I'd to see interlining of Metra lines. For example, the UP North line from Kenosha could naturally head south or southwest. Improving service from the North side and those suburbs to the places and jobs in the southwest regions would be fantastic! At the very least, having all the Metra lines call at the same station would allow easy transfers between them. Speaking for myself, I would love to have the line I live near be able to seamlessly connect to at least two other lines that go out of different stations in the Loop! As for O'Hare connections... On a regional, I can see why. From the city of Chicago, well, that depends on where you're talking about. Any part of the city alone the O'Hare branch of the blue line is all right. If you're starting alone the northside red line, you have a long bus ride to even access the blue line. If you live near Midway but have to fly out of O'Hare, you have no good options at all. Better service within Chicago would make crosstown trips a lot of better. I'd also like to see better connections from the L to Union Station itself. The Forest Park branch blue line stops at nearby Clinton street, but you have to walk two blocks in the elements to access Union Station. An underground pedestrian tunnel with a moving sidewalk would be a godsend! If we're talking highway money, why not? The same could be said from the Clinton St. station from the green/pink station on Lake to both Oglvie and Union. Now, using existing resources, I think LaSalle St. Station is the best rail terminal in the city as every L line calls directly at the station with the exceptions of the yellow, green, and red. We can ignore the yellow line because everyone does; the green and red connect directly to the other lines that go to LaSalle. Also, the red doesn't stop too far away form it anyway. I wish more trains would use LaSalle because of how well served it is by the L, and with some upgrades those connections could be much better: a direct connection from the blue line subway station to the terminal so you don't have to walk under that awful underpass; and an elevated walkway from the Van Buren/LaSalle L stop alone the side of whatever that building is into the terminal with a direct connection to the blue line as well. That would be so convenient, and I'd feel safer making that connection at night as the streets are kind of quiet and deserted after dark.
Crossrail in the UK was more about connecting regional lines to the city center to create the London version of the French RER. The goal was to get some of the transit lines across the city center up to rapid transit frequencies and alleviate the Central Line. It had nothing to do with High Speed Rail. What I could see is a major tunnel to tie some of the Metra regional lines together so they run through, electrifying them, and then increase frequency and introduce grade separations so it operates like a metro.
Yes agree - the other thing is that I can see the main electrified portion of the main electrified line South has 4 tracks almost all the way to where the branches split at Kensington (115th Street). If you could squeeze in the fourth electrified track past this station, you have potentially 48 trains per hour capacity in both directions north of there towards Chicago (minus the branchline from South Chicago (93rd Street) which joins the middle track pair with a grade-separated junction at 63rd Street station). So a plan to provide 4 tracks all the way through joining the south lines to the north lines in Chicago would give you 96tph across the city, potentially using longer trains so that would give you big capacity and relieve the L, possibly even allowing bits of the L to be shut and totally revamped to improve it.
Why the hell does the Blue Line go straight over the top of the Metra NCS corridor but they don't have an interchange right near the airport, it's over a mile to walk between the two lines if you need to interchange - there's problem number 1. Problem number 2 is that the main electrified portion of line South has 4 tracks ALMOST all the way to where the branches split at Kensington (115th Street). If you could squeeze in a fourth electrified track past Kensington station, you have potentially 48 trains per hour capacity in both directions between there and Chicago as you have 4 tracks (minus the branchline from South Chicago 93rd Street which joins the middle track pair with a grade-separated junction at 63rd Street station). However your plan only provides a track pair through to the other side of Union Station, so only 24tph can be run through the city and the other 24tph need to run to Millenium/Van Buuren. A plan to provide 4 tracks all the way through joining the south lines to the north lines in Chicago would give you 96tph across the city, potentially using longer trains so that would give you big capacity and relieve the L, possibly even allowing bits of the L to be shut and totally revamped to improve it.
Why not run a terminal branch to O'Hare directly like with the Elizabeth's line Heathrow Branch which has a sub branch to Terminal 5 and another sub-branch to Terminals 2, 3 & 4. It's just wasteful to require a separate people mover from the proposed Airport station to the Airport. O'Hare should be privatized like London Heathrow International Airport to allow for more flexible infrastructure, in this case rail infrastructure integration and connectivity. In addition to that, rather than going for a single alignment of through-running, we should look into identifying multiple through-running corridors throughout Chicagoland as well as multiple transportation hubs both within the city and its more suburban and regional locations as a way to enhance connectivity to sub-centers through a more polycentric approach, thereby making it easier for commuters to choose whether to travel from suburb-to-suburb or city-to-suburb, as well as increasing the choices from where to connect to an intercity line. The benefit of mapping multiple locations throughout Chicagoland capable of connecting intercity Amtrak lines through ultiple transportation hubs equivalent to a "union station", is that commuters won't be constrained to having to travel to one or two large transportation hubs but can actually choose from a wide range of transportation hubs to transfer to intercity or other regional rail lines. All of this would lead to majors time savings, congestion reductions, capacity enhancements and costs savings while improving overall efficiency and capacity.
4:54 The Indianapolis Chicago current passenger train schedule connection time is an incredibly long five hours, more typically delayed an hour or more than not and is only three times a week using Amtrak's Cardinal. Oneway fair is just $36 coach $52 round trip. At the advertised 75 minutes for the HSR between the city centers of Indianapolis Chicago it would be game changer if at a similar low price to ride. People would be expected to travel frequently and some would likely commute. Economy airfare looking two week in the future was typically $155 oneway 1 hour 11 minutes Indianapolis Chicago O'Hare. It would be a decided Improvement to get much of the current passenger rail route between Chicago and Indianapolis to a 110 mph passenger service track speed or even the typical top USA track speed for passenger service of 79 mph to get travel times less than three hours. This has a driving distance of 186 miles. The rail route is not as direct. The Union Pacific has gotten positive train control to work on Amtrak's Chicago St. Louis passenger train route at 110 mph. The difficult implementation issues now have a lot of experience. This route is greatly CSX. Such an upgrade requires laying of new track, new ballast, advanced signaling, quad gate at-grade crossings and likely more side tracks or even some double track to allow passenger train passing of freight traffic. Much of the rail corridor alignment appears very good for fast speeds of 110 mph. Most importantly the rail corridor for up to 110 mpg passenger track service speed does not need to be sealed with boundary fencing and can have at-grade road crossings. Railroad service firms can remove the old track, ties and ballast and replace them with a new geo textile underlay, new ballast, ties and rails in a few days. I saw that happen to the CSX double track mainline through Montgomery WV in the 1980s. It didn't seem possible the track and ballast were gone to almost the last pebble. Then a geo textile fabric was seen on the bare rail bed, then crushed rock and track all taking place in about 3-days. True HSR between Indianapolis and Chicago is not likely due to extremely high cost, difficulties in taking land required and the strong possibility that in a couple generations or less maglev trains or some other train technology with the possibly of over double the loading gauge width and double the speed of current HSR will be seen as a better choice. The benefits for a doubling in cargo width and height transport and much higher speeds with a new train technology could much better justify the taking of land and large expense because it is a game changer for land transport of both cargo and passengers for the foreseeable future of many generations to come. An 8 meter wide triple level maglev passenger train with first level being for automobiles and other large cargo traveling at 800 kph about 500 mph solves a lot of age old large cargo transport issues with the width and stability for 800 kph speeds and comfortable upper passenger levels. It could carry same number of passengers in a 1/4 the length at higher comfort than todays HSR. Popular passenger trains can expand over many city blocks in length today. The main limitation for much wider train loading gauge with today's rail based trains is the wheel rail interface and track support being at its near practical loading limits. Maglev trains can distribute their loading mass over its width removing strong limits of loading mass with increased loading gauge width. How wide is wide enough is yet to be formulated. Super trains conceived in Germany in the 1930s were at double track width loading gauge. Nuclear power train concepts of the Russians in the 1950s were about the same. Even the 1840s double track standard gauge British railway was spaced and intended to occasionally carry special cargo oneway with the carriage using the inside rail of the two parallel tracks that could extend to the loading gauge of the combined double track. A width that allows perpendicular loading of typical automobiles of about 8 meters seems reasonable. That allows for stability for about double that in height or 16m.
About the three components: O’Hare, Union Station, St Charles Airline. Wouldn’t the best order of operations be to work on the airline first, then the station, then the airport? That seems to maximize utility at each phase, at least to my mind.
NY has terrible construction costs, What costs them 42B should cost the rest of the country 10-15B. Quad tracking is important if the goal is to not run lopsided service while needing more than 2 tracks worth of capacity.
Sorry if I am spamming the comments a bit, I think TH-cam auto moderator is deleting my comments. But in short, the CMAP PART regional rail plans seem to align well with your board plans, so maybe you can establish some sort of partnership with them?
The proposed volume seems too much for a couple through-lines in the downtown area. What about connecting Hammond, University Park, Midway and O'Hare, possibly expanding on existing rights of way? Too much centralization is not good. It doesn't even have a dotted line as a potential route.
At O'Hare, Terminal 4 was the name given to a temporary terminal set up during the 80s and 90s, while the city built a new international terminal, what is now Terminal 5. When the new international terminal was complete the choice was made to name it Terminal 5, to avoid confusion with the temporary Terminal 4. Right now, O'Hare just wrapped up completely reconfiguring and expanding the airfield. They are now moving onto building new satellite gates off Terminal 1. Once the satellites are in use, Terminal 2 will be demolished and replaced with the massive Global 2 terminal. When complete, the terminals at O'Hare will be organized based on airline alliances. Delta and Sky Team have already relocated to Terminal 5, and it will also be the location of LCCs. United stays at Terminal 1, American at Terminal 3. Global 2 will be shared by United (with its Star Alliance partners) and American (with Oneworld). O'Hare may eventually see a Terminal 4, and there is a large plot of land on the western end of O'Hare's property which would likely be its location. The Illinois Tollway Authority is currently in the middle of the multi-year O'Hare Western Access Project, which includes a new tollway, I-490, potentially providing direct vehicular access to a future western Terminal 4. Just a guess, but once Global 2 is built, the legacy carriers will be all set for a while, so a new Terminal 4 would likely house unaffiliated carriers and low cost carriers.
I'd to see interlining of Metra lines. For example, the UP North line from Kenosha could naturally head south or southwest. Improving service from the North side and those suburbs to the places and jobs in the southwest regions would be fantastic! At the very least, having all the Metra lines call at the same station would allow easy transfers between them. Speaking for myself, I would love to have the line I live near be able to seamlessly connect to at least two other lines that go out of different stations in the Loop!
As for O'Hare connections... On a regional, I can see why. From the city of Chicago, well, that depends on where you're talking about. Any part of the city alone the O'Hare branch of the blue line is all right. If you're starting alone the northside red line, you have a long bus ride to even access the blue line. If you live near Midway but have to fly out of O'Hare, you have no good options at all. Better service within Chicago would make crosstown trips a lot of better. I'd also like to see better connections from the L to Union Station itself. The Forest Park branch blue line stops at nearby Clinton street, but you have to walk two blocks in the elements to access Union Station. An underground pedestrian tunnel with a moving sidewalk would be a godsend! If we're talking highway money, why not? The same could be said from the Clinton St. station from the green/pink station on Lake to both Oglvie and Union.
Now, using existing resources, I think LaSalle St. Station is the best rail terminal in the city as every L line calls directly at the station with the exceptions of the yellow, green, and red. We can ignore the yellow line because everyone does; the green and red connect directly to the other lines that go to LaSalle. Also, the red doesn't stop too far away form it anyway. I wish more trains would use LaSalle because of how well served it is by the L, and with some upgrades those connections could be much better: a direct connection from the blue line subway station to the terminal so you don't have to walk under that awful underpass; and an elevated walkway from the Van Buren/LaSalle L stop alone the side of whatever that building is into the terminal with a direct connection to the blue line as well. That would be so convenient, and I'd feel safer making that connection at night as the streets are kind of quiet and deserted after dark.
Crossrail in the UK was more about connecting regional lines to the city center to create the London version of the French RER. The goal was to get some of the transit lines across the city center up to rapid transit frequencies and alleviate the Central Line. It had nothing to do with High Speed Rail. What I could see is a major tunnel to tie some of the Metra regional lines together so they run through, electrifying them, and then increase frequency and introduce grade separations so it operates like a metro.
Yes agree - the other thing is that I can see the main electrified portion of the main electrified line South has 4 tracks almost all the way to where the branches split at Kensington (115th Street). If you could squeeze in the fourth electrified track past this station, you have potentially 48 trains per hour capacity in both directions north of there towards Chicago (minus the branchline from South Chicago (93rd Street) which joins the middle track pair with a grade-separated junction at 63rd Street station). So a plan to provide 4 tracks all the way through joining the south lines to the north lines in Chicago would give you 96tph across the city, potentially using longer trains so that would give you big capacity and relieve the L, possibly even allowing bits of the L to be shut and totally revamped to improve it.
This is getting exciting! 🙏🤞
“Bringing the juice to the party”😂
Great concept, but interim extension of Metra North Central Service and 24/7 hourly trains seams practical.
Why the hell does the Blue Line go straight over the top of the Metra NCS corridor but they don't have an interchange right near the airport, it's over a mile to walk between the two lines if you need to interchange - there's problem number 1.
Problem number 2 is that the main electrified portion of line South has 4 tracks ALMOST all the way to where the branches split at Kensington (115th Street). If you could squeeze in a fourth electrified track past Kensington station, you have potentially 48 trains per hour capacity in both directions between there and Chicago as you have 4 tracks (minus the branchline from South Chicago 93rd Street which joins the middle track pair with a grade-separated junction at 63rd Street station). However your plan only provides a track pair through to the other side of Union Station, so only 24tph can be run through the city and the other 24tph need to run to Millenium/Van Buuren. A plan to provide 4 tracks all the way through joining the south lines to the north lines in Chicago would give you 96tph across the city, potentially using longer trains so that would give you big capacity and relieve the L, possibly even allowing bits of the L to be shut and totally revamped to improve it.
Why not run a terminal branch to O'Hare directly like with the Elizabeth's line Heathrow Branch which has a sub branch to Terminal 5 and another sub-branch to Terminals 2, 3 & 4. It's just wasteful to require a separate people mover from the proposed Airport station to the Airport. O'Hare should be privatized like London Heathrow International Airport to allow for more flexible infrastructure, in this case rail infrastructure integration and connectivity. In addition to that, rather than going for a single alignment of through-running, we should look into identifying multiple through-running corridors throughout Chicagoland as well as multiple transportation hubs both within the city and its more suburban and regional locations as a way to enhance connectivity to sub-centers through a more polycentric approach, thereby making it easier for commuters to choose whether to travel from suburb-to-suburb or city-to-suburb, as well as increasing the choices from where to connect to an intercity line. The benefit of mapping multiple locations throughout Chicagoland capable of connecting intercity Amtrak lines through ultiple transportation hubs equivalent to a "union station", is that commuters won't be constrained to having to travel to one or two large transportation hubs but can actually choose from a wide range of transportation hubs to transfer to intercity or other regional rail lines. All of this would lead to majors time savings, congestion reductions, capacity enhancements and costs savings while improving overall efficiency and capacity.
We’re not gonna privatize our airport like those self hating Brits no thank you
4:54 The Indianapolis Chicago current passenger train schedule connection time is an incredibly long five hours, more typically delayed an hour or more than not and is only three times a week using Amtrak's Cardinal. Oneway fair is just $36 coach $52 round trip. At the advertised 75 minutes for the HSR between the city centers of Indianapolis Chicago it would be game changer if at a similar low price to ride. People would be expected to travel frequently and some would likely commute. Economy airfare looking two week in the future was typically $155 oneway 1 hour 11 minutes Indianapolis Chicago O'Hare.
It would be a decided Improvement to get much of the current passenger rail route between Chicago and Indianapolis to a 110 mph passenger service track speed or even the typical top USA track speed for passenger service of 79 mph to get travel times less than three hours. This has a driving distance of 186 miles. The rail route is not as direct. The Union Pacific has gotten positive train control to work on Amtrak's Chicago St. Louis passenger train route at 110 mph. The difficult implementation issues now have a lot of experience. This route is greatly CSX. Such an upgrade requires laying of new track, new ballast, advanced signaling, quad gate at-grade crossings and likely more side tracks or even some double track to allow passenger train passing of freight traffic. Much of the rail corridor alignment appears very good for fast speeds of 110 mph. Most importantly the rail corridor for up to 110 mpg passenger track service speed does not need to be sealed with boundary fencing and can have at-grade road crossings.
Railroad service firms can remove the old track, ties and ballast and replace them with a new geo textile underlay, new ballast, ties and rails in a few days. I saw that happen to the CSX double track mainline through Montgomery WV in the 1980s. It didn't seem possible the track and ballast were gone to almost the last pebble. Then a geo textile fabric was seen on the bare rail bed, then crushed rock and track all taking place in about 3-days.
True HSR between Indianapolis and Chicago is not likely due to extremely high cost, difficulties in taking land required and the strong possibility that in a couple generations or less maglev trains or some other train technology with the possibly of over double the loading gauge width and double the speed of current HSR will be seen as a better choice. The benefits for a doubling in cargo width and height transport and much higher speeds with a new train technology could much better justify the taking of land and large expense because it is a game changer for land transport of both cargo and passengers for the foreseeable future of many generations to come. An 8 meter wide triple level maglev passenger train with first level being for automobiles and other large cargo traveling at 800 kph about 500 mph solves a lot of age old large cargo transport issues with the width and stability for 800 kph speeds and comfortable upper passenger levels. It could carry same number of passengers in a 1/4 the length at higher comfort than todays HSR. Popular passenger trains can expand over many city blocks in length today.
The main limitation for much wider train loading gauge with today's rail based trains is the wheel rail interface and track support being at its near practical loading limits. Maglev trains can distribute their loading mass over its width removing strong limits of loading mass with increased loading gauge width. How wide is wide enough is yet to be formulated. Super trains conceived in Germany in the 1930s were at double track width loading gauge. Nuclear power train concepts of the Russians in the 1950s were about the same. Even the 1840s double track standard gauge British railway was spaced and intended to occasionally carry special cargo oneway with the carriage using the inside rail of the two parallel tracks that could extend to the loading gauge of the combined double track. A width that allows perpendicular loading of typical automobiles of about 8 meters seems reasonable. That allows for stability for about double that in height or 16m.
About the three components: O’Hare, Union Station, St Charles Airline. Wouldn’t the best order of operations be to work on the airline first, then the station, then the airport? That seems to maximize utility at each phase, at least to my mind.
NY has terrible construction costs, What costs them 42B should cost the rest of the country 10-15B.
Quad tracking is important if the goal is to not run lopsided service while needing more than 2 tracks worth of capacity.
10:45 well that’s terrible was that in congress’s budget vote? Did the specific issue of rail funding come under debate in congress?
Sorry if I am spamming the comments a bit, I think TH-cam auto moderator is deleting my comments. But in short, the CMAP PART regional rail plans seem to align well with your board plans, so maybe you can establish some sort of partnership with them?
The proposed volume seems too much for a couple through-lines in the downtown area. What about connecting Hammond, University Park, Midway and O'Hare, possibly expanding on existing rights of way? Too much centralization is not good. It doesn't even have a dotted line as a potential route.
the crves look way to sharp for trains to use.
tracks in city centers often are designed for lower operating speeds for a number of reasons and thus can tolerate (and often require) sharper turns
Not to scale, concept map
Curves within equipment (train) limits.
whu no terminal 4 at ohare
At O'Hare, Terminal 4 was the name given to a temporary terminal set up during the 80s and 90s, while the city built a new international terminal, what is now Terminal 5. When the new international terminal was complete the choice was made to name it Terminal 5, to avoid confusion with the temporary Terminal 4.
Right now, O'Hare just wrapped up completely reconfiguring and expanding the airfield. They are now moving onto building new satellite gates off Terminal 1. Once the satellites are in use, Terminal 2 will be demolished and replaced with the massive Global 2 terminal. When complete, the terminals at O'Hare will be organized based on airline alliances. Delta and Sky Team have already relocated to Terminal 5, and it will also be the location of LCCs. United stays at Terminal 1, American at Terminal 3. Global 2 will be shared by United (with its Star Alliance partners) and American (with Oneworld).
O'Hare may eventually see a Terminal 4, and there is a large plot of land on the western end of O'Hare's property which would likely be its location. The Illinois Tollway Authority is currently in the middle of the multi-year O'Hare Western Access Project, which includes a new tollway, I-490, potentially providing direct vehicular access to a future western Terminal 4. Just a guess, but once Global 2 is built, the legacy carriers will be all set for a while, so a new Terminal 4 would likely house unaffiliated carriers and low cost carriers.
You can just use the automated people mover at ohare probably?
Sounds like China in early 2000s