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.
You certainly can argue that ridership projections are going to be low as that's often part of the criteria used for federal funding eligibility. And remember, it's not low in and of itself, but rather that it's low compared to its cost. Yes, 95th street is busy and a lot of that is due to being the last stop in what is otherwise an area with fairly bad transit coverage and so everyone feeds into the Red Line stops that exist in order to get to points north especially in and around the Loop. However, this does not mean that this is the best way to bring much better transit to the South Side. My argument is that there are far better ways to bring what would essentially be even better coverage to the South Side for the same or even lower cost.
Are you also arguing that the $1B+ cost of the brown line flyover on the north side is a poor decision? Because that isn't projected to markedly increase ridership, but is the most expensive project ever undertaken by the CTA.
Metra is not even remotely comparable to CTA. It functions strictly as a commuter feeder for people in the suburbs to get to jobs downtown. Metra isn't intended for people living in Hegeswich to stop off at the library and the grocery store on their way home from a job in Edgewater. And it never will, no matter how much you propose increasing the frequency of trains on the Rock Island line.
Nor would increased frequency on Rock Island or Metra Electric do anything to improve service for people living in Englewood or Gage Park. What is needed is more train lines. Not more trains on the same existing lines.
Are you also arguing that the $1B+ cost of the brown line flyover on the north side is a poor decision? Because that isn't projected to markedly increase ridership, but is the most expensive project ever undertaken by the CTA.
Metra is not even remotely comparable to CTA. It functions strictly as a commuter feeder for people in the suburbs to get to jobs downtown. Metra isn't intended for people living in Hegeswich to stop off at the library and the grocery store on their way home from a job in Edgewater. And it never will, no matter how much you propose increasing the frequency of trains on the Rock Island line.
Nor would increased frequency on Rock Island or Metra Electric do anything to improve service for people living in Englewood or Gage Park. What is needed is more train lines. Not more trains on the same existing lines.
This, A person who intended to go north at the area the Rock Island serves that isn't served by the Red line would just use a bus going north. Going downtown or outward to the burbs and Joliet is about the only reason the ride the Rock Island as things like libraries, entertainment and shopping and retail are located closer than the trip downtown. Ok, maybe to see a game at Sox park, but that is about it.
Now a extension of the Green line say down Stoney AVE. would be an improvement(might not have the ridership to justify it) but it would help people to the east with access or an extension west that connects with say the Orange line(which somehow magically wouldn't take a ton of demolitions) or creating an east/west link could be useful to a lot of people.
Are you also arguing that the $1B+ cost of the brown line flyover on the north side is a poor decision? Because that isn't projected to markedly increase ridership, but is the most expensive project ever undertaken by the CTA.
Metra is not even remotely comparable to CTA. It functions strictly as a commuter feeder for people in the suburbs to get to jobs downtown. Metra isn't intended for people living in Hegeswich to stop off at the library and the grocery store on their way home from a job in Edgewater. And it never will, no matter how much you propose increasing the frequency of trains on the Rock Island line.
Nor would increased frequency on Rock Island or Metra Electric do anything to improve service for people living in Englewood or Gage Park. What is needed is more train lines. Not more trains on the same existing lines.
I am absolutely arguing that the funding spent on the Brown Line flyover as part of Red-Purple Line Bypass would have been better spent making Metra into a RER/S-Bahn kind of operation. I unequivocally argue that it would bring greater benefits to the region as a whole even though it probably does not benefit the North Side east of the Chicago river northern branch as much. I've been pretty consistent on this and have argued that Crossrail Chicago or something resembling such is the best bang for buck possible way to greatly improve mass transit throughout the city and region. I've apparently been posting about it since June 2015 on this forum, but have been interested in the general idea for well over a decade.
Now since the Red-Purple Bypass has been built, is the question whether I advocate spending money to undo it? I think that would be pretty silly. Also, yea, it was projected to both increase ridership (though those projections were pre-covid) as well as improve reliability of service, operating speeds, and the total network capacity. This was certainly a project where the North Side was the main beneficiary, though it also to some degree helps the South Side because the Red Line does *not* do short turns south of the Loop as part of its operations so that means the reliability improvements and capacity increases also, albeit to a more limited degree, helps the South Side. Now do I think this was the better bang for bunk than creating the first parts of a RER/S-Bahn type service especially starting with the South Side? Absolutely not. As with this topics Red Line extension, the total improvement for the funds used is a lot better and a lot more equitable for the items you've mentioned of trying to staunch population loss, improve transit accessibility to more of the South Side and to save time for people.
Metra is not comparable to CTA because of how it's run and the deeply ingrained idea that it cannot be used for anything else despite that historically these lines *were* actually at far greater frequencies and were a large part of what made the large populations of the South Side able to get around much more easily. It's so ingrained that people won't even consider the idea, and as evident with chirac's posts, any actual technical criticisms levied are mostly bunkum that are easily addressed, so the argument ends up going back to the tautology that these lines can't be high frequency transit because they are not high frequency transit, and they are not high frequency transit because they can't be high frequency transit when there is no real technical limitation to this. It strictly functions as commuter rail not because it cannot function as anything else, but because that is what it is *at the moment* and the argument is that this is short-sighted and a suboptimal use of existing infrastructure.
Your criticism that doing this first initial step doesn't help anyone in Engelwood and Gage Park is awkward, because this Red Line extension doesn't do much for them either. Are you not familiar with where this four line extension is going? At least Engelwood potentially has infill potential on the RID and there is the Auburn Park infill station under construction just south of Engelwood's borders and subsequent expansions of a RER/S-Bahn network would likely greatly improve Engelwood's transit access. The Red Line extension does *not* improve transit access to every single neighborhood on the South Side and there is no expectation of such so setting up that kind of rubric for RID and ME improvements is a really awkward moving of the goalpost. As for Hegewisch, if the 16th St connector is made as it would open up the ability to route through to Union Station as through-running or at least allow for same platform transfer to Metra Electric trains, presumably at much higher frequencies, to get to the West Loop and beyond. If not that, then there is at least room for an infill station on the Metra Electric mainline. While running ME more like rapid transit means needing a transfer to get to Edgewater in your example, it does mean far more frequent and convenient access to the Loop which also has some pretty prominent libraries and with through-running to parts west of the Chicago River north branch including the burgeoning West Loop and Fulton Market areas.
What improving RID and ME to run more like rapid transit within the urban core as RER/S-Bahn systems *does* do is improve transit for a far greater number of South Side neighborhoods than the four station extension of the Red Line and can be done far more quickly. Think this through for a second--if you make the existing RID and ME stations about as frequent as the L throughout the day and for the same fare (price and payment method) within the city, is that not equivalent to creating new train lines? For the budget of the four station Red Line extension, you can get that easily *and* even more as that'd be the first stages of getting through-running and effectively new lines up and running. That's exactly the premise of RER/S-Bahn operations and why they have worked so incredibly well in cities in other developed countries as these places improved their historic commuter rail networks via electrification, gradual grade separation, fare integration, higher frequencies and additional track miles through acquisition of existing track and extensions including such allowing for through-running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
This, A person who intended to go north at the area the Rock Island serves that isn't served by the Red line would just use a bus going north. Going downtown or outward to the burbs and Joliet is about the only reason the ride the Rock Island as things like libraries, entertainment and shopping and retail are located closer than the trip downtown. Ok, maybe to see a game at Sox park, but that is about it.
Now a extension of the Green line say down Stoney AVE. would be an improvement(might not have the ridership to justify it) but it would help people to the east with access or an extension west that connects with say the Orange line(which somehow magically wouldn't take a ton of demolitions) or creating an east/west link could be useful to a lot of people.
Am I mistaken in saying that the Loop is where a lot of Chicago institutions and jobs are located? What is the point of devaluing that? Why do you think granter greater access through fare integration and higher frequency runs to the Loop through large parts of the South Side is not worthwhile because it does not get you to the North Side east of the Chicago River northern branch? $3.5 billion isn't enough to both improve these lines and then extend them on new right-of-way to the North Side, but it is enough to greatly improve speed and frequency for large swathes of the South Side to the Loop, to other parts of the South Side, and to the West Loop and points east of the Chicago River north branch via the 16th St Connector and through-running. It's also enough to make transfers to L train stations serving the North Side better.
I think the best way to do an east-west South Side trip is to route is for the Green Line Ashland branch tracks to be extended westwards to Midway Airport and run as as a part of the Orange Line all the way eastwards beyond Dan Ryan, with a transfer station to the Red Line 63rd St station (and where you get to use the tried and true solution of a station slightly elevated from the adjacent track for energy efficiency), to then connect to the tracks on the East 63rd branch that then extends further east on 63rd St (again) to a Dorchester Ave stop that has a Spanish solution to make a connection with the Metra Electric stop at 63rd street at high frequencies. With this operation, all Green Line services run down the East 63rd street and are interlined with this extended Orange Line from King Drive to Dorchester. This would offer a pretty clean and efficient operation that creates transfers along multiple services and would be a good feeder into the employment anchors of Midway Airport and the University of Chicago.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-30-2022 at 10:35 AM..
I am absolutely arguing that the funding spent on the Brown Line flyover as part of Red-Purple Line Bypass would have been better spent making Metra into a RER/S-Bahn kind of operation. I unequivocally argue that it would bring greater benefits to the region as a whole even though it probably does not benefit the North Side east of the Chicago river northern branch as much. I've been pretty consistent on this and have argued that Crossrail Chicago or something resembling such is the best bang for buck possible way to greatly improve mass transit throughout the city and region. I've apparently been posting about it since June 2015 on this forum, but have been interested in the general idea for well over a decade.
It benefits the southside as well. The Red line starts at Howard and the delay would impact the whole line. The reason why they don't do short turns on the loop is because there isn't enough traffic going south to justify it and the Brown line and Evanston express handle it to the North. You must mean west of the Chicago river. The area to the east is served by the red line, brown line and blue line on the northside. There is a big gap between the Green and the northwest part of the blue line to the west but the Metra stations in between are not of much use in terms of local transit too few stops and the fact that it is going downtown. A connection between blue and green would be helpful, but it would cost more and demolish more than the flyover
Quote:
Metra is not comparable to CTA because of how it's run and the deeply ingrained idea that it cannot be used for anything else despite that historically these lines *were* actually at far greater frequencies and were a large part of what made the large populations of the South Side able to get around much more easily. It's so ingrained that people won't even consider the idea, and as evident with chirac's posts, any actual technical criticisms levied are mostly bunkum that are easily addressed, so the argument ends up going back to the tautology that these lines can't be high frequency transit because they are not high frequency transit, and they are not high frequency transit because they can't be high frequency transit when there is no real technical limitation to this. It strictly functions as commuter rail not because it cannot function as anything else, but because that is what it is *at the moment* and the argument is that this is short-sighted and a suboptimal use of existing infrastructure.
Your criticism that doing this first initial step doesn't help anyone in Engelwood and Gage Park is awkward, because this Red Line extension doesn't do much for them either. Are you not familiar with where this four line extension is going?
As for the area south of Englewood the only thing that station provides is a quicker trip. Areas south can ride buses north to the green line along 63rd and on to the loop or ride over to the red line and on to the loop. Unless you live west of Ashland, I don’t think the bus ride to the Red line is excessive. A station on 130th can provide access to a city water plant, the Ford assembly plant, a Metra repair yard as so on. At one time I could have used one of those stations for a quicker trip to a relative's house.
Quote:
While running ME more like rapid transit means needing a transfer to get to Edgewater in your example, it does mean far more frequent and convenient access to the Loop which also has some pretty prominent libraries and with through-running to parts west of the Chicago River north branch including the burgeoning West Loop and Fulton Market areas.
Quote:
What improving RID and ME to run more like rapid transit within the urban core as RER/S-Bahn systems *does* do is improve transit for a far greater number of South Side neighborhoods than the four station extension of the Red Line and can be done far more quickly. Think this through for a second--if you make the existing RID and ME stations about as frequent as the L throughout the day and for the same fare (price and payment method) within the city, is that not equivalent to creating new train lines? For the budget of the four station Red Line extension, you can get that easily *and* even more as that'd be the first stages of getting through-running and effectively new lines up and running. That's exactly the premise of RER/S-Bahn operations and why they have worked so incredibly well in cities in other developed countries as these places improved their historic commuter rail networks via electrification, gradual grade separation, fare integration, higher frequencies and additional track miles through acquisition of existing track and extensions including such allowing for through-running.
As for fair integration harder than you think. The CTA is flat fee with free transfers, Merta is not. Metra is also more expensive than CTA. Either the CTA pays Metra for the free transfers to the Metra train or Metra gets paid less for accepting CTA passengers. You are also forgetting the boarding issues as Metra uses conductors to enforce boarding not electronics and gate access like the CTA. In addition, increased frequency means higher operating costs for Metra in the form of drivers and more equipment to maintain. Increased frequency and lots of stops will slow down trip time from far off places like the far south burbs and it already takes an hour on the Metra electric end to end. If Metra behaved like the EL, 2 mins stops and pretty much all stops it would add 20+ mins to the ride just from stops in or near the city. Adding a few CTA stops at the end of the line won’t impact travel time up the line nor operating cost near as much.
Quote:
Am I mistaken in saying that the Loop is where a lot of Chicago institutions and jobs are located? What is the point of devaluing that? Why do you think granter greater access through fare integration and higher frequency runs to the Loop through large parts of the South Side is not worthwhile because it does not get you to the North Side east of the Chicago River northern branch? $3.5 billion isn't enough to both improve these lines and then extend them on new right-of-way to the North Side, but it is enough to greatly improve speed and frequency for large swathes of the South Side to the Loop, to other parts of the South Side, and to the West Loop and points east of the Chicago River north branch via the 16th St Connector and through-running. It's also enough to make transfers to L train stations serving the North Side better.
The point is that it isn't where ALL of the jobs are located at or ALL the things you might need or use. The downtown library is more prominent, but why the heck would you go there unless the book you want isn’t nearby. Local libraries can have computer rooms, programs for children and can be large. They can have auditoriums and events just as well. There is retail restaurants and gasp night life in other parts of town. The is more to town than just the dense, hip, and popular parts of town. Heck the CPL has electronic books available for loan. The Chicago public library has like 77 libraries in the system.
As for Englewood and that Metra station, It only looks that way because you seem to be ignoring the bus system and the whole rest of town outside of the loop and don't think that the people out in the burbs who work downtown might actually be inconvenienced by this change. The fact that much of the work in the loop is the 9 to 5 type stuff(i.e. well served by commuter rail frequency). Heck I rode Metra from the south side with a group that commuted to palatine for work. We used the RI and walked to the North West. It worked because the train made few stops in the city compared to the Red Line and Blue line. (i.e. We could have rode the red line to the blue line and meet the train at Jefferson park but the faster and more flexible route is that one).The reason why that trip was not as grueling is because of the fast Metra trip and the Fact that there were usually seats available so we didn't have to stand. If that train had to stop like the EL it would have taken much longer. When going long distances those stops add up.
I have also know someone who would have benefited from a station at 130th. She was low income and had to go from 130th about the area where the station is proposed to 87th for work and sometimes all the way downtown to pick up a check from an employer that was being a dolt and would not either mail or direct deposit it. There is no Metra Electric station in that area and the Rock Island is way to far west. She had to ride a bus to 95th transfer to the state street bus or Red line get another bus on 87th and actually if there were a station near where she lived on the Metra Electric, it would have been taking her a little away from where she needed to go. Being low income means that those free transfers were very important and working those hours meant that both frequency and availability off peak was important. Things Metra would be resistant to do. A stop in that area would have been a walk or a much shorter bus ride to the station and a much faster trip north. In fact the following buses would probably be rerouted because of the extension the 103E, 103W, 111E, 111W. These buses can become through routes on their respective streets instead of having to head to 95th station.
It benefits the southside as well. The Red line starts at Howard and the delay would impact the whole line. The reason why they don't do short turns on the loop is because there isn't enough traffic going south to justify it and the Brown line and Evanston express handle it to the North. You must mean west of the Chicago river. The area to the east is served by the red line, brown line and blue line on the northside. There is a big gap between the Green and the northwest part of the blue line to the west but the Metra stations in between are not of much use in terms of local transit too few stops and the fact that it is going downtown. A connection between blue and green would be helpful, but it would cost more and demolish more than the flyover
As for the area south of Englewood the only thing that station provides is a quicker trip. Areas south can ride buses north to the green line along 63rd and on to the loop or ride over to the red line and on to the loop. Unless you live west of Ashland, I don’t think the bus ride to the Red line is excessive. A station on 130th can provide access to a city water plant, the Ford assembly plant, a Metra repair yard as so on. At one time I could have used one of those stations for a quicker trip to a relative's house.
As for fair integration harder than you think. The CTA is flat fee with free transfers, Merta is not. Metra is also more expensive than CTA. Either the CTA pays Metra for the free transfers to the Metra train or Metra gets paid less for accepting CTA passengers. You are also forgetting the boarding issues as Metra uses conductors to enforce boarding not electronics and gate access like the CTA. In addition, increased frequency means higher operating costs for Metra in the form of drivers and more equipment to maintain. Increased frequency and lots of stops will slow down trip time from far off places like the far south burbs and it already takes an hour on the Metra electric end to end. If Metra behaved like the EL, 2 mins stops and pretty much all stops it would add 20+ mins to the ride just from stops in or near the city. Adding a few CTA stops at the end of the line won’t impact travel time up the line nor operating cost near as much.
The point is that it isn't where ALL of the jobs are located at or ALL the things you might need or use. The downtown library is more prominent, but why the heck would you go there unless the book you want isn’t nearby. Local libraries can have computer rooms, programs for children and can be large. They can have auditoriums and events just as well. There is retail restaurants and gasp night life in other parts of town. The is more to town than just the dense, hip, and popular parts of town. Heck the CPL has electronic books available for loan. The Chicago public library has like 77 libraries in the system.
As for Englewood and that Metra station, It only looks that way because you seem to be ignoring the bus system and the whole rest of town outside of the loop and don't think that the people out in the burbs who work downtown might actually be inconvenienced by this change. The fact that much of the work in the loop is the 9 to 5 type stuff(i.e. well served by commuter rail frequency). Heck I rode Metra from the south side with a group that commuted to palatine for work. We used the RI and walked to the North West. It worked because the train made few stops in the city compared to the Red Line and Blue line. (i.e. We could have rode the red line to the blue line and meet the train at Jefferson park but the faster and more flexible route is that one).The reason why that trip was not as grueling is because of the fast Metra trip and the Fact that there were usually seats available so we didn't have to stand. If that train had to stop like the EL it would have taken much longer. When going long distances those stops add up.
I have also know someone who would have benefited from a station at 130th. She was low income and had to go from 130th about the area where the station is proposed to 87th for work and sometimes all the way downtown to pick up a check from an employer that was being a dolt and would not either mail or direct deposit it. There is no Metra Electric station in that area and the Rock Island is way to far west. She had to ride a bus to 95th transfer to the state street bus or Red line get another bus on 87th and actually if there were a station near where she lived on the Metra Electric, it would have been taking her a little away from where she needed to go. Being low income means that those free transfers were very important and working those hours meant that both frequency and availability off peak was important. Things Metra would be resistant to do. A stop in that area would have been a walk or a much shorter bus ride to the station and a much faster trip north. In fact the following buses would probably be rerouted because of the extension the 103E, 103W, 111E, 111W. These buses can become through routes on their respective streets instead of having to head to 95th station.
Yes, like I said, the bypass benefits the South Side as well, just not to the same extent as it benefits the North Side. I noted that last bit because MarianaRavenwood's argumet seems to be about the North Side getting nice transit spending while the South Side does not and that's likely why she brought up the bypass. My response in kind is that while it does benefit the North Side more, it does also have benefits for the South Side even if it's not as much. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with short turns on the Red Line, but I can explain to you what my mention of the short turn on the South Side is in relation to the bypass which was that since the Red Line does not do short turns south of the Loop, the increased capacity, greater reliability and higher frequency of trains that the Red Line can now run because of the bypass also propagates down the entire line to the South Side and the reason why that even though the bypass benefits the North Side more comparatively, it also still benefits the South Side riders as well.
No, I *specifically* meant the east side of the river. You are misreading what was written. I was referring to running Metra as a RER / S-Bahn system which would *not* benefit Chicago North Side east of the northern branch of the Chicago River as much since there are currently only two stations (with one more under construction) on the North Side east of the river and especially not in the initial stages of moving to a RER/S-Bahn high frequency service system because Metra does not currently or propose to own the track for UP-N. Going west does have track owned by Metra as Metra owns MD-N and MD-W and so has an easier pathway to creating infill stations which is why they are part of the initial proposal for Crossrail Chicago.
Yes, the Red Line extension would improve transit to some parts. I don't contest that at all. The argument is that for that budget, getting the RID and ME lines to run higher frequencies and improving their service is far faster to get up and running and would serve far more people in the South Side and with a lot of budget beyond that for that same cost to do significant improvements to those such as electrification for RID, some grade separation, infill stations, crossovers, passing sidings if need be and through-running Union Station and beyond. For whatever reason, your understanding of how through-routing works is that it works against capacity and when that was mentioned, you seem to just gloss over it. This is odd given that a hallmark of Chicago's L system is a unique subset of through-running (the Loop) as a mechanism to have high capacity. Engelwood residents getting a quicker trip *is* worthwhile because the point of Red Line extension is *also* quicker trips as is the idea of turning Metra into a RER/S-Bahn type of network, however, it's not just Englewood that would benefit from that and it's not just quicker trips, but also potentially fewer transfers and shorter connections for a wide swathe of people and neighborhoods. That's also what the Red Line extension is meant to do, but directing that budget towards high-frequency RID and ME services means doing that far more people in more neighborhoods in a quicker time span.
I'm not sure what your understanding of fare integration is. As I said before multiple times, the difficulty is political, not technical. The actual cost of implementing fare integration on those lines are relatively trivial to such a budget in terms of setting standardized rates for the services in Chicago as in a unified fare system, and a fare collection system whether it's proof-of-purchase (POP) or fare gates. These are easily doable compared to the budget allocation for Red Line extension. Yes, increased service levels can mean higher operating overall operating costs if nothing was changed about fare collection (though why would nothing change about fare collection), but this large total cost is amortized over what would likely be a far greater number of passengers and trip miles. Remember, the rolling stock can be the same for the most part in the initial stages as the current peak time service levels is a *floor* for possible operation frequencies and those are quite high, train maintenance, tracks and station upkeep does not linearly increase with ridership and travel miles and it makes much better use of existing infrastructure, right-of-ways, and stations. Chicago would not be treading new ground here--this was essentially the realization of dozens of commuter rail systems in cities of developed countries the world over.
Are *ALL* jobs or things you might want to see or use in the city located on the North Side of Chicago near the Red Line? This doesn't make sense as an argument as there was no argument from my end that turning RID and ME into high frequency services as the start of RER/S-Bahn network was because they would serve *ALL* jobs or things you might want to see or use on RID and ME lines nor is there any reason to think the Red Line extension would serve *ALL* jobs or things you might wnat to see or use in the city. I mentioned the libraries in the Loop specifically in response to Mariana's example--what you're saying about local libraries is not solely applicable to only North Side libraries east of the Chicago River. Your point about local libraries would apply to Mariana's example, not mine.
How am I ignoring the bus system? Does the bus system disappear if Metra moves to RER/S-Bahn services vs the Red Line extension? For either of these, there should probably be a look at current bus routes to see if there are any modifications to make them as better feeder systems to the faster rail transit systems in cases where riders need to go greater distances, but that applies to both examples. Yes, having a lot of local stops makes things slower. There doesn't need to be a lot of local stops which is why for the areas the Red Line extension serves, it's going to be time saving since the Loop is by far the largest employment area and home of multiple major institutions (also why it has the greater density of L train stops in the city). What's more, there's a good operating principle for RID and ME branches where the tail end within the city has some density of stops at their tails, but then serve fewer intermediate stops (though in ME's case because of the six track configuration it has, there can be a lot of split local/express services for transfer). It's also nonsensical to say that running these patterns would inconvenience suburban commuters. The idea is higher frequency throughout the day for Chicago stops--as the current schedule runs, that's immediately possible because the schedules are sparse for most of the day and week. It also doesn't hold in regards to RID or ME. Railway south of Blue Island stops can still use the main line while there is greater service on the Suburban branch which is what the majority of RID stations in Chicago are. ME is six-tracked and on the main line is six-tracked all the way down to the terminus! Neither of these are operating anywhere near peak track capacity that would limit express service as they are now. Not even close! This would seemingly be an incredibly bizarre argument to make.
What you're saying about not needing to get to 95th St with a bus to transfer to the Red Line for faster service is applicable to high frequency RID and ME service--the point is that it is applicable to a far larger number of people and services a far larger number of people. You're talking an extension to east-west routes along 103rd, 111th, 116th, and 130th which is tiny compared to the cross streets for RID and ME stations south of 95th St. I think we're having a misunderstanding of what's being argued. I am not arguing that the South Side should not have better transit nor am I arguing that the Red Line extension will not provide better transit options to the neighborhoods that would have this extension including with connecting services. The argument is that for the budgeted cost, improving RID and ME as the first parts of a RER/S-Bahn system would yield better transit options for a much wider number of people on the South Side and would be able to start yielding tangible improvements in a much shorter span of time than in 2029. Ideally, this would not be an either/or scenario, but instead where both are done at the same time, but there are questions of whether or not there can be the resources marshaled to do both simultaneously.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-01-2022 at 12:06 PM..
No, I *specifically* meant the east side of the river. You are misreading what was written. I was referring to running Metra as a RER / S-Bahn system which would *not* benefit Chicago North Side east of the northern branch of the Chicago River as much since there are currently only two stations (with one more under construction) on the North Side east of the river and especially not in the initial stages of moving to a RER/S-Bahn high frequency service system because Metra does not currently or propose to own the track for UP-N. Going west does have track owned by Metra as Metra owns MD-N and MD-W and so has an easier pathway to creating infill stations which is why they are part of the initial proposal for Crossrail Chicago.
Ah the around the MD-N line is covered by the blue line and to the south the Green line if you want to get to some place in between. Only the MD-W line makes some(not a lot) sense. The MD-N is too near the blue line and green line to make any sense.
Quote:
Yes, the Red Line extension would improve transit to some parts. I don't contest that at all. The argument is that for that budget, getting the RID and ME lines to run higher frequencies and improving their service is far faster to get up and running and would serve far more people in the South Side and with a lot of budget beyond that for that same cost to do significant improvements to those such as electrification for RID, some grade separation, infill stations, crossovers, passing sidings if need be and through-running Union Station and beyond.
Again from 87th to downtown the RID is way too near the red line to improve access for many south siders. It is only like a 30 min trip from Clark and division on the red line to 95th street. Adding stations on this line duplicates the Red Line. There is an existing fast, high frequency line that covers this area. It is called the Red line. And not much distance by bus as the 87th street station is about a 10 min ride by bus to the 87th red line station. The trouble with the Rock Island is that it turns east towards the red line after 91st. The only stops not near the red line are 91, 95 and 99 in Beverly and the 103,107, 111, 115and 119th down this part of the line.
The 91st stop is not a major street in that it lacks CTA service and can be walked to from 95th. This station mostly exists to handle the volume of Metra trains downtown from Beverly. The 99th Street likewise. The 95th/Beverly stop is served by the 95th street bus. It is a about a 10 min ride from the 95th street red line stop(with about 10 mins between buses). If the CTA desired an express bus down this street would get you to the red line faster. The 95th and longwood one is even closer and served by the 112 route as well as the 95th one which can get you to the red line quicker (about 10 mins). The X9 bus is near the 95th\Beverly stop and handles north\south trips, it could get you to the green line 63rd in about 16 mins(with about 10 mins between buses) or you could use the 95th street bus to the Red line.
If your goal was to go downtown fastest from the 95th and Beverly, you would use the Rock Island line. If your goal was simply to go North from this point from this point you would use the X9 or 9 Ashland bus(why head east?). This would cover the area between 95th Ashland and 63rd Ashland. If you need to go east or west from there you would use an east/west bus among the many major streets connected by the 9 and X9. If your goal was to go further north but stay on the southside you would use the green line from here. The only reason to go to the redline at 95th would be for one of the connecting buses(including greyhound) or you needed something along 95th street. The only direction where you would be a bit screwed from here is if you needed to head south from this point as you would either need the Rock island line or multiple bus transfers.
The CTA plans red line stops on 103rd, 111th, Michigan and 130.
The 103rd St., Washington Hts. Station would be near the proposed 103rd red line station and could be reached by the 103rd street bus that currently serves it. People in this area could use the red line to go south to 130th oe or north to Howard or the many point in between. The 103rd street bus also serves 103rd Beverly stop. If there was a 103rd street red line stop the people in this area could get to the red line faster than they can now. It would also simply CTA bus operations as the 103rd street bus didn’t have to carry people to the red line at 95th street via turning up Michigan but could just stay along 103rd.
The 111th stop would function likewise esp. as the 111th bus wouldn’t need to head up king drive to get to 95th.
The 115 and 119th are the ones that would see little to no benefit from the red line extension.
If you truly wanted to improve access to this area a simple shuttle between say 87th or 55th and the Beverly part of the RID line would do. The rest of what you propose is going to cost more, tear down more and be a lot harder politically to do. In addition Metra could very well easily add such a service if it desired.
Quote:
For whatever reason, your understanding of how through-routing works is that it works against capacity and when that was mentioned, you seem to just gloss over it. This is odd given that a hallmark of Chicago's L system is a unique subset of through-running (the Loop) as a mechanism to have high capacity. Engelwood residents getting a quicker trip *is* worthwhile because the point of Red Line extension is *also* quicker trips as is the idea of turning Metra into a RER/S-Bahn type of network, however, it's not just Englewood that would benefit from that and it's not just quicker trips, but also potentially fewer transfers and shorter connections for a wide swathe of people and neighborhoods. That's also what the Red Line extension is meant to do, but directing that budget towards high-frequency RID and ME services means doing that far more people in more neighborhoods in a quicker time span.
I know what through routing is, but what you are doing here mostly is increasing frequency not through routing. The loop isn't through routing, it is called turn around. Trains must turn around to go back to the point they started from. In fact the first EL lines predate the loop and did not stop at the loop. The job of the loop was to make cross town trips easier. The frequency of an particular EL line is set by the time between trains and this reflects the number of trains on them and EL trains can be short turned in places.
The Green line is the only line that is currently through routed through the loop. In the past it was the Lake\Dan Ryan. The Green line and Red lines were created by reroutes of the EL line made possible by building a tunnel connecting the Dan Ryan to the state street subway.
The Pink, Brown, Purple, and Orange lines are turned around by the loop. And occasionally the Green line goes no further than the loop. The loop serves as a connection between EL lines while turning them around.
The pink line was rerouted to the loop for the first time since the 1950ies due to needing more trains on the Blue line to O'Hare and the problem of every other train needing to be a Douglas park(pink line) one in order to maintain frequency on the Douglas park part(Pink Line). By rerouting the Douglas can keep serving the same area of the loop it used to with fewer trains as they are no all heading to forest park and the newly reconfigured blue line can run more trains to O'hare. The only people affected were those who were on the pink line and wanted a single seat ride to the O'hare part of the line.
Ah the around the MD-N line is covered by the blue line and to the south the Green line if you want to get to some place in between. Only the MD-W line makes some(not a lot) sense. The MD-N is too near the blue line and green line to make any sense.
Again from 87th to downtown the RID is way too near the red line to improve access for many south siders. It is only like a 30 min trip from Clark and division on the red line to 95th street. Adding stations on this line duplicates the Red Line. There is an existing fast, high frequency line that covers this area. It is called the Red line. And not much distance by bus as the 87th street station is about a 10 min ride by bus to the 87th red line station. The trouble with the Rock Island is that it turns east towards the red line after 91st. The only stops not near the red line are 91, 95 and 99 in Beverly and the 103,107, 111, 115and 119th down this part of the line.
The 91st stop is not a major street in that it lacks CTA service and can be walked to from 95th. This station mostly exists to handle the volume of Metra trains downtown from Beverly. The 99th Street likewise. The 95th/Beverly stop is served by the 95th street bus. It is a about a 10 min ride from the 95th street red line stop(with about 10 mins between buses). If the CTA desired an express bus down this street would get you to the red line faster. The 95th and longwood one is even closer and served by the 112 route as well as the 95th one which can get you to the red line quicker (about 10 mins). The X9 bus is near the 95th\Beverly stop and handles north\south trips, it could get you to the green line 63rd in about 16 mins(with about 10 mins between buses) or you could use the 95th street bus to the Red line.
If your goal was to go downtown fastest from the 95th and Beverly, you would use the Rock Island line. If your goal was simply to go North from this point from this point you would use the X9 or 9 Ashland bus(why head east?). This would cover the area between 95th Ashland and 63rd Ashland. If you need to go east or west from there you would use an east/west bus among the many major streets connected by the 9 and X9. If your goal was to go further north but stay on the southside you would use the green line from here. The only reason to go to the redline at 95th would be for one of the connecting buses(including greyhound) or you needed something along 95th street. The only direction where you would be a bit screwed from here is if you needed to head south from this point as you would either need the Rock island line or multiple bus transfers.
The CTA plans red line stops on 103rd, 111th, Michigan and 130.
The 103rd St., Washington Hts. Station would be near the proposed 103rd red line station and could be reached by the 103rd street bus that currently serves it. People in this area could use the red line to go south to 130th oe or north to Howard or the many point in between. The 103rd street bus also serves 103rd Beverly stop. If there was a 103rd street red line stop the people in this area could get to the red line faster than they can now. It would also simply CTA bus operations as the 103rd street bus didn’t have to carry people to the red line at 95th street via turning up Michigan but could just stay along 103rd.
The 111th stop would function likewise esp. as the 111th bus wouldn’t need to head up king drive to get to 95th.
The 115 and 119th are the ones that would see little to no benefit from the red line extension.
If you truly wanted to improve access to this area a simple shuttle between say 87th or 55th and the Beverly part of the RID line would do. The rest of what you propose is going to cost more, tear down more and be a lot harder politically to do. In addition Metra could very well easily add such a service if it desired.
I know what through routing is, but what you are doing here mostly is increasing frequency not through routing. The loop isn't through routing, it is called turn around. Trains must turn around to go back to the point they started from. In fact the first EL lines predate the loop and did not stop at the loop. The job of the loop was to make cross town trips easier. The frequency of an particular EL line is set by the time between trains and this reflects the number of trains on them and EL trains can be short turned in places.
The Green line is the only line that is currently through routed through the loop. In the past it was the Lake\Dan Ryan. The Green line and Red lines were created by reroutes of the EL line made possible by building a tunnel connecting the Dan Ryan to the state street subway.
The Pink, Brown, Purple, and Orange lines are turned around by the loop. And occasionally the Green line goes no further than the loop. The loop serves as a connection between EL lines while turning them around.
The pink line was rerouted to the loop for the first time since the 1950ies due to needing more trains on the Blue line to O'Hare and the problem of every other train needing to be a Douglas park(pink line) one in order to maintain frequency on the Douglas park part(Pink Line). By rerouting the Douglas can keep serving the same area of the loop it used to with fewer trains as they are no all heading to forest park and the newly reconfigured blue line can run more trains to O'hare. The only people affected were those who were on the pink line and wanted a single seat ride to the O'hare part of the line.
I will answer the rest later.
My God, reading the posts on this topic makes me so grateful that I don't have to even consider ANY of this in my life. To have to have all these considerations just to exist in getting around Chicago is mind-numbing. Good luck to all of you that have to do this on a daily basis.
Ah the around the MD-N line is covered by the blue line and to the south the Green line if you want to get to some place in between. Only the MD-W line makes some(not a lot) sense. The MD-N is too near the blue line and green line to make any sense.
Again from 87th to downtown the RID is way too near the red line to improve access for many south siders. It is only like a 30 min trip from Clark and division on the red line to 95th street. Adding stations on this line duplicates the Red Line. There is an existing fast, high frequency line that covers this area. It is called the Red line. And not much distance by bus as the 87th street station is about a 10 min ride by bus to the 87th red line station. The trouble with the Rock Island is that it turns east towards the red line after 91st. The only stops not near the red line are 91, 95 and 99 in Beverly and the 103,107, 111, 115and 119th down this part of the line.
The 91st stop is not a major street in that it lacks CTA service and can be walked to from 95th. This station mostly exists to handle the volume of Metra trains downtown from Beverly. The 99th Street likewise. The 95th/Beverly stop is served by the 95th street bus. It is a about a 10 min ride from the 95th street red line stop(with about 10 mins between buses). If the CTA desired an express bus down this street would get you to the red line faster. The 95th and longwood one is even closer and served by the 112 route as well as the 95th one which can get you to the red line quicker (about 10 mins). The X9 bus is near the 95th\Beverly stop and handles north\south trips, it could get you to the green line 63rd in about 16 mins(with about 10 mins between buses) or you could use the 95th street bus to the Red line.
If your goal was to go downtown fastest from the 95th and Beverly, you would use the Rock Island line. If your goal was simply to go North from this point from this point you would use the X9 or 9 Ashland bus(why head east?). This would cover the area between 95th Ashland and 63rd Ashland. If you need to go east or west from there you would use an east/west bus among the many major streets connected by the 9 and X9. If your goal was to go further north but stay on the southside you would use the green line from here. The only reason to go to the redline at 95th would be for one of the connecting buses(including greyhound) or you needed something along 95th street. The only direction where you would be a bit screwed from here is if you needed to head south from this point as you would either need the Rock island line or multiple bus transfers.
The CTA plans red line stops on 103rd, 111th, Michigan and 130.
The 103rd St., Washington Hts. Station would be near the proposed 103rd red line station and could be reached by the 103rd street bus that currently serves it. People in this area could use the red line to go south to 130th oe or north to Howard or the many point in between. The 103rd street bus also serves 103rd Beverly stop. If there was a 103rd street red line stop the people in this area could get to the red line faster than they can now. It would also simply CTA bus operations as the 103rd street bus didn’t have to carry people to the red line at 95th street via turning up Michigan but could just stay along 103rd.
The 111th stop would function likewise esp. as the 111th bus wouldn’t need to head up king drive to get to 95th.
The 115 and 119th are the ones that would see little to no benefit from the red line extension.
If you truly wanted to improve access to this area a simple shuttle between say 87th or 55th and the Beverly part of the RID line would do. The rest of what you propose is going to cost more, tear down more and be a lot harder politically to do. In addition Metra could very well easily add such a service if it desired.
I know what through routing is, but what you are doing here mostly is increasing frequency not through routing. The loop isn't through routing, it is called turn around. Trains must turn around to go back to the point they started from. In fact the first EL lines predate the loop and did not stop at the loop. The job of the loop was to make cross town trips easier. The frequency of an particular EL line is set by the time between trains and this reflects the number of trains on them and EL trains can be short turned in places.
The Green line is the only line that is currently through routed through the loop. In the past it was the Lake\Dan Ryan. The Green line and Red lines were created by reroutes of the EL line made possible by building a tunnel connecting the Dan Ryan to the state street subway.
The Pink, Brown, Purple, and Orange lines are turned around by the loop. And occasionally the Green line goes no further than the loop. The loop serves as a connection between EL lines while turning them around.
The pink line was rerouted to the loop for the first time since the 1950ies due to needing more trains on the Blue line to O'Hare and the problem of every other train needing to be a Douglas park(pink line) one in order to maintain frequency on the Douglas park part(Pink Line). By rerouting the Douglas can keep serving the same area of the loop it used to with fewer trains as they are no all heading to forest park and the newly reconfigured blue line can run more trains to O'hare. The only people affected were those who were on the pink line and wanted a single seat ride to the O'hare part of the line.
I will answer the rest later.
You were trying to say that the Red Line extension grants you access to the North Side since it would be an extension of a line that goes up to the North Side. I am pointing out that through-running these to Union Station in the Crossrail Chicago plan also provides access for South Side residents to not just the Loop (which is important!), but other parts of the city and vice versa. That was part of the point being addressed. The other is that these lines often run through long segments without stops which is what RER/S-Bahn lines do save for the downtown centers and sometimes tail ends, though ME is a different beast to some extent because it's six-tracked, which is a significant time savings which is important in making mass transit useful. The claim of too near existing lines is not how transit works because they aren't all that close in regards to walking distance which is how a lot of people get to transit, and they are not always on the same arterial roads where the bus would service the same stations. About a half mile walk is usually considered walking distance for rapid transit and there is only one station on MD-N and one station at RID that is within a half mile walk of a CTA line outside of the Loop. Between downplaying the value of transit to the CBD, the idea that frequency actually matters, and then pretending that these routes are being duplicated, it seems like you may not have much experience with living somewhere with truly good transit systems. Have you tried living elsewhere that has really good transit systems? Do you want to at least acknowledge this question? It doesn't seem like it and you keep on avoiding answering this for one quixotic argument after another. Seriously, have you tried living anywhere that has really good public transit and not just good for US standards, but just good compared to cities in other developed countries.
The Red Line extension does not improve transit access very much from 87th St to downtown either--that's already in existence so already has good service. RID and ME to a RER/S-Bahn operation is for the most part not targeted towards improving transit for people who already have access to fast, frequent transit. It *is* meant to improve transit for people who do *not* currently have fast, frequent transit access which is the same as the Red Line extension! The thing is that doing this with shifting and improving how RID and ME operate gets this done far faster and to a much wider swath of people and neighborhoods on the South Side for the same budget as the Red Line extension! You seem to keep on confusing yourself with these arguments about things that no one is claiming.
Yea, I know the bus routes in Chicago--they would also serve the Metra lines at high frequency except there would be a lot more bus routes that can be used as single transfer to fast, frequent rail with RID and ME improving service because here are far more stations for these and you can get this going well before 2029. We are talking about dozens of stations potentially able to at least get some increased access immediately followed by incremental improvements over the course of a few years versus four stations to happen in six years
You don't understand through-routing if you think it reduces capacity or eats up more space. You seem to be thinking of it as just a route extension which to some extent it is as a single seat ride or reducing transfers by one does save time and that *is* valuable despite other comments made by you that seems like you don't believe that to be true. Through-routing is more than that--it's an efficiency increase over the alternative of terminal operations. You do not seem to understand this. The Loop is essentially a through-routing operating, but in a special subset of that (which also exists elsewhere as does the varying entry and exit points for loops that the L uses). That is done specifically because that kind of operation is a lot more space efficient and a lot faster than terminal operations. This very basic and fundamental aspect of through-running seems to not be acknowledged. It's really easy for you to just acknowledge that you were mistaken or misspoke, but that seems difficult for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgg
My God, reading the posts on this topic makes me so grateful that I don't have to even consider ANY of this in my life. To have to have all these considerations just to exist in getting around Chicago is mind-numbing. Good luck to all of you that have to do this on a daily basis.
Meh, you get this in freeway and street planning circles as well. The thing is, it should be obvious to people with some knowledge in the field that chirack sometimes says things that are a bit odd.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-02-2022 at 08:00 AM..
If I had a nickel for EVERYtime you called ME "odd"
Have a great Friday, my friend!
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.
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.
