what chicago needs in order to upgrade its transit system is the spark that a major event like the olympics would provide. it wouldn't be the first time in chicago's history.
london suffers from many of the same exact problems with its transit infrastructure, and it got the 2012 olympics. despite a nominally more interventionist government, london's transit infrastructure (older than chicago's, btw) is falling apart at the seams too, but that didn't seem to matter so much.
and as archaic and frustrating as the CTA may seem, try living in...oh, i dunno, every other american city except for new york, san francisco (maybe), or boston...and you'll start to appreciate it. maybe enough to pay a real-world fare. that doesn't seem to be part of the discussion, though.
because while it may seem like $2 or even $3 is a lot of money to ride from, say, o'hare to the loop...especially when the "boop-boop-your attention please" comes across the PA...the cost of a cab is $40, and if you live in the city and want to drive to the loop, you'll pay $10 (at the minimum) to even dream of a parking space. the aforementioned tube in london can cost as much as 4 pounds a ride, depending on where you're going and what kind of transit card you use. that's $8.25, by the way.
I agree that a 4-track express/local system is ideal. It works well on Chicago's North Side, and it works well in NYC and Philly.
The Eisenhower median was built to accommodate additional tracks for the now-defunct Elgin Joilet & Eastern interurban line, which went out of business before the expressway was completed. (The EJ&E operated on an elevated structure that was torn down to make way for the Ike, and the railroad didn't survive the disruption.)
The Eisenhower ROW could easily handle express tracks between Halsted and Forest Park, but you'd still be left with major bottlenecks at either end, especially in the Loop, without some major new construction.
The problem is worse on the O'Hare branch, where there wouldn't be room for express tracks without creating an entirely new ROW roughly parallel to the existing Blue Line. This could be achieved by digging a new subway under Milwaukee Avenue, but that would be a major operation.
I would also argue that any express trains should be much larger and faster, similar to Washington Metro trains or SF's BART trains. Chicago's first 'L' trains were actually streetcar designs modified for third rails and high-level platforms, and that basic design premise has never changed. Other cities' rapid transit systems (with the exception of Boston's Green Line) were designed to be heavy-rail rapid transit from day one, but Chicago's 'L' has more in common with a light rail system than it does with a true metro. This needs to change if Chicago's transit system ever wants to live up to its full potential.
Theres plenty of room. You just got to squeeze more.
Im confused by your term Heavy rail - Washingtons metros look rather dainty, as does the Bart. NYC has a slighty wider car as far as I can tell with paded wheels. I dont get it - all metros are light rail compared to freight rail
As for the ike - theres a spur through maywood and Bellwood just after the forest park terminal, or the giant cemetery which dums you out into the the I-88/ 290 /Roosevelt interchange where its simply forest preserves, interchanges and a little ROW belonging tot he water distric where the giant lake mich lines runs. Easy as cake.
The Circulator Project, proposed and studied (at great cost to city, state, and feds) in the early 90s, suffered a sudden and quick death in mid-1995 when Mayor Daley suddenly developed "cold feet" and promptly abandoned the project. He killed project for two reasons: 1) the 1996 democratic convention scheduled for Chicago, requiring a spruced-up downtown rather than an ugly major construction project; (remember all those streetscaping projects?) 2) and more importantly - his great fear of seriously upsetting downtown business community (his political and financial base) by significantly disrupting downtown streets and traffic flow for several years while Circulator's required tracks and catenary were constructed, as well as his concern for the long-term political fall-out for community's distaste when these businessmen realized downtown was now cluttered with miles upon miles of catenary wire, tracks, stations, and many more utility poles.
Circulator Project had a favorable funding scheme that assured state and federal funding for 2/3rds the cost of project. Still Mayor Daley couldn't overcome his nervousness regarding big projects.
The industry terms "light rail" and "heavy rail" are a bit misleading, as the actual track gauge and rail weight are usually the same in both types of systems.
"Light rail" generally refers to short trains with low-level platforms, power supplied via overhead catenary, and on-board fare collection. Many light rail lines also have portions that run on surface streets. Think Portland's MAX or the San Diego trolley system. The passenger capacity per train is generally rather low compared to a traditional subway.
"Heavy rail" refers to a traditional subway like you find in NYC, Washington, and Atlanta. Longer trains, faster speeds, third rail power, fares collected in a station, and no street crossings. Passenger capacity per train is generally very high.
(Mainline commuter railroads like Metra fall under FRA jurisdiction along with the freight railroads, and are an entirely different category.)
Chicago's 'L' system, from a technical point of view, is sort of a hybrid between light rail and heavy rail. While it shares many of the same traits as a heavy rail system, it suffers from the capacity restraints of a light rail system, and still includes a number of at-grade street crossings. In fact, it wasn't very long ago that streetcars and interurban trains operated on the same tracks as the 'L' trains.
Chicago has the smallest trains of any US transit system: 48'-0" long by 8'-8" wide, with a maximum train length of 8 cars.
Washington Metro, Atlanta's MARTA, and San Francisco's BART trains are all 75'-0" long by 10'-0" wide. Train lengths are usually 6-8 cars.
BART uses a non-standard track gauge (5'-0" vs. 4'-8 1/2"), but that doesn't have an impact on passenger capacity.
NYC's system is more complicated, with two different divisions:
The former IRT lines (today's numbered routes) have trains that are 51'-0" long by 8'-10" wide, and almost always run 10 cars per train. These would be the closest counterparts to Chicago's 'L' trains, but they're still a bit larger and they run in longer trains.
The former BMT and IND lines (today's lettered routes) have trains that range in length from 60'-0" to 75'-0" and are 10'-0" wide. These trains are usually 8-10 cars long.
(Keep in mind that a 6-car Metro train is 66 feet longer than an 8-car CTA train, and the CTA is the only transit system that has the annoying practice of breaking down train lengths during off-peak periods.)
Chicago's subway stations are actually designed with platforms long enough to berth 10-car trains, but you'd still need to lengthen the platforms on the elevated stations before you could run longer trains on a given line.
i think the el is considered heavy rail, but yes, it has light-rail-style capacity constraints. it was strange to ride the brown line all the way to kimball for the first time and to go down to street level.
what is amazing, is to look at an pre-world-war-II el map. i actually own one from 1934. the system was so much larger in its heyday, and trains (smaller trains...there's a good reason why) ran every 30 seconds through stations in the loop.
increasing the size of the cars isn't the issue, and increasing the length of trains isn't the issue. it is increasing the frequency of the trains.
i used to live right next to the howard el -- i mean, the red line (they were changing the nomenclature at the time) -- and there were trains every 3-5 minutes at rush hour. sounds like a lot? in moscow the metro runs trains every 30 - 60 seconds at rush hour. when i was in london, we never waited more than 3 minutes for a train when we traveled in central london.
the problem with the CTA is that the trains at non-peak hours are often 15-30 minutes apart (with current scheduling problems). when you wait a quarter of an hour for a train, you start to wonder, hey...the loop is six miles away (or something like that), maybe i could just drive right to my destination. never mind that it will take you longer and cost more. the perception is that it will be quicker. that's $2 less in the CTA's pocket and $10 more in central parking's till.
and buses? buses were DESIGNED to make people want to buy cars. they are in the traffic stream -- when there is a logjam in a river, you don't make the jam flow faster by adding more logs. at least in chicago the routes actually make sense -- you should try the bus system in austin sometime if you want to get completely f--king lost.
the CTA, and every other transit system, needs to increase frequency and pull more of its system off of the streets.
Lletdown - I cant find it in the Fed docs ( im actualy trying to work at the same time) but i found some reference to it as being a "new start" project from beyondcongestion.org
Increased trains per hour is another major need, but the CTA has been moving in the opposite direction. For example, a line with 4-car trains running every five minutes has the same passenger capacity as a line with 8-car trains running every ten minutes, but double the labor cost. If the CTA could get away with hiring one motorman to run a 30-car train once a day, they probably would.
The other problem concerns infrastructure, as the number of trains per hour on a given line is limited by the line's signaling system. I know they've been upgrading the signals on the Red Line subway, but I'm not sure if that will allow additional trains her hour.
There's also a number of major bottlenecks that are unique to the CTA system, places like Clark Junction where outbound Brown Line trains must cross the Red and Purple Line tracks to branch off on its own, and Tower 18 at Lake and Wells, where several different lines all cross each other at grade. Great for railroad buffs, but terrible for commuters. It's like building an expressway with traffic signals instead of cloverleaf interchanges, with predictable results.
The CTA could certainly stand to increase service frequency, but they'd have to be willing to swallow the additional labor costs, and the schedule coordination among different lines would need to be flawless.
that's all true indeed. not only does the system's footprint need to increase, the infrastructure (both mechanical and human) needs to be upgraded. take a look at the el map. most of the area of the city is not within a new urbanist walk from an el station. granted, only the northern section of the city really survived white flight, but still. if you're in hegewisch, you either get in your car or ride metra. there's a fare increase for ya.
what i have to say is this: from the inside looking in, richard m daley seemed like a real environmentalist. from the outside, the whole "greenest city in america" stuff looks like greenwash. until the cta, and specifically its rail system, improves...people are gonna continue to get in their cars, and at a higher rate each year. because i don't care what anyone says, you're insane to ride a bike in chicago this time of year.
About the only thing Ive ever agreed with Big Head Rod is his position that the extremely high gas taxes in and around chicago should be diverted and used EXCLUSIVELY for mass transit system. It would be hundreds of millions per year that now goes towards shitkicker country highways.
Has Gov. Blago actually signed the bill yet? The article made it sound like he had reservations about it.
Of course, if he vetoed it, he'd become Public Enemy #1 in Chicago (if he isn't there already). Hopefully he has a couple of functioning brain cells and will sign the bill.
he hasnt signed it. hes demanding that because of the tax increase, passengers over 65 should ride for free.
the additive veto type deal means it goes back to the house again to be approved.
so what does everyone think of this plan?
seems like its a pretty solid decision actually. and seemingly and economically sustainable solution.
im very, very pleased to see that the operational bill was able to be passed without being attached to the capital bill as was feared before... or the casino.
another huge test coming up though because as critical as the operational bill was, the capital bill is only slightly less so. will the casino come in play then?
If Blago is willing to give rides to the elderly in his helicopter on his "commute" from Chicago to Springfield everyday, then fine - I'm willing to chip in. Until then, STFU and sign the bill.
For a governer who's state only recieves 77cents on the dollar it sends to Washington, He's got a lot of nerve to stand up and say "the $20million for seniors rides is really nothing when you concider the totals we are discussing"
What kind of asshole says $20 million dollars is nothing - just because its a small%. Its jerks like this that get governments into trouble to begin with.
I don't know if this has already been posted or not, but Bombardier, Inc. is now building the new 5000-series CTA cars, and the first ones are to be delivered for testing by the end of 2008.
The new railcars will feature AC traction motors (now standard on almost every other subway system), which will save energy and allow for smoothing acceleration and braking.
Other features of the new railcars:
* Seven interior security cameras
* Larger exterior LED destination signs (replacing the mylar roller curtains currently used)
* Interior LED readouts on the end bulkheads and LED destination signs
* An onboard event recorder
* Interior system maps with LED location indicator light
* Global Positioning System (GPS)
* Improved side door design to minimize operational problems
* Spot lighting in the bulkhead over the sidedoors
* Textured, non-slip floor covering to improve cleanability
* Glow-in-the-dark floor stripes outlining aisles and doorways and glow-in-the-dark evacuation signs
* Operator-controlled ventilation systems, able to fully shut down all HVAC blowers in response to smoke, fire or biological incident
* Improved traction motor cooling
* Hydraulic active vehicle suspension system to lower car floor height at platforms
* A trainlined diagnostics and operator information display in the motorcab, providing an interactive touch screen display with real time train information interface, diagnostic system for maintenance to speed identification of problem and repair and a smart card operator log in
The exterior of the new cars will look very much like the existing 3200-series cars operating on the Brown, Orange, and Yellow Lines. The interiors, though, are a different story:
I'm a little disappointed that the contract went to Bombardier, as they built a bunch of subway cars for NYC that turned out to be a maintenance nightmare. Another contract of cars built by Kawasaki at the same time, and to the exact same specifications, have performed almost flawlessly.
I was a little confused by the GPS thing as well, since the signaling system should be able to keep track of train locations much more accurately than any GPS device. Plus, the GPS doesn't do much good when the train is underground in a subway tunnel.
The look of the trains is pretty much determined by the transit agency, not the manufacturer. The CTA, unfortunately, has become incredibly conservative in the design of its railcars, which have only seen incremental changes since the 2000-series were designed in the early 1960's.
IMO, the nicest-looking CTA cars are the 2200-series, which are scheduled to be retired with the new 5000-series cars begin entering service. The CTA actually hired SOM as an aesthetic consultant when the 2200's were being designed... That might be the only case I know of where an architect has been involved in the design of a subway car. Visually, the 2200's were light years ahead of what was being built for the NYC subway at that time, but that was 40 years ago.
Here in NYC, the newest Bombardier cars, the R142's, are pretty much identical to the Kawasaki R142A's. The only way I can tell them apart is the builder's plate on the interior, and by the sound of the motors.
also, speaking of new york subway cars, these guys did the industrial design for the R142/143 cars. i remember seeing an article about this years ago. bombardier appears to have their own industrial designers; i'm sure it was a sort of collaboration.
Interesting site... I ride the R143's everyday (and sometimes even the newer R160's, which are very similar), and it's interesting to note the subtle differences between the original mock-up and what's actually on the rails. Looks like most of their design intent actually made it through production.
The thing I like best about the R142/R143/R160 cars, though, is how incredibly smooth and quiet they are... The ride quality feels more like that of an airport monorail than a subway train.
The current fleet of CTA 'L' trains are absolutely horrible when it comes to noise, bumpy rides, and bone-jarring stops and starts. You'd think all the trains had square wheels. I hope the new Bombardier 5000's are able to rectify some of those issues.
Those trains getting retired that you posted, LiG, are the loudest, rattliest, and hardest to board/alight from of all the trains. I will give it to you that they are sleek, however. It has always seemed a special torment to me that they were designed for use primarily on the Blue line, which goes to O'Hare...and means that travelers are forever stuck trying to haul their suitcases on and off the train through these narrow little door gates and banging into the pointless guardrail poles on the other side.
The new trains sound great except for their awfully misguided interior design. Inward facing seats are terrible for both seated AND standing riders and completely ignore the CTA's sole remarkable asset : stunning city views and up-close architectural experiences that everyone in the city enjoys and tourists exclaim over. Where else do you get to become intimately familiar with 2nd and 3rd storey architectural friezes except in loop-side Chicago? In-ward facing seats are fine on Boston's red line, where you have nothing else to look at except your neighbor-across-the-way's nose piercing, but we have more picturesque views than that in Chicago.
I disagree Mantaray, I think the CTA's forward and backward facing seats cause a lot of the congestion problems that passengers experience, especially durring rush hour. The aisle becomes such a bottle neck that people won't fully enter the car out of fear of not being able to get out when they reach their stop. I like the inward facing seats, you simply have to look out over the passanger accross the way.
I think you are right on about the double doors on the blue line trains, those things are terrible.
In Hong Kong the train cars are attached by flexible connections that allow for a continuous pathway from the front car all the way to the very back car. As a result there is a sense of openness that allows passengers to to board freely without feeling as congested as we tend to feel on the CTA.
I've lived off the Green, Red, Orange, Blue and Brown lines in Chicago, all for significant periods of time.
Anyhow, I think the more relevant question is how far a long the train you live. If you live out towards the end of one of the lines, then I can understand your appreciation of extra seats, but if you live closer, they just exist as a nuisance.
The so-called "blinker" doors on the 2200-series cars are a holdover from a time when 'L' cars were basically converted trolleys. Once upon a time, all 'L' cars had similar doors; the 2200's just have the distinction of having survived longer. Since the doors are not ADA-compliant, at least one pair of newer cars with ADA-compliant doors mixed in with the 2200's; you'll never see an entire train consisting of 2200-series cars.
The 2200's used to operate throughout the system, but are confined to the Blue Line today so that spare parts can be consolidated at one maintenance facility, and because the Blue Line is relatively isolated from the rest of the CTA system in terms of track connections.
The articulated trains used in Hong Kong would be a great idea for Chicago, especially since the CTA is stuck using very short cars (48' long, compared to 75' cars on DC Metro, BART, and some NYC subway lines) due to track clearances on sharp curves. The CTA actually experimented with articulated railcars back in the late 40's, but the idea was dropped in favor of married pairs.
As for the cattle car idea: Dumbest. Idea. Ever. Supposedly these cars will only run during rush hours, which means the CTA will need to spend tons of money in labor costs making up and breaking down the train consists before and after each rush hour, in addition to their absurd practice of running shorter trains during off-peak periods. They could save tons of money simply by running full-length trains 24 hours a day, which is how most other transit systems operate.
Wow, that cattle-car idea is asinine. I ride the brown line two times a day during rush hour and I can tell you that since they debuted the 8-car trains, it has never been packed enough that I couldn't get on and find a comfortable place to stand. The situation has changed dramatically since those extra cars were added. Now if we can just get funding for extra trains to be run, we'll be fine on the brown line. I no longer ever see anyone left behind at sedgwick in the mornings, and people are still getting seats as far in as addison. This idea is idiotic, particularly considering your point about hooking up and unhooking the rail cars... I never thought about that; it does make the "shorter trains during off-peak hours" thing seem a waste of time.
Interesting history of the development of the blue line cars, LiG. Makes more sense now, although I still prefer the ADA doors.
I certainly agree the CTA should always run full length trains and I'm not looking for no seat "cattle" cars, just reduced seating, possibly in an arrangement similar to the Image I posted above.
Like it or not, the inward-facing longitudinal seats (as opposed to forward/backward-facing transverse seating in today's fleet) will be incorporated into the next generation of CTA cars, which are currently in design.
I prefer facing forward myself, but the longitudinal seats allow for additional standing room, plus more floor area for wheelchairs, luggage, etc. to maneuver. Most NYC subway trains (except for the R44/46 and R68 cars) have longitudinal seating, and it actually improves passenger flow a great deal and makes the car interiors feel much more spacious.
So the Brown Line is actually running 8-car trains now? Maybe someday they'll expand the Red Line to handle 10-car trains, which the below-ground stations are already built for.
CTA Funding Meltdown
what chicago needs in order to upgrade its transit system is the spark that a major event like the olympics would provide. it wouldn't be the first time in chicago's history.
london suffers from many of the same exact problems with its transit infrastructure, and it got the 2012 olympics. despite a nominally more interventionist government, london's transit infrastructure (older than chicago's, btw) is falling apart at the seams too, but that didn't seem to matter so much.
and as archaic and frustrating as the CTA may seem, try living in...oh, i dunno, every other american city except for new york, san francisco (maybe), or boston...and you'll start to appreciate it. maybe enough to pay a real-world fare. that doesn't seem to be part of the discussion, though.
because while it may seem like $2 or even $3 is a lot of money to ride from, say, o'hare to the loop...especially when the "boop-boop-your attention please" comes across the PA...the cost of a cab is $40, and if you live in the city and want to drive to the loop, you'll pay $10 (at the minimum) to even dream of a parking space. the aforementioned tube in london can cost as much as 4 pounds a ride, depending on where you're going and what kind of transit card you use. that's $8.25, by the way.
I agree that a 4-track express/local system is ideal. It works well on Chicago's North Side, and it works well in NYC and Philly.
The Eisenhower median was built to accommodate additional tracks for the now-defunct Elgin Joilet & Eastern interurban line, which went out of business before the expressway was completed. (The EJ&E operated on an elevated structure that was torn down to make way for the Ike, and the railroad didn't survive the disruption.)
The Eisenhower ROW could easily handle express tracks between Halsted and Forest Park, but you'd still be left with major bottlenecks at either end, especially in the Loop, without some major new construction.
The problem is worse on the O'Hare branch, where there wouldn't be room for express tracks without creating an entirely new ROW roughly parallel to the existing Blue Line. This could be achieved by digging a new subway under Milwaukee Avenue, but that would be a major operation.
I would also argue that any express trains should be much larger and faster, similar to Washington Metro trains or SF's BART trains. Chicago's first 'L' trains were actually streetcar designs modified for third rails and high-level platforms, and that basic design premise has never changed. Other cities' rapid transit systems (with the exception of Boston's Green Line) were designed to be heavy-rail rapid transit from day one, but Chicago's 'L' has more in common with a light rail system than it does with a true metro. This needs to change if Chicago's transit system ever wants to live up to its full potential.
Theres plenty of room. You just got to squeeze more.
Im confused by your term Heavy rail - Washingtons metros look rather dainty, as does the Bart. NYC has a slighty wider car as far as I can tell with paded wheels. I dont get it - all metros are light rail compared to freight rail
As for the ike - theres a spur through maywood and Bellwood just after the forest park terminal, or the giant cemetery which dums you out into the the I-88/ 290 /Roosevelt interchange where its simply forest preserves, interchanges and a little ROW belonging tot he water distric where the giant lake mich lines runs. Easy as cake.
Dont forget the Hillside dump!
The Circulator Project, proposed and studied (at great cost to city, state, and feds) in the early 90s, suffered a sudden and quick death in mid-1995 when Mayor Daley suddenly developed "cold feet" and promptly abandoned the project. He killed project for two reasons: 1) the 1996 democratic convention scheduled for Chicago, requiring a spruced-up downtown rather than an ugly major construction project; (remember all those streetscaping projects?) 2) and more importantly - his great fear of seriously upsetting downtown business community (his political and financial base) by significantly disrupting downtown streets and traffic flow for several years while Circulator's required tracks and catenary were constructed, as well as his concern for the long-term political fall-out for community's distaste when these businessmen realized downtown was now cluttered with miles upon miles of catenary wire, tracks, stations, and many more utility poles.
Circulator Project had a favorable funding scheme that assured state and federal funding for 2/3rds the cost of project. Still Mayor Daley couldn't overcome his nervousness regarding big projects.
its still on - the project may be dead as first envisioned however the funding is ongoing.
somewhere in here is the test on the circle line - I'll post it when I find it
link
please do that would be very interesting to read
The industry terms "light rail" and "heavy rail" are a bit misleading, as the actual track gauge and rail weight are usually the same in both types of systems.
"Light rail" generally refers to short trains with low-level platforms, power supplied via overhead catenary, and on-board fare collection. Many light rail lines also have portions that run on surface streets. Think Portland's MAX or the San Diego trolley system. The passenger capacity per train is generally rather low compared to a traditional subway.
"Heavy rail" refers to a traditional subway like you find in NYC, Washington, and Atlanta. Longer trains, faster speeds, third rail power, fares collected in a station, and no street crossings. Passenger capacity per train is generally very high.
(Mainline commuter railroads like Metra fall under FRA jurisdiction along with the freight railroads, and are an entirely different category.)
Chicago's 'L' system, from a technical point of view, is sort of a hybrid between light rail and heavy rail. While it shares many of the same traits as a heavy rail system, it suffers from the capacity restraints of a light rail system, and still includes a number of at-grade street crossings. In fact, it wasn't very long ago that streetcars and interurban trains operated on the same tracks as the 'L' trains.
Chicago has the smallest trains of any US transit system: 48'-0" long by 8'-8" wide, with a maximum train length of 8 cars.
Washington Metro, Atlanta's MARTA, and San Francisco's BART trains are all 75'-0" long by 10'-0" wide. Train lengths are usually 6-8 cars.
BART uses a non-standard track gauge (5'-0" vs. 4'-8 1/2"), but that doesn't have an impact on passenger capacity.
NYC's system is more complicated, with two different divisions:
The former IRT lines (today's numbered routes) have trains that are 51'-0" long by 8'-10" wide, and almost always run 10 cars per train. These would be the closest counterparts to Chicago's 'L' trains, but they're still a bit larger and they run in longer trains.
The former BMT and IND lines (today's lettered routes) have trains that range in length from 60'-0" to 75'-0" and are 10'-0" wide. These trains are usually 8-10 cars long.
(Keep in mind that a 6-car Metro train is 66 feet longer than an 8-car CTA train, and the CTA is the only transit system that has the annoying practice of breaking down train lengths during off-peak periods.)
Chicago's subway stations are actually designed with platforms long enough to berth 10-car trains, but you'd still need to lengthen the platforms on the elevated stations before you could run longer trains on a given line.
Technical specs about the trains cited from nycsubway.org and chicago-l.org.
i think the el is considered heavy rail, but yes, it has light-rail-style capacity constraints. it was strange to ride the brown line all the way to kimball for the first time and to go down to street level.
what is amazing, is to look at an pre-world-war-II el map. i actually own one from 1934. the system was so much larger in its heyday, and trains (smaller trains...there's a good reason why) ran every 30 seconds through stations in the loop.
increasing the size of the cars isn't the issue, and increasing the length of trains isn't the issue. it is increasing the frequency of the trains.
i used to live right next to the howard el -- i mean, the red line (they were changing the nomenclature at the time) -- and there were trains every 3-5 minutes at rush hour. sounds like a lot? in moscow the metro runs trains every 30 - 60 seconds at rush hour. when i was in london, we never waited more than 3 minutes for a train when we traveled in central london.
the problem with the CTA is that the trains at non-peak hours are often 15-30 minutes apart (with current scheduling problems). when you wait a quarter of an hour for a train, you start to wonder, hey...the loop is six miles away (or something like that), maybe i could just drive right to my destination. never mind that it will take you longer and cost more. the perception is that it will be quicker. that's $2 less in the CTA's pocket and $10 more in central parking's till.
and buses? buses were DESIGNED to make people want to buy cars. they are in the traffic stream -- when there is a logjam in a river, you don't make the jam flow faster by adding more logs. at least in chicago the routes actually make sense -- you should try the bus system in austin sometime if you want to get completely f--king lost.
the CTA, and every other transit system, needs to increase frequency and pull more of its system off of the streets.
Lletdown - I cant find it in the Fed docs ( im actualy trying to work at the same time) but i found some reference to it as being a "new start" project from beyondcongestion.org
movingbeyondcongestion
Increased trains per hour is another major need, but the CTA has been moving in the opposite direction. For example, a line with 4-car trains running every five minutes has the same passenger capacity as a line with 8-car trains running every ten minutes, but double the labor cost. If the CTA could get away with hiring one motorman to run a 30-car train once a day, they probably would.
The other problem concerns infrastructure, as the number of trains per hour on a given line is limited by the line's signaling system. I know they've been upgrading the signals on the Red Line subway, but I'm not sure if that will allow additional trains her hour.
There's also a number of major bottlenecks that are unique to the CTA system, places like Clark Junction where outbound Brown Line trains must cross the Red and Purple Line tracks to branch off on its own, and Tower 18 at Lake and Wells, where several different lines all cross each other at grade. Great for railroad buffs, but terrible for commuters. It's like building an expressway with traffic signals instead of cloverleaf interchanges, with predictable results.
The CTA could certainly stand to increase service frequency, but they'd have to be willing to swallow the additional labor costs, and the schedule coordination among different lines would need to be flawless.
that's all true indeed. not only does the system's footprint need to increase, the infrastructure (both mechanical and human) needs to be upgraded. take a look at the el map. most of the area of the city is not within a new urbanist walk from an el station. granted, only the northern section of the city really survived white flight, but still. if you're in hegewisch, you either get in your car or ride metra. there's a fare increase for ya.
what i have to say is this: from the inside looking in, richard m daley seemed like a real environmentalist. from the outside, the whole "greenest city in america" stuff looks like greenwash. until the cta, and specifically its rail system, improves...people are gonna continue to get in their cars, and at a higher rate each year. because i don't care what anyone says, you're insane to ride a bike in chicago this time of year.
Crains Chi Biz
Its a start. The metra, Pace Cta are at least funded by direct taxes now. These downstaters are dem and republicans are some assholes.
About the only thing Ive ever agreed with Big Head Rod is his position that the extremely high gas taxes in and around chicago should be diverted and used EXCLUSIVELY for mass transit system. It would be hundreds of millions per year that now goes towards shitkicker country highways.
Has Gov. Blago actually signed the bill yet? The article made it sound like he had reservations about it.
Of course, if he vetoed it, he'd become Public Enemy #1 in Chicago (if he isn't there already). Hopefully he has a couple of functioning brain cells and will sign the bill.
he hasnt signed it. hes demanding that because of the tax increase, passengers over 65 should ride for free.
the additive veto type deal means it goes back to the house again to be approved.
so what does everyone think of this plan?
seems like its a pretty solid decision actually. and seemingly and economically sustainable solution.
im very, very pleased to see that the operational bill was able to be passed without being attached to the capital bill as was feared before... or the casino.
another huge test coming up though because as critical as the operational bill was, the capital bill is only slightly less so. will the casino come in play then?
Yes - thats why the elderly got free rides. More quarters for the one armed bandits. Dont laugh.
If Blago is willing to give rides to the elderly in his helicopter on his "commute" from Chicago to Springfield everyday, then fine - I'm willing to chip in. Until then, STFU and sign the bill.
For a governer who's state only recieves 77cents on the dollar it sends to Washington, He's got a lot of nerve to stand up and say "the $20million for seniors rides is really nothing when you concider the totals we are discussing"
What kind of asshole says $20 million dollars is nothing - just because its a small%. Its jerks like this that get governments into trouble to begin with.
No shit. $20m gets you 400 $50K/yr mechanics, conductors, drivers... You know - good jobs.
this picture was just too cool not to post
nice
heres some more el love
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2199880243_7409684682.jpg
[/img]
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2199880243_7409684682.jpg
[/img]
that woman in the picture looks familar... like a grad student i used to know
i just snagged them from someone elses flickr page -
I don't know if this has already been posted or not, but Bombardier, Inc. is now building the new 5000-series CTA cars, and the first ones are to be delivered for testing by the end of 2008.
The new railcars will feature AC traction motors (now standard on almost every other subway system), which will save energy and allow for smoothing acceleration and braking.
Other features of the new railcars:
* Seven interior security cameras
* Larger exterior LED destination signs (replacing the mylar roller curtains currently used)
* Interior LED readouts on the end bulkheads and LED destination signs
* An onboard event recorder
* Interior system maps with LED location indicator light
* Global Positioning System (GPS)
* Improved side door design to minimize operational problems
* Spot lighting in the bulkhead over the sidedoors
* Textured, non-slip floor covering to improve cleanability
* Glow-in-the-dark floor stripes outlining aisles and doorways and glow-in-the-dark evacuation signs
* Operator-controlled ventilation systems, able to fully shut down all HVAC blowers in response to smoke, fire or biological incident
* Improved traction motor cooling
* Hydraulic active vehicle suspension system to lower car floor height at platforms
* A trainlined diagnostics and operator information display in the motorcab, providing an interactive touch screen display with real time train information interface, diagnostic system for maintenance to speed identification of problem and repair and a smart card operator log in
The exterior of the new cars will look very much like the existing 3200-series cars operating on the Brown, Orange, and Yellow Lines. The interiors, though, are a different story:
I'm a little disappointed that the contract went to Bombardier, as they built a bunch of subway cars for NYC that turned out to be a maintenance nightmare. Another contract of cars built by Kawasaki at the same time, and to the exact same specifications, have performed almost flawlessly.
did they ever update the electronic banner signal system in the el stations to read anything other than "thanks for riding CTA" and "no smoking?"
yeah... now along with those two phrases they say "Call your representative and tell them to properly fund the cta"
or the like
here's a question: why do fixed rail vehicles need GPS? don't they know how to use a schedule?
bombardier makes some pretty cool looking trains. too bad they didn't come up with a new shape.
I was a little confused by the GPS thing as well, since the signaling system should be able to keep track of train locations much more accurately than any GPS device. Plus, the GPS doesn't do much good when the train is underground in a subway tunnel.
The look of the trains is pretty much determined by the transit agency, not the manufacturer. The CTA, unfortunately, has become incredibly conservative in the design of its railcars, which have only seen incremental changes since the 2000-series were designed in the early 1960's.
IMO, the nicest-looking CTA cars are the 2200-series, which are scheduled to be retired with the new 5000-series cars begin entering service. The CTA actually hired SOM as an aesthetic consultant when the 2200's were being designed... That might be the only case I know of where an architect has been involved in the design of a subway car. Visually, the 2200's were light years ahead of what was being built for the NYC subway at that time, but that was 40 years ago.
Here in NYC, the newest Bombardier cars, the R142's, are pretty much identical to the Kawasaki R142A's. The only way I can tell them apart is the builder's plate on the interior, and by the sound of the motors.
also, speaking of new york subway cars, these guys did the industrial design for the R142/143 cars. i remember seeing an article about this years ago. bombardier appears to have their own industrial designers; i'm sure it was a sort of collaboration.
Interesting site... I ride the R143's everyday (and sometimes even the newer R160's, which are very similar), and it's interesting to note the subtle differences between the original mock-up and what's actually on the rails. Looks like most of their design intent actually made it through production.
The thing I like best about the R142/R143/R160 cars, though, is how incredibly smooth and quiet they are... The ride quality feels more like that of an airport monorail than a subway train.
The current fleet of CTA 'L' trains are absolutely horrible when it comes to noise, bumpy rides, and bone-jarring stops and starts. You'd think all the trains had square wheels. I hope the new Bombardier 5000's are able to rectify some of those issues.
right, good engineering always comes before aesthetics.
pissiest. governor. evah.
Coming soon to an 'L' stop near you: Cattle Cars!
Those trains getting retired that you posted, LiG, are the loudest, rattliest, and hardest to board/alight from of all the trains. I will give it to you that they are sleek, however. It has always seemed a special torment to me that they were designed for use primarily on the Blue line, which goes to O'Hare...and means that travelers are forever stuck trying to haul their suitcases on and off the train through these narrow little door gates and banging into the pointless guardrail poles on the other side.
The new trains sound great except for their awfully misguided interior design. Inward facing seats are terrible for both seated AND standing riders and completely ignore the CTA's sole remarkable asset : stunning city views and up-close architectural experiences that everyone in the city enjoys and tourists exclaim over. Where else do you get to become intimately familiar with 2nd and 3rd storey architectural friezes except in loop-side Chicago? In-ward facing seats are fine on Boston's red line, where you have nothing else to look at except your neighbor-across-the-way's nose piercing, but we have more picturesque views than that in Chicago.
dude in the yellow shorts is hanging onto the window grille? nuts!
I disagree Mantaray, I think the CTA's forward and backward facing seats cause a lot of the congestion problems that passengers experience, especially durring rush hour. The aisle becomes such a bottle neck that people won't fully enter the car out of fear of not being able to get out when they reach their stop. I like the inward facing seats, you simply have to look out over the passanger accross the way.
I think you are right on about the double doors on the blue line trains, those things are terrible.
In Hong Kong the train cars are attached by flexible connections that allow for a continuous pathway from the front car all the way to the very back car. As a result there is a sense of openness that allows passengers to to board freely without feeling as congested as we tend to feel on the CTA.
Have you ever spent any significant length of time commuting on a similarly configured train?
I've lived off the Green, Red, Orange, Blue and Brown lines in Chicago, all for significant periods of time.
Anyhow, I think the more relevant question is how far a long the train you live. If you live out towards the end of one of the lines, then I can understand your appreciation of extra seats, but if you live closer, they just exist as a nuisance.
you people bitch alot.
The so-called "blinker" doors on the 2200-series cars are a holdover from a time when 'L' cars were basically converted trolleys. Once upon a time, all 'L' cars had similar doors; the 2200's just have the distinction of having survived longer. Since the doors are not ADA-compliant, at least one pair of newer cars with ADA-compliant doors mixed in with the 2200's; you'll never see an entire train consisting of 2200-series cars.
The 2200's used to operate throughout the system, but are confined to the Blue Line today so that spare parts can be consolidated at one maintenance facility, and because the Blue Line is relatively isolated from the rest of the CTA system in terms of track connections.
The articulated trains used in Hong Kong would be a great idea for Chicago, especially since the CTA is stuck using very short cars (48' long, compared to 75' cars on DC Metro, BART, and some NYC subway lines) due to track clearances on sharp curves. The CTA actually experimented with articulated railcars back in the late 40's, but the idea was dropped in favor of married pairs.
As for the cattle car idea: Dumbest. Idea. Ever. Supposedly these cars will only run during rush hours, which means the CTA will need to spend tons of money in labor costs making up and breaking down the train consists before and after each rush hour, in addition to their absurd practice of running shorter trains during off-peak periods. They could save tons of money simply by running full-length trains 24 hours a day, which is how most other transit systems operate.
Sorry Synergy, I meant a train with inward-facing seats.
Wow, that cattle-car idea is asinine. I ride the brown line two times a day during rush hour and I can tell you that since they debuted the 8-car trains, it has never been packed enough that I couldn't get on and find a comfortable place to stand. The situation has changed dramatically since those extra cars were added. Now if we can just get funding for extra trains to be run, we'll be fine on the brown line. I no longer ever see anyone left behind at sedgwick in the mornings, and people are still getting seats as far in as addison. This idea is idiotic, particularly considering your point about hooking up and unhooking the rail cars... I never thought about that; it does make the "shorter trains during off-peak hours" thing seem a waste of time.
Interesting history of the development of the blue line cars, LiG. Makes more sense now, although I still prefer the ADA doors.
vado, do i detect a note of jealousy over our fabulous train system? ;) maybe one day indy will get one!
I certainly agree the CTA should always run full length trains and I'm not looking for no seat "cattle" cars, just reduced seating, possibly in an arrangement similar to the Image I posted above.
well i used to live in chicago and never had any problems. you get on the train and sit down if there's a seat. if not you stand. big deal.
Like it or not, the inward-facing longitudinal seats (as opposed to forward/backward-facing transverse seating in today's fleet) will be incorporated into the next generation of CTA cars, which are currently in design.
I prefer facing forward myself, but the longitudinal seats allow for additional standing room, plus more floor area for wheelchairs, luggage, etc. to maneuver. Most NYC subway trains (except for the R44/46 and R68 cars) have longitudinal seating, and it actually improves passenger flow a great deal and makes the car interiors feel much more spacious.
So the Brown Line is actually running 8-car trains now? Maybe someday they'll expand the Red Line to handle 10-car trains, which the below-ground stations are already built for.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.