Good points, Harvey. Sticking with my example of the CA&E, its ridership did not transfer to the Eisenhower (which hurt it directly by eliminating through service), mostly switching over to the CNW. When the Kennedy/ I 90 and the Edens/ I 94 were completed, did that kill suburban services on the paralleling Milwaukee Road or CNW lines? There is pretty clear evidence that the Edens + Kennedy did kill the North Shore's Skokie Valley line, but the CNW killed the North Shore's Shore line because it offered faster service.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
wallyworld I used bold face to separate your remarks from my own, so your interpretation on several levels does not work also in regard to disputing the fact that if you bothered to read the traffic surveys published at the time during the abandonment hearings, automobiles did the trick as well as the Milwaukee track relocation required for same as far as the CNSM is concerned. As far as history is concerned any history of the interurban would tell you that the auto killed the interurban so it is not handy, it is history. I suggest you read Middleton's or Hilton's book because you are fabricating a revisionist history that anyone who has read these books or others know is patently false.Their labor costs if you are familiar with the them were extraordinarily low compared to the steam roads. Name calling in the form of foamers identify s you at least to my thinking as rather rabid on the subject resorting to name calling, which, sorry to say, bounced off. me. I agree that the electrification of Metra lines is inevitable and the longer it is put off the more expensive it will be but there's no money to be had. If that did occur you could fairly call these interurban lines . As far as light rail is concerned, it has a place in not replacing the automobile but taking cars off the road to avoid gridlock and most of these new lines, San Diego, Dallas, Denver etc are exceeding their original traffic projections and so I don't think Chicago would be an exception. It is a mix of transit options that work best. The I-94 corridor has been gridlocked for decades while the cost of a parallel light rail line along the CNSM right of way or the extension of the CTA line gives drivers has gone up while studies have come and gone.. Oil is a dead man walking. If you think not read a newspaper.
I used bold face to separate your remarks from my own, so your interpretation on several levels does not work also in regard to disputing the fact that if you bothered to read the traffic surveys published at the time during the abandonment hearings, automobiles did the trick as well as the Milwaukee track relocation required for same as far as the CNSM is concerned. As far as history is concerned any history of the interurban would tell you that the auto killed the interurban so it is not handy, it is history. I suggest you read Middleton's or Hilton's book because you are fabricating a revisionist history that anyone who has read these books or others know is patently false.Their labor costs if you are familiar with the them were extraordinarily low compared to the steam roads. Name calling in the form of foamers identify s you at least to my thinking as rather rabid on the subject resorting to name calling, which, sorry to say, bounced off. me. I agree that the electrification of Metra lines is inevitable and the longer it is put off the more expensive it will be but there's no money to be had. If that did occur you could fairly call these interurban lines . As far as light rail is concerned, it has a place in not replacing the automobile but taking cars off the road to avoid gridlock and most of these new lines, San Diego, Dallas, Denver etc are exceeding their original traffic projections and so I don't think Chicago would be an exception. It is a mix of transit options that work best. The I-94 corridor has been gridlocked for decades while the cost of a parallel light rail line along the CNSM right of way or the extension of the CTA line gives drivers has gone up while studies have come and gone.. Oil is a dead man walking. If you think not read a newspaper.
I have read all the histories; and as scholarly as they are, I think they were incomplete and contributed to a phantasy. Gallery cars and push pull operations changed the economics well beyond the credit given to it or even addressed by the authors. If the interurbans were so much more efficient and collapsed, why weren't the railroad commuter services discontinued as well with the same ICC regulators? I laid out all the reasons previously. Is my logic inferior by lack of a reputation from being a published author?
If service was so bad and auto the transit-killer; why didn't everyone abandon rail commuting and drive downtown? Instead, ridership grew substantially, pretty much on par with relative City-suburban population change and downtown employment.
I don't want to get into this dust up, but as far as one interurban goes (the CA&E) the major contributing factor in its demise was the construction of the Congress St. Expressway (Eisenhower) that ended through service into Wells St. via the Garfield CTA line in 1953. Once that happened, ridership dropped quickly, but did not transfer primarily to cars, but to the totally parallel CNW suburban service, which was getting upgraded with diesels and the new air-conditioned gallery cars during the period, so that 3rd Rail passenger service ended in 1957.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
wallyworld A lot of you foamers want the return of the CNS&M and CA&E - that business model became obsolete; so get over it. Misinformed generalities that defy logic. What business model are you referring to? The extension or revitalization would be a public entity like all the rest, not be by private interests. So all this is a moot point. Name one private rail transit company in the U.S. "Just compare the numbers of crew and the numbers of seats". Where? To What? 1927? the CTA? Metra? This is a incomplete thought lacking any specifics.The CTA has one motorman to a train and automated announcements. Also consider the trade-off between fast acceleration and energy cost; the relative efficiency of diesel and 600-V electric traction, and the cost of maintaining the 3rd rail or overhead trolley. Wheres the unlimited secret stash of oil from a supply that's highly competitive and everyone realizes has a finite limit. This statement assumes cheap unlimited supplies. Fill up your car lately?? This is a Exxon fantasy. Finally, consider the coup de gras of no money to replace life-expired, non-air conditioned, manual door equipment or a downtown terminal. What equipment are you referring to? Even the CTA has air conditioning..you seem to be in a time warp.If you are referring to original interurban equipment, it was scrapped nearly a half century ago. This is a bizarre moot argument. Ironically, these electric lines preyed on the steam roads; and in the end fell victim to them. Wrong. They fell victim to the automobile.Anyone with a modicum of history knows this. The steam roads bailed on commuter services also . Where do you think Metra- RTA etc came from?
A lot of you foamers want the return of the CNS&M and CA&E - that business model became obsolete; so get over it.
Misinformed generalities that defy logic. What business model are you referring to? The extension or revitalization would be a public entity like all the rest, not be by private interests. So all this is a moot point. Name one private rail transit company in the U.S.
"Just compare the numbers of crew and the numbers of seats".
Where? To What? 1927? the CTA? Metra? This is a incomplete thought lacking any specifics.The CTA has one motorman to a train and automated announcements.
Also consider the trade-off between fast acceleration and energy cost; the relative efficiency of diesel and 600-V electric traction, and the cost of maintaining the 3rd rail or overhead trolley.
Wheres the unlimited secret stash of oil from a supply that's highly competitive and everyone realizes has a finite limit. This statement assumes cheap unlimited supplies. Fill up your car lately?? This is a Exxon fantasy.
Finally, consider the coup de gras of no money to replace life-expired, non-air conditioned, manual door equipment or a downtown terminal.
What equipment are you referring to? Even the CTA has air conditioning..you seem to be in a time warp.If you are referring to original interurban equipment, it was scrapped nearly a half century ago. This is a bizarre moot argument.
Ironically, these electric lines preyed on the steam roads; and in the end fell victim to them.
Wrong. They fell victim to the automobile.Anyone with a modicum of history knows this. The steam roads bailed on commuter services also . Where do you think Metra- RTA etc came from?
Just keep parroting "common wisdom."
I was referring to the reasons, labor, equipment, and so forth, for the demise of the interurbans in 1958 and 1963, and that should have been clear. You are simply being argumentative and "shouting" (foaming?) in bold-face - being loud doesn't win the argument - and where is your argument?
Let's see, a 6-car interurban ~300 seats, push-pull ~960 seats; and both with a crew of 3 and an engineer; but I'll allow that the fireman hadn't been eliminated by 1963. CTA may only have the operator on board; but each station has a CSA for the ~350 seats on an 8-car train; so that's pretty much a wash now and not a reason to spend billions to replace one with the other.
Even 1950-diesel power was close to equal the energy efficiency of electric traction and was a factor in most railroad electrification being removed. Today, the cost has yet to catch up. CTA still is a 600-volt system; and the Metra Electric 1,500-V system is little better.
As for future oil availability; it's easier to electrify Metra or switch to alternative liquid-fuel locomotives than build new low capacity rapid transit extensions pretty much from the ground up.
Rapid transit extensions and the existing lines they serve have insufficient capacity (Loop L & State St Subway) to replace existing Metra lines and redundant supplemental capacity. In short, we can do without. You can argue about high-speed service from Waukegan with few stops; but what will happen to the communities and existing development around the many Metra stops? Furthermore, Metra is 20 minutes faster to Rogers Park than the L; so right there any new rapid transit would have to catch up. Maybe a 5-10 mile stretch of a third track for Metra expresses would be less expensive than 25 miles of electrified double track for a rapid transit extension.
Blaming the fall of the interurbans to the automobile is a handy sop: but it ignores the growth of the suburban rail ridership with modern equipment and more frequent service in the face of auto competition in that era and continues to this day.
First, I've always said that the Suburban Transit Access Rroute is a turkey pushed by the former Mayor of Schaumburg. He and others made gobs of money building a suburb and mall at the then-rural crossing of the NW Tollway and I-290/IL-53, as far away from the Milwaukee Road and North Western as possible. Woodfield became one of the major employment areas in the region. Then after as many lanes were added as possible to all roads and they continued to be congested, Schaumburg "got religion" and wanted the RTA to bail out their cheap land investment without convenient rail access.
Trouble is, people easily drive across Schaumburg and other suburbs to reach either the MDW or UPNW for a fast trip downtown; so a new line isn't needed, other than for the enhancement of Woodfield Mall and commercial development in the area. Certainly, some moderate ridership might be expected along the corridor; but it only would be at the level for LRT, BRT, or express bus which would not be compatible with the CN along the former EJ&E, nor would it reach Joliet Union Station for Amtrak and local transit connections. Pace already operates express buses to Woodfield and Hoffman Estates; so why go to so much more expense for so little benefit? BTW, the STAR would originate at the CTA Rosemont station outside O'Hare, adding 10-20 more minutes to the Loop than by Metra.
The UPNW has adequate capacity that could be improved with upgraded signaling and more crossovers to meet future demand. Furthermore, there is not the freight and Amtrak traffic that must be handled on the BNSF. In fact the third track is largely redundant between Clybourn and Mayfair, and from Deval to Barrington with current demand.
The MDW is approaching capacity now with the NCS to Franklin Park. The 3rd track from Pacific Jct to Franklin Park helps; but the biggest capacity constraint is the lack of a 4th track (previously removed by Amtrak as unnecessary at the time and sold the easement!) from Pacific Jct to Union Station. Only as many trains can leave as can arrive, and that is exacerbated by the UPW crossing at Western Av, particularly restricted speed moves in yard limits immediately west of the crossing.
A lot of you foamers want the return of the CNS&M and CA&E - that business model became obsolete; so get over it. Just compare the numbers of crew and the numbers of seats. Also consider the trade-off between fast acceleration and energy cost; the relative efficiency of diesel and 600-V electric traction, and the cost of maintaining the 3rd rail or overhead trolley. Finally, consider the coup de gras of no money to replace life-expired, non-air conditioned, manual door equipment or a downtown terminal. Ironically, these electric lines preyed on the steam roads; and in the end fell victim to them.
The MDN and UPN do a decent job bringing people downtown. Virtually every suburbanite who would take transit downtown is riding Metra; so why spend hundreds of millions to divide the pot? Are there less expensive ways to improve efficiency, capacity, speed, and frequency of the existing services than building something anew, in this case the Yellow Line extension?
Both the UPNW and UPN would be suitable candidates for more frequent service having little or no other traffic to contend with. Metra mentioned to the Senators of the Transportation Committee that reduced service didn't save much money. I hope that they would raise fares to solve their budget shortfall enough to add frequencies on the lines they have. This would reduce the overall travel time by reducing the effective wait time and be more attractive despite ones perception of stopping at every block.
Some of the push for CTA extensions is the turf war to take back what was poached and lost; and to reinforce the claim for a larger share of the Region's sales tax revenue by serving more suburban areas directly and indirectly.
One issue with the Yellow Line Extension is that a high school is the site for a terminal; and there is a problem in finding enough parking for the school, let alone commuters. Duh! Ironically, I would support a more costly 1-mi. subway extension to Old Orchard Center, North Shore University Hospital, the Double Tree Hotel - North Shore Center for the Performing Arts, and other shopping and business within walking distance of a new terminal at Golf & Skokie. Like Woodfield, Old Orchard was built on relatively cheap vacant land near a highway; but in this case only a mile is needed, not 11 mi. to Woodfield or 20 mi. to Sears (now threatening to move out of Illinois if tax incentives are not forthcoming).
The Red Line Extension from 95th to 130th is the hot new City project developed by CTA and has come through a locally referred alternative process before being submitted to RTA for cursory review and funding. The scope was carefully drawn by CTA to exclude both the Metra ED and RID from consideration as alternatives. A small community area was targeted and promised better service to build public support, however local.
Two CTA stations would replace the six nearby ED and RID stations (ten if you add the RID Blue Island Branch only another half mile away); and this is called convenience.
Much has been made about how the extension would serve a third station at a distressed public housing area which wouldn't generate much ridership on its own. Another argument is that the Red Line would run from the northern border to the southern border; and didn't the people (however few) deserve this as a matter of transit equity?
The real purpose for the extension was to compete more with Metra regardless of cost.
A large suburban bus and parking terminal would be built at 130th & I-90/94 that would avoid highway congestion and delay approaching the current 95th St Red Line terminal. Rather than feed closer Metra stations, Pace suburban buses would make a longer trip to 130th, but shorter and faster than going all the way to 95th. Would Metra feeders then be discontinued?
With the CTA flat fare structure, a compromise is made between the average cost and distance; and 11 miles is well above the average distance and cost for a flat fare. Similarly, Pace is incurring more bus miles than going to Metra. CTA and Pace are competing with Metra on fares that are not reflective of their costs; and RTA is stuck with the bill for parallel competing services.
And you wonder why there is no action on transit proposals? Hopefully, people are having misgivings as well as empty pockets.
The Sun Rail commuter rail system through Orlando has taken approximately 10 years of politics to get to the point where they can actually commission real EIS and all the other regulatory requirements to take place. Talk about slow
It all comes down to....'Any project one is for - is the saviour of truth, justice and the American way, not to mention being more powerful than a speeding locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound'.
'Any project one is against - is a monetary black hole and boondoggle worthy only of the Devil, that no God fearing individual would ever use in this lifetime.
Bull hockey to both! Sit in I-4 traffic 10 lanes wide and think that there is no other way to move people.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The person behind the EPA and EIS's in 1970 under the Nixon Administration (not exactly leftist!!) was Lynton Caldwell, a very distinguished person and hardly a "far-left enviro-wacko" as you suggest. Let's stay with the facts and keep politics out. The average time for a federal EIS is 3.4 years, according to a survey of 2095 EIS's, the shortest being 51 days.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2836720
Three words about the length of "the period prior to construction.":
Environmental impact statement. A gift to all infrastructure projects from your "friends" at the EPA and the far-left enviro-whackos that put a meaningless fly ahead of progress.
I fail to see how metro Chicago is a "backwater" in transit. The fact that there have not been many new lines (NC, UP West extension) in the past 25 years is at least partly a function of having retained a pretty strong heavy commuter rail network, unlike some cities that never had one or lost the electric systems they once had. Yes, Chicago lost the North Shore and the Aurora & Elgin, but both were largely redundant services, with parallel (C&NW) or more direct commuter lines (CB&Q, CM&StP) to most of their destinations. The former Insull South Shore Line is still going and much improved. The proposed EJ&E route service never seemed very sensible.
I agree that the CTA has serious problems with its high maintenance costs, although it did manage one new line to Midway airport.
If you define Chicago as a process of growing urbanization and density coming from the central core of the city itself, there is no way to judge whether ( on a comparative basis) whether public transit is evolving ( backwater versus leading edge) unless you compare Chicago to other cities.
Consider Los Angeles, we had the Insull Lines and they had the PE.Both were relegated to the scrap heap due to private mobility and cheap, abundant oil as well as federally funded ( read public funds) expressways, interstates etc. The tide is obviously turning. Light rail is growing proportionately and is largely very successful in increasing real estate values, less oil dependance. LA is making very ( comparatively) fast inroads in effect, reconstituting the PE under public funding.'
Chicago focuses on the older models of transit, the only discernible difference is the coaches are pulled by oil rather than coal, which, as I suspect you know, has a limited sustainability. Look at New york City where as I write an enormous project tunneling under the Hudson to bring the electrified Long Island RR into Grand Central Station.
A lot of us snickered when Da Mayor in seeking the Olympics, boasted that Chicago had one of the finest transit systems in the world, where, as he spoke, a scandal ensued with track inspectors forging reports and cars were splitting switches in record numbers.
Competitively, Chicago cannot extend the Yellow Line for five miles or so to Old Orchard despite having numerous studies preformed. It could have been built cheaper ( as costs historically increase. as well as regulatory burdens) three decades ago. Chicago once had arguably one of the finest transit systems in the U.S with three electrified Insull consolidated high speed lines radiating as compass points which had not one, but several embarkation\d \ debarkation points in the central city core that was inter modal with the local electrified services.
Lets face it, it's all public money unless you look to the UK for privatization models. Improve what you have and not add to the burden of expansion costs until you can fix what's already waiting to be fixed. Compare the potential ridership figures on the exoburbs to the I-94 corridor. Its a "no brainer".
Transit operating authorities ARE political units and the dreams of visionaries are often an expense that's hard to justify to the public at large. Accountants don't make the decisions but they do show where the money is going and people have different ideas on what constitutes waste. You may consider the expansion and extension of Metra's Southwest Service to be unimaginative and wasteful, the riders of that line view it as a proper response to demand. The same could be said of the North Central Line.
It's hard to anticipate where to expand transit service based on projected demand when sizable capital expenditures are required. A bad guess will result in lots of finger-pointing and calls for the heads of those responsible.
What constitutes leadership in public transit? Why is Chicago a backwater in public transit?
CSSHEGEWISCH A major point to remember is that establishment of the RTA in 1974 required a public referendum in the six-county area and that it barely passed. Overwhelming support in the City of Chicago overtook strong opposition in the suburban areas, especially in the collar counties. The CTA studies regarding possible operation of the CA&E between Forest Park and Wheaton and the CNS&M from Howard Street to Waukegan were not really considered serious proposals since they didn't include a source of funding. Also, city vs. suburban politics was a factor. Extension of the Skokie Swift to Old Orchard has been proposed almost from the first day of operation but there hasn't been a whole lot of support for it and nobody wants to pay for it. The C&NW North Line to Waukegan and Kenosha is not a high-speed operation but that's true of a lot of suburban operations anywhere. Converting that operation to light rail is not a realistic option.
A major point to remember is that establishment of the RTA in 1974 required a public referendum in the six-county area and that it barely passed. Overwhelming support in the City of Chicago overtook strong opposition in the suburban areas, especially in the collar counties.
The CTA studies regarding possible operation of the CA&E between Forest Park and Wheaton and the CNS&M from Howard Street to Waukegan were not really considered serious proposals since they didn't include a source of funding. Also, city vs. suburban politics was a factor.
Extension of the Skokie Swift to Old Orchard has been proposed almost from the first day of operation but there hasn't been a whole lot of support for it and nobody wants to pay for it.
The C&NW North Line to Waukegan and Kenosha is not a high-speed operation but that's true of a lot of suburban operations anywhere. Converting that operation to light rail is not a realistic option.
The case of the CA&E was far from a dead on arrival issue if you have read Larry Plancho's history of the protracted efforts to pass legislation, It was serious enough to have the then owners put on a demonstration train long after passenger service was abandoned as well as hanging on for several years due to. Governor Stratton having made continual promises due to political pressure from on line communities..that failed to jell.It was political football...once again..Recall the CNW paralleled this line, so why the outcry? The abandonment of the CNSM worried Daley, hence the RTA.
The mayor of Skokie was the driving force to get a demonstration grant from the Feds not the" public transit "interests..it's all politics, and that is my point, it has nothing to do with real priorities. If there was not support for the extension, ( which may or not be so) then explain the logic of having it on a priority list?
The Metra North Line is a lot like the old Shore Line but then you don't have street running, you have the grade separated along quite a bit of it. . I think the rationalization that slow speeds are found elsewhere doesn't jibe with me.
As far as realistic, I think where the money was spent is a good question, as where it will be spent ( in a bankrupt state), that is incapable of managing public transportation... Things have gotten better by quantity not quality and if the priority is quantity like running lines in a circuitous half circle like the STAR line, they should go to Europe and see what it's like there. Intermodal and efficient.. This country has lost leadership in public transit. due to bean counters and bureaucrats, not visionaries...
Everyone gripes about taxes and cost and then ridership booms, development and investment occur and everyone says, hey let's build an extension or two. I could give example after example. Chicago is a backwater..
Phoebe Vet This is your answer in a nutchell:
This is your answer in a nutchell:
I think the issue is not the process of development of a process but the decision making that occurs prior to studies. In other words, to begin If you look historically at where the Yellow Line extension has been on the to do list in comparison to other projects that have been completed such as various extensions of Metra services to the exosuburbs, while gridlock occurs on the much heavier trafficked northern approach for auto traffic ie:, gas wasted, pollution at a much higher level etc, occurs 24/7 on I-94. This extension has been studied to death going all the way back to pre abandonment in 1963 of the CNSM when preliminary report was drawn up to Waukegan. The fear of "socialized" .transit in the form of legal roadblocks led to the demise of the CA& E as well..both non polluting..It wasn't until Da Mayor got nervous about everyone bailing out on their passenger services, did he strong arm Springfield, hence the RTA. It has been going on a half century this extension has gone up and it has gone down in priority...while extensions of service to places like Manhattan proverbially in the middle of a corn field go ahead. The first step is to set priorities by need not politics What did we get instead? An improvement to I-94, which remains a tollway for a similar half century although this was intended to be "temporary." The temporary state of a tollway became a state institution. Priorities, we don't need no priorities...
I have a videotape of pacing a commuter train on the CNSM at 80 MPH using equipment built in the 1900's for pete's sake.There is progress I suppose. .I used to commute to Chicago. Not anymore.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
mudchicken So Denver RTD is less inept than CTA? Last time I looked CTA was flat busted broke and is a long way from being where it should.RTD is newer, but in the same boat. (Plus bus people passing themselves off as experts in a railroad environment says volumes) CTA has done zilch to deal with the rampant featherbedding and poor management its been stuck with for years and its existing infrastructure is in really poor shape. Until there is a major housecleaning in Chicago, nothing is going to happen.
So Denver RTD is less inept than CTA?
Last time I looked CTA was flat busted broke and is a long way from being where it should.RTD is newer, but in the same boat. (Plus bus people passing themselves off as experts in a railroad environment says volumes)
CTA has done zilch to deal with the rampant featherbedding and poor management its been stuck with for years and its existing infrastructure is in really poor shape. Until there is a major housecleaning in Chicago, nothing is going to happen.
Then why are they building a new station Between Clinton and Ashland on the Green Line? Why aren't they saving up for extending the Yellow line to Old Orchard?
A little commonsense vision goes a long way as far as the bang for a buck. The STAR line is a loser but the extension of the former high speed Skokie Valley Route running parallel to the I-94 parking lot makes more than enough sense, it's a no-brainer so it's unlikely to occur..I would run it up to Waukegan.. After all, .they are the Regional Transit Authority..If you drive south and hit just south of Waukegan on I-94, at rush hour, I need not say more. The RTA is a joke. This extension has been kicking around longer than most readers of the forum. I think a private consortium could make a buck with a limited stop high speed run into the loop over that former route, but instead of visionaries we have bureaucrats who are incapable of making a common sense decision..
The former CNW line to Waukegan is slow boat to China, needs to be light rail with a stop as it is every mile or so it grinds to a halt..Tried it once.This is the 21st Century, The old Soo Line route has had so many stops added it's approaching the same "stop every block" schedule. The MILW North line is the best of the worst. Theres my little rant of the evening..ahhh...feel better already.
How about those nifty sideways park benches versus seating the CTA came up with for the new cars that is a throwback to the 19th Century rattan era because they can jam more riders into a car because they screwed up the budget and cannot afford to run AB skip stop service? The ex head of the whole outfit jumped in front of his own train when they found he skimmed from the top. I think most of us could do a better job with our hands tied behind our backs. .
Mr. Railman ...it's been over five years since Trains had an article about the STAR Line. the CTA wants to extend the red line further south, but they haven't broke ground at all. Theyt also want to extend the yellow line to Old Orchard, but it's not happening.
...it's been over five years since Trains had an article about the STAR Line. the CTA wants to extend the red line further south, but they haven't broke ground at all. Theyt also want to extend the yellow line to Old Orchard, but it's not happening.
Somehow, somebody forgot to mention how long it took Denver to go from making the initial proposals to actually breaking ground. Things can move reasonably quickly once construction starts, it's the period prior to construction that seems to take an eternity.
Yes, I know the actual process is long for creating new lines/service, but it's been over five years since Trains had an article about the STAR Line. the CTA wants to extend the red line further south, but they haven't broke ground at all. Theyt also want to extend the yellow line to Old Orchard, but it's not happening. As a comparrison to why the RTA is so slow is the Denver RTD! When I was little, they only had one small light rail lines in existance. Now they have two operating lines, with branches, and another line in the works. They broke Ground for a new "Shuttle" commuter railroad service to Denver Airport last year, and are getting closer and closer to the completion of the Sixth Ave. light rails completion. Last I saw they had the arch bridge in and most of the roadbed complete, and that was last year at around this time. The difference between the RTD and the RTA is that RTD goes through the process in around three--five years and then begins building. if Metra want's to build that STAR line,they need to act.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.