.

2. The loop used to have more trains all day back in the 40ies. The increase would be dived between the State Street Subway and the Loop.

3. No idea as this is just used for non-revenue moves(i.e. trains that don't carry passengers)

4. Possibly(no expert) but you should be able to short turn somewhere along the green line. You could also run the line over the loop and exit out heading to Midway

5. Not likely to happen any time soon. It would be cheaper to add service on the red line or brown line than run the purple line during off peak hours.
I see--does CTA list where switches are? Do they have some on the Red Line just south of Cermak or 35th? I think for when you're using a switch to turn trains back around, NYC generally uses the terminal stations because the switching operation takes a bit longer and occupies both directions of traffic. The latter isn't much of a problem at a terminal station, because it's a terminal station. I think switches are fine for use to short-turn in some operations, but in peak periods where you have trains coming in from both directions at fairly high frequency, it's difficult unless you have some kind of siding the trains can be in that won't potentially disrupt operations.

Did the Loop have more trains during the 40s at peak frequencies and current safety standards for operations? Does the CTA currently have stats on what they consider to be capacity for services on the Loop and where is it at right now? I'm not saying that I know it's at capacity--I'm just asking if this is a limiting factor for some of what you're proposing.

It's going to take several years at least for just phase one of RPM to finish and construction hasn't actually begun. I'm thinking about this in terms of the next couple decades, not the next couple years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top