tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post1842654473768766391..comments2023-04-01T06:34:38.141-05:00Comments on Hyde Park Progress: What to Do if the Tracks Make Tracks?chicago pophttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17055796523227869734noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-76250340665264268462009-03-01T14:03:00.000-06:002009-03-01T14:03:00.000-06:00Neroden is right, that trains are more efficient t...Neroden is right, that trains are more efficient than buses, provided the trains don't run with too many empty seats. Three barriers to rail development are the cost (financial, political, environmental, and time) of obtaining right-of-way, capital cost of fixed facilities, and capital cost of vehicles. (A single 'L' car with capacity roughly equal to a bus) costs about four times as much as a bus.)<BR/><BR/>Metra moves a lot of empty cars around during off-peak times. There are various reasons given for this: the cost of switching offsets the added cost of moving empty weight; off-peak trains get blended into rush hours, and there isn't time to cut or add cars; cars are in semi-permanent "married" sets of two or more; on the Electric line, motors may "cut out" on the older cars, so more backup motors are needed. <BR/><BR/>The pure operating efficiencies come during the rush hours. The down side is that so much labor and equipment is needed only a couple of hours a day; idle equipment requires big yards and the accompanying land costs; and many crews work only rush hours, but are paid for the day anyway (lots of seniority on those runs). You've heard the stories about the train conductors who "conduct" inbound in the morning, work as day traders or store clerks during the day, and then "conduct" back out at night? They're true.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-86725386301390144722009-02-28T20:29:00.000-06:002009-02-28T20:29:00.000-06:00"Buses are good because they cost less to operate ..."Buses are good because they cost less to operate and maintain."<BR/><BR/>This is absolutely backwards. Rail costs less to operate and maintain, provided the trains are running fairly full. Less to operate, because it requires fewer employees per passenger to drive; because it requires less fuel per passenger; etc. Less to maintain, because railcars and all the parts in them last twice as long as buses, there are fewer engines, and even the locomotives last longer than buses. Even the rail right-of-way is cheaper to maintain over the long run than the roads.<BR/><BR/>The advantages of buses are: low upfront costs; and the fact that "someone else" is paying for the roads.<BR/><BR/>Also, of course, if you just don't have enough people to fill a train up, it makes more sense to run something smaller like a bus. This only applies to low-volume routes, however -- most of the "busy" CTA bus routes really would work better as trains.<BR/><BR/>I really really hope that the CN/IC tracks are used as a railroad. They should be -- the South Shore and Metra Electric can certainly use the capacity, and there's plenty of demand to fill up all six tracks (especially with planned South Shore extensions).neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-73702405811062634442009-02-07T10:37:00.000-06:002009-02-07T10:37:00.000-06:00"Are there any studies that prove [that buses are ..."Are there any studies that prove [that buses are less costly to operate and maintain than rail transit]?"<BR/><BR/>One of the more comprehensive studies concludes the opposite: in seven urban areas combined where rail transit is a dominant form of transit (eg Chicago region), both commuter rail (think Metra) and heavy rail (think the 'L') have operating cost per passenger mile of about 35¢; bus operating cost is about 70¢ per passenger mile. Light rail (think modern trolley cars) has per passenger mile operating cost of about 60¢; Chicago has no light rail. This is operating cost only; capital cost is another subject, as is farebox recovery ratio, net operating loss, etc.<BR/><BR/>The report is Rail Transit in America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. See Fig. 16, p. 22). It can be found on the website of the American Public Transportation Association, apta.com. (http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/rail_transit.cfm#_Toc84986595).<BR/><BR/>Another site for perusal is the US Federal Transit Administration, fta.dot.gov.<BR/><BR/>A wade through the Metra and CTA budgets will probably show each specific agency's numbers.<BR/><BR/>Over the past few decades, there have probably been enough studies on this and similar topics to fill a library.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-2913389670985511082009-02-06T17:08:00.000-06:002009-02-06T17:08:00.000-06:00Tried to post this yesterday but lost it.Buses are...Tried to post this yesterday but lost it.<BR/><BR/><I>Buses are good because they cost less to operate and maintain.</I><BR/><BR/>I dispute this. Are there any in-depth studies that prove it? Although I'm not an expert on citywide transit, it seems to me comparing light rail to buses is apples and oranges. Each form of transportation serves its purpose in a complete transit package.<BR/><BR/>1. For example, do the studies take into account the large fuel expenditures that buses need, not to mention the nearly constant maintenance our older bus stock needs just to stay on life support? Repairing these buses every time they break down isn't cheap, especially when you're swapping parts in and out on a weekly basis.<BR/><BR/>2. Additionally, do the studies take into account gridlock traffic (wasted fuel, lost productive time at work or home, damage to the environment due to excessive exhaust).<BR/><BR/>There's more but it was lost yesterday. :-) Buses offer more immediate flexibility and can more easily be changed to serve quickly changing demands, but that doesn't mean they're better than rail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-20270489335376086642009-02-06T16:40:00.000-06:002009-02-06T16:40:00.000-06:00The biggest legacy of the multiple privately owned...The biggest legacy of the multiple privately owned bus lines are the numbers for different bus lines that make absolutely no sense.edjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01593866936717576973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-88847867502092490802009-02-06T10:49:00.000-06:002009-02-06T10:49:00.000-06:00The most notorious case of Detroit undoing a funct...The most notorious case of Detroit undoing a functioning electric railway system was in Los Angeles. The piecemeal purchase and shut down of the sprawling Pacific Electric transit system by General Motors has been well documented. It even formed the backdrop story for Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Southern California's obsessive car culture didn't just happen by itself.<BR/><BR/>Transit systems today are owned by public authorities, but in the years following WWII, they were mostly in private hands. The fact that these privately owned transit systems began to bleed money after WWII made them easy targets for purchase.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-89909227045577380862009-02-05T21:09:00.000-06:002009-02-05T21:09:00.000-06:00Buses are good because they cost less to operate a...Buses are good because they cost less to operate and maintain. They may suck, but they allow greater flexibility to meet changing transporation needs. New train lines are usually more expensive than hey need to be. Chicago is lucky it is a hub for railroads becasue we have the built in infrastrucure. Other cities that build light rail pay too much.<BR/><BR/>It would be nice if we could use the opportuniy to reroute the commuter trains to the old freight lines over the overpasses so that thye could be reconstructed. Probably logistically difficult given the reconxruction of the stations a few years back.edjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01593866936717576973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-71784194736261905982009-02-05T19:45:00.000-06:002009-02-05T19:45:00.000-06:00The biggest mistake the city made was ripping out ...The biggest mistake the city made was ripping out the streetcars and replacing them with buses. It was even worse when they replaced the nice, quiet, electric buses with the diesel ones.<BR/><BR/>A lifelong Chicagoan who grew up here in the 50s told me the city junked the electric buses in favor of diesel because Detroit basically gave the buses to the City in a kind of King Gillette business model. No comment on whether that's actually true or not.<BR/><BR/>I do recognize the place buses have in a public transport system but I think there's more room for trains/subways.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-26147452395134445732009-02-05T18:31:00.000-06:002009-02-05T18:31:00.000-06:00"Just thinking about the bus makes my blood pressu...<I>"Just thinking about the bus makes my blood pressure go up."</I><BR/><BR/>Word. And it isn't even cheaper anymore.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07835079257789098964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-83223496193926784272009-02-05T17:47:00.000-06:002009-02-05T17:47:00.000-06:00On the statement that "buses suck": I hear you, bu...On the statement that "buses suck": I hear you, but they move more people than trains, and the roads would be more clogged if they didn't keep those people out of cars (and less indebted to all the creditors that finance cars and the things that go into them...)chicago pophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10895909507258072860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-35460225277864474172009-02-05T13:10:00.000-06:002009-02-05T13:10:00.000-06:00"I hope they don't break up the right of way like ..."I hope they don't break up the right of way like they did with the Kenwood Branch."<BR/><BR/>Well, If a list were to be made containing all of the possible futures for the Canadian National's side of the right-of-way, one of them would be removal to ground level. That is, cutting away the east half of the embankment and daylighting the east half of the bridges. An alternatives study would likely include it. <BR/><BR/>Ok, ok, ok, I am NOT advocating this outcome. Anyway, it would only be relevant in the extremely unlikely event that absolutely no feasible use could be found for the right-of-way.<BR/><BR/>But just think of the possible dispositions for all that rubble...a new revetment for the Point; a berm around the 39th Precinct; filling in the lagoon around Wooded Island; converting the Midway into a surface parking lot; a highway overpass above 55th Street; a ski slope in Nichols Park.<BR/><BR/>Nah. The preservationists would sue to save it all, in place. Those spalling bridge columns are irreplaceable Hyde Park history.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-6776162264770587022009-02-05T12:10:00.000-06:002009-02-05T12:10:00.000-06:00Considering how populations have increased, it wou...Considering how populations have increased, it would be nice to see the Kenwood Branch and even some of the other former L branches rebuilt and brought back into service.<BR/><BR/>#6 notwithstanding, the bus, frankly, sucks. They clog the streets, they don't run a consistent schedule, the older ones break down constantly, they belch exhaust. I took the bus to work for about a year before I got fed up and resumed my Metra monthly pass. Riding the train, any train, to me is blissful and stress-free (even the Red Line) because I know within a reasonable range of time when I'll arrive at my destination. With the bus, you have to contend with traffic and constant breakdowns. Just thinking about the bus makes my blood pressure go up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-38388201270839927862009-02-04T22:15:00.000-06:002009-02-04T22:15:00.000-06:00Turning off reality checks for a moment...What rea...Turning off reality checks for a moment...<BR/><BR/>What really needs to happen with the IC tracks is to put them back to good use hauling long-distance passenger trains. And I don't mean Amtrak. A glorious re-build of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Station_(Chicago_terminal)" REL="nofollow">Central Station</A> at Roosevelt could be one end of a pilot high-speed, grade-separated, electrified line to New York. With comparable downtown-to-downtown latency as air planes, but without the hassle and chronic delays, and an affordable ticketing scheme that allows for last-minute bookings, this line would be competitive with air travel while offering an alternative to an economically and geographically disadvantaged class that must now rely on automobiles or Grey Hound for long distance travel. As the real high-speed rail network (outperforming the Acela nonsense by leaps and bounds) continued to grow, the antiquated, fossil-fuel-dependent airline industry would contract to its logical function of spanning large bodies of water, while eventually the independent rail networks on the west coast and midwest/east coast would merge at Denver, once again spanning this golden continent in a display of American engineering might -- though this time we would rely on our superior technology and research abilities, providing thousands of jobs to all economic classes, rather than relying on a subjugated ethnic class.<BR/><BR/>As cars and suburban-located airports fell into disuse, a surge of population and investment would return to walkable cities with good local transit. Rather than being routinely underfunded, transit agencies in major urban centers would be struggling to build and upgrade lines fast enough to handle the permanent swell in ridership. Rather than eliminating slow zones on the blue line, the CTA would be adding express tracks providing service from O'Hare (still a center of international travel) to the loop in under 15 minutes, in addition to the existing all-stop service.<BR/><BR/>Ok, so that's not going to happen -- back to running my produce store. I'll miss the freight trains, and I hope they don't break up the right of way like they did with the <A HREF="http://chicago-l.org/operations/lines/kenwood.html" REL="nofollow">Kenwood Branch</A>.Steven Lucyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01337840533738033990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-70789539163952541402009-02-04T18:00:00.000-06:002009-02-04T18:00:00.000-06:00Right, GF. Metra wanted to replace all 165 cars, b...Right, GF. Metra wanted to replace all 165 cars, but there was only money for 26 replacement cars. The number of old cars retired wasn't exactly 1 for 1, but it was a similar number. They retired the worst of the lot, stripped usable parts out of some of them and sent them to a salvage company. A half dozen or so were sold to a railroad museum, in Iowa I believe, to be pulled by a locomotive on excursions.<BR/><BR/>South Shore couldn't get public money for their new cars, either. So they went into the bond market and were able to eke out enough for 14 cars. South Shore needs the new cars for capacity...they are swamped with passengers. A nice problem to have.<BR/><BR/>Two of the 1926 IC cars are at the Illinois Railway Museum, in Union, Illinois, as is the big Santa Fe steam locomotive that used to be at the Museum of Science & Industry.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-51691207376623807462009-02-04T14:36:00.000-06:002009-02-04T14:36:00.000-06:00Metra has only replaced a small percentage of thei...Metra has only replaced a small percentage of their old fleet with the new cars. They're waiting on funding from the state to complete the purchase -- good luck with that, eh? The old cars are almost 40 years old and have already been rebuilt once so I wouldn't think they have a whole lot of life left in them. <BR/><BR/>The cars that have been replaced are gone. They were in the Kensington Yard for quite some time before they were hauled off, presumably for scrap.GFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01931164060523039149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-64518346972805213092009-02-04T13:36:00.000-06:002009-02-04T13:36:00.000-06:00The Metra and South Shore cars that are fabricated...The Metra and South Shore cars that are fabricated by Nippon Sharyo in Japan and assembled by Super Steel in Milwaukee have AC motors, as Greg says, but the overhead feed is still DC (a legacy from 80 years ago). The AC cars cannot be operated in the same train with the older cars. <BR/><BR/>Historical digression: The cab controls on the new cars are totally different from the older Highliners. However, the older Highliners, built in the 1970s, have cab controls almost identical to those in the 1926-vintage cars they replaced. That was largely to avoid the need for substantial retraining of engineers. Another tidbit: the 1926 cars did not have speedometers. The factory-equipment speedometers didn't work very well and were simply removed. That's one reason the Illinois Central's commuter service was a somewhat hot-roddish operation. The engineers knew, by feel, how fast they were going, and they pushed the speed limits. Those cars could stop on a relative dime, and would really come screaming into Randolph Street station.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, back to the present. Just for discussion, let's say the Grey or Gold (or whatever) line becomes a serious proposal. Whither, then, all the express bus service? Will there be enough money, or riders, to support both? It's doubtful. The CTA Orange Line, opened in 1993, supplanted perhaps a half dozen express bus routes. It was one or the other. A lot of people were very happy, and a lot of people were very unhappy. The #6, #14, and now the #26 and X28 are VERY popular. I can feel the heat even now, if a rail line put those routes in jeopardy.<BR/><BR/>In this neck of the woods, the close frequency of the #6 bus, and the very existence of the #14, are direct results of misbegotten RTA fare policy in 1981. Commuter rail fares doubled overnight, and IC ridership in Hyde Park and South Chicago nearly dried up. Two-car trains sufficed in the rush hours. The CTA found itself swamped with new riders, and, as a defensive measure as much as anything, added service in wholesale lots. (I don't know where they found the equipment). <BR/><BR/>A later RTA board reversed the rail fare increase, but the damage had been done. So, train frequency on the South Chicago branch is every 15 to 20 minutes in the rush; and on both the branch and in Hyde Park, it is hourly off-peak (same as service in the suburbs). Hyde Park's rush hour service is more frequent, simply because some trains to/from the suburbs stop here, primarily to serve U of C employees, and to facilitate transfers. Lucky us!<BR/><BR/>My purpose, in this comment, is not to promote one transit mode over another, but to say there are tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs go beyond bus vs rail, or commuter rail vs rapid transit, or any of them vs a currently popular mode—bus rapid transit. Saying "Let's put in the Gold Line" may sound great, but it won't happen in a vacuum. That's why public authorities conduct feasibility studies, mode choice analyses, and environmental impact statements, in addition to dealing with the politics and competing for scarce dollars.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-13273842832573605302009-02-03T23:19:00.000-06:002009-02-03T23:19:00.000-06:00There would still need to be Metra stops in Hyde P...There would still need to be Metra stops in Hyde Park from the suburbs because there are a lot of folks who travel to Hyde PArk to work from the suburbs and NW Indiana. It would be great to have more frequent stops in the city, but there'd need to be some new stps at 35th Street and a couple of other placesedjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01593866936717576973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-57188968621166671982009-02-03T18:40:00.000-06:002009-02-03T18:40:00.000-06:00The main problem as I see it in running Metra E tr...The main problem as I see it in running Metra E trains like the L is the size and quantity of cars.<BR/><BR/>Suburban direct service should retain current train size but a "gray" line, being much more frequent (every 15 minutes?) should only be 2 cars long.<BR/><BR/>That leaves us with the problem of "do we have enough Metra E train cars to do this?" Probably so, provided they've kept the old trains that were replaced by the new Nippon Sharyo cars.<BR/><BR/>FYI, the reason I thought the Metra E ran on AC is because the new N-S trains actually have an onboard inverter that converts the line DC power to AC (AC has many advantages over DC).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-64210119970680890362009-02-03T16:58:00.000-06:002009-02-03T16:58:00.000-06:00So South Shores express through on the eastern rai...So South Shores express through on the eastern rails, maybe with one stop in Hyde Park, then nothing else til downtown. The Electric takes the western two rails, again making one stop in Hyde Park, then expressing to downtown. And the South Chicago route runs in the middle, making all stops from 93rd to Hyde Park to downtown, and running an L-style schedule with L-level frequency and service til 1 AM.<BR/><BR/>That's the gray line, almost completely. Except the fare collection, but with this all set up, that final step wouldn't be all that hard. Hyde Park gets more rail frequency at night, but we also get useful mass transit.Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17063217822179867019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-67688045612312449782009-02-03T12:19:00.000-06:002009-02-03T12:19:00.000-06:00"South Shore...raised the idea of obtaining at lea..."South Shore...raised the idea of obtaining at least one of the CN tracks to add capacity..."<BR/><BR/>That could pretty much resolve the issue of future use of at least part of the right-of-way——keeping a railroad there. That may very well be the "highest and best use" for the land, with the greatest public benefit. It surely would be the easiest to implement. Also, it makes sense for Metra, the South Shore, commuters, and downtown employers. <BR/><BR/>The South Shore (technically, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District) has been negotiating to use some Canadian National track at 115th St./Kensington, where the South Shore-Metra junction is. This will enable South Shore trains to bypass the 115th St. Metra station, which is a choke point. Using the CN track all the way downtown is a much larger enterprise. A worthy enterprise, I would say.<BR/><BR/>Yes, overhead wire would have to be put up, a substation may have to be added, and the track would have to be resignaled. But Metra and the South Shore are both very good at that.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-487327073575108742009-02-03T10:04:00.000-06:002009-02-03T10:04:00.000-06:00A friend in the rail industry tells me that the So...A friend in the rail industry tells me that the South Shore Line would like to run more trains downtown than it currently does. However, capacity on the Metra lines is constrained. They've raised the idea of obtaining at least one of the CN tracks to add capacity to downtown and back during the rush hours. <BR/><BR/>So, when the ultimate abandonment occurs, we may hear more about this. This would require the electrification of additional track (which is expensive).Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258887975474954111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-86939066264179788552009-02-03T09:39:00.000-06:002009-02-03T09:39:00.000-06:00If anyone would like to read up on this subject, I...If anyone would like to read up on this subject, I recommend "When the Railroad Leaves Town", by Joseph P. Schwieterman, Truman State University Press. It looks at a number of communities that lost rail service.<BR/><BR/>In response to some comments/questions posted:<BR/><BR/>Both Metra and CTA trains are fed by DC power. Metra is 1500V, CTA is 600V.<BR/><BR/>Metra and South Shore trains will continue running through Hyde Park, and will need Metra's tracks, whether or not any parallel or joint-track rapid transit ever would, or could, be established. Most of Metra Electric's riders come from suburban stations as far south as University Park. Probably Metra will eventually extend to Monee (and Peotone if the mythical South Suburban Airport is ever built). <BR/><BR/>Until the 1950s, the Illinois Central commuter service WAS, in effect, a rapid transit service, dominated by trains within the city. Train frequency, all day, between downtown and South Chicago was every 10 minutes; between downtown and Hyde Park, it was every five minutes. There were even trains that ran solely between downtown and 53rd Street, where there was a "tail track" for trains to reverse direction. (That's why the main tracks are so far apart just south of 53rd Street). There were local stops every half mile, all the way downtown. Between 51st St. and Roosevelt Road, there were six (!) tracks exclusively for commuter trains. But that was then. The auto, the express bus, and the suburbs arose. Over the years, the IC/Metra Electric has evolved physically into a suburban service railroad.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, as Bornatreese suggests, a rapid transit-esque operation could be possible on the Metra Electric, using Metra equipment, with lower capital cost than building a separate line. Rapid transit-style service would require alterations to present track, overhead power, stations, fare collection, terminals, other facilities, and even on-board systems. It may be quite costly to operate, given the power needs of Metra cars, Metra labor agreements, and the operation of Metra door controls.<BR/><BR/>'L' trains could ride the Metra rails, but even with dual power systems, they wouldn't be compatible with Metra station platforms. Further, their operational parameters and collision strength are very different, and that would not please the Federal Railroad Administration (even though the new U.S. Secretary of Transportation is from Illinois). I'm assuming that a proposed 'L' train on Metra, even if feasible, would have to be compatible with the rest of the CTA system, rather than "stand alone."<BR/><BR/>It's not clear that Metra could cede two of its four tracks to a local transit service and still be able to dependably and efficiently run its suburban service with adequate carrying capacity. Metra has recently enhanced its signal system, just to handle present traffic. Also, the South Shore, a tenant on Metra, will begin running new bi-level cars (they are gorgeous) this spring, and can be expected to add trains.<BR/><BR/>I have probably just scratched the surface. Let's just say the whole thing is really costly and complex.Richard Gillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02773215580457414540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-27359075139174562022009-02-03T00:05:00.000-06:002009-02-03T00:05:00.000-06:00Why would a potential extension of the L need L tr...Why would a potential extension of the L need L tracks? Isn't it just an administrative matter of increasing train frequency and allowing transfers to the rest of the CTA? Besides the cost of running it, the only other thing worth investing is an additional station or two between 47th and 27th.susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03010924159038600405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-28836485479942743912009-02-02T22:26:00.000-06:002009-02-02T22:26:00.000-06:00Well, if it were up to me, we'd just split the fou...Well, if it were up to me, we'd just split the four Electric tracks into two, with all Metra/South Shore trains using the two east rails and expressing from 59th (or whatever) to downtown, and local L service running on the remaining two rails, possibly all through the current South Shore line. If L service WERE installed (and that'd probably be cost-prohibitive anyway), the Metra would have no need to stop anywhere between Hyde Park and Randolph.Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17063217822179867019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186587935097536129.post-55228001386387184112009-02-02T21:35:00.000-06:002009-02-02T21:35:00.000-06:00Richard's comment would suggest that an L line alo...Richard's comment would suggest that an L line along the former CN right-of-way would not have to be fitted to the Metra stations and equipment, but built from scratch on the east side of the embankment, if I understand correctly. So you could have Metra AND the L running side by side.<BR/><BR/>And/or maybe a bike lane, too.chicago pophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17055796523227869734noreply@blogger.com