Comments on: Chicago Transit Advocates Encourage Rapid Transit Conversion of Metra Line

By: Quinn

Quinn — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 23:31:32 +0000

Never understood why the AirTrain couldn’t have been built to Newark Penn instead of building a station in the industrial wasteland that is Elizabeth and the surroundings of EWR.

By: FG

FG — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:09:45 +0000

Those extra tracks would work really well for express service, especially if we ever get Valpo rail service. Their bigger use would be back up for passenger service into union station, since they connect, if awkwardly, to it, in cases of work closures, etc.

As a note, they (CN) are working (tie replacement) on the tracks right now, so abandonment isn’t that near in the future.

My bigger new beef with Metra is the crummy new EMU’s. They are such a major step down from the current cars. Many commuters and conductors don’t like them – the seats are straight out of a school bus, the ride is “floaty” and there are some very poor design decisions in them. I realize that the old ones are nearing the end (well, exceeded really – lots of them have exterior rust holes) their useful life, but they could have gotten something better rather. Ideally single level multi-door cars and increased frequency of service, but oh well…

By: Drewski

Drewski — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:25:08 +0000

Great example of that is access to the old Cleveland Union Terminal. The bridge across the Cuyahoga was designed to be quad-track; geniuses at Cleveland RTA decided to block additional use (the other 2 tracks) by having the Red Line rapid shift from one side of bridge to the other as it crosses the river. Then, at the former neck of the station, the new Federal courthouse was built blocking a major portion of the r/w. The all-but-mothballed Waterfront line comes up from surface, which completes the blockage on the west end. Now, the new casino is slated to put a mammoth parking garage over the eastern neck of the old station. As it stands, there is no other viable alternative to this location (lakefront station would require either tunnel or high-level bridge across Cuyahoga), and even here, the sad truth is that future train services will have to be electric, to handle a steep gradient down to a level below the old platforms. This requires something like a 30′ vertical drop, either below and parallel to the old configuration, or below and perpendicular to it (which would also require massive tunnelling under Public Square). That’s not to mention the expense of building below a complex which was built as one of the largest through-station complexes in the world. As Chrissie Hynde said…

Other cities have made big mistakes. Chicago needs to start taking a look at its rail assets and decide on at least some clear r/w preservation. In theory, the potential of the Metra Electrics could probably be matched by corridor(s) to the north, northwest or west. No matter how many trains you get into a stub-end station, what’s the point when you know you have demand beyond that terminal? Getting from the South Side into the Loop still doesn’t access other major job centers in Chicagoland, and failure to preserve such options is simply lazy and counterproductive.

By: Adirondacker12800

Adirondacker12800 — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:13:14 +0000

Railroads all over the world manage 20 an hour into stub end terminals with two tracks. Metra has four tracks all to itself, so 40 an hour is not unrealistic. Unless they have plans to turn Gary into Brooklyn…

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:47:29 +0000

Current trends are such that they’re gonna want extra tracks, for NICTD if nothing else.

And once trackbeds are gone, they are PAINFUL to get back.

By: Adirondacker12800

Adirondacker12800 — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 07:32:08 +0000

Metra Electric will never need 6 tracks. well maybe is cars are banned, Chicago becomes Manhattan and the South Side becomes western Queens… and even then maybe not.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:49:13 +0000

Well, if the Grand Crossing connection is built, the extra two tracks will be used *south of Grand Crossing*. North of Grand Crossing to Roosevelt Road, they will indeed be vacant, and I really really hope they don’t do something like ripping them up. They’d be useful for enhanced Metra Electric service at the very least.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:45:22 +0000

London’s zonal fares rock. They date back a very long way. They are the result of a certain *attitude* from successive governments of London, which brought pressure on the various operators. We seem to be able to get that attitude in a few places in the US, but not many.

By: Max Wyss

Max Wyss — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:22:06 +0000

With very few exceptions, there is no mandatory reservation within Switzerland, and the trains which have it, are touristic expresses (Super Panoramic of MOB, Bernina Express of RhB, Glacier Express of RhB/MGB).

And even if international trains have a surcharge/reservation fee in Germany or Austria (the infamous 6 Euro in the Zürich – München ECs for the short stretch through Austria come to my mind), there is no reservation or surcharge for the Swiss section.

Also, as Alon states, there are no mandatory reservations in Germany; the surcharge is applied, but it does not need to be connected with a seat reservation (although in many cases, a seat reservation is recommended).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 05:15:36 +0000

ICE trains do not require seat reservations.