Fantasy transit in Chicago: a proposal

Building urban rail lines has always been expensive, and one of the consequences of this is that many more lines have been proposed than built. The shelves of Northwestern University’s excellent Transportation Library, for example, contain approximately 75 books or reports in which rail lines for Chicago are proposed; only something like a dozen of these lines have actually been constructed.1 Of course, numerous proposals have been made for building lines that have never even made it to the books and government reports that are collected by libraries. Here’s a 1913 proposal on a map at the University of Chicago Map Collection that was only published in cartographic form. None of the proposed new lines was actually ever implemented.

The Internet of course has been a perfect home for proposals to build new urban rail lines. Numerous “fantasy-transit” sites discuss these. Alon Levy’s Pedestrian Observations, which features long cost-benefit analyses of proposed lines, may be the best of these sites. It has quite a lot of competition.2 Other sites that deal with urban transportation issues in general, like Yonah Freemark’s The Transport Politic and Jarrett Walker’s Human Transit, have also often discussed potential new lines.

I’ve enormously enjoyed reading the posts on these sites—if you like urban rail, then contemplating new lines is a simple pleasure—but I don’t know how much effect they’ve had on actual public policy. To take just one example, if the politicians and government officials who actually decide what to build had paid much attention to what gets written on these sites, thousands of additional kilometers of “heavy-rail” transit lines would have been added—while most of the numerous short, slow, infrequent, and expensive street-running streetcar lines that have been constructed or started in the United States over the last decade would never have been considered worth building.

Discussions of new transit in Chicago in recent years have been very much like discussions of new transit elsewhere. There have been hundreds of proposals to build new lines, hardly any of which seem to have much chance of actual implementation. One example is TransitFuture’s proposal to create a grid of new CTA lines mostly to the west of the existing lines.

There have also been numerous proposals to make better use of the rail lines now run by Metra, the commuter rail agency. Many of these lines run through dense areas of the city and inner suburbs but have few city stops and infrequent service. Adding stops and service, and instigating fare integration with the city transit agency, the CTA, would seem like a no-brainer, but, despite all the proposals, nothing ever happens. The chief reason may be institutional. Metra clearly feels that longer-distance commuters constitute its major market (although many of the city stations do a great deal of business). It also fears anything that could lead to a loss of revenue.

The model for making more intensive use of suburban rail lines is of course Western Europe, where numerous cities have to a large degree integrated their rapid transit and suburban rail systems. Paris, London, Berlin, Munich, Frankfurt, and Oslo are perhaps the cities that have moved furthest in this direction. In all these places, suburban lines have been brought through the inner city in tunnels; the lines run as often as subway lines typically do; and one fare lets you ride on both the subway system and what was once the suburban system. This arrangement solves several problems at the same time. Frequent service on the suburban lines brings genuine rail rapid transit to numerous areas that did not have it and (often) express subway service to areas already served. Inner-city tunneling brings the suburban trains from peripheral stations to places where travelers actually want to go. And, even if the suburban trains themselves don’t take you to your destination, improved connections with the existing subway system enormously increase the range of easily reachable destinations. Furthermore, fare integration encourages full use of the entire system. In addition, the reduced role of stub-end stations at the edge of the CBD allows much faster service and eliminates the need to store trains on expensive land close to the city center. And (in some cases) electrification of suburban train lines (required for passage through tunnels) has made the trains faster and quieter.

Similar arrangements are rare outside of Western Europe, but they do exist. In Asia, Tokyo and Osaka have joined their suburban and urban rail systems by allowing subway trains onto the suburban railways and making through fares available. In the Western Hemisphere, only São Paulo has set up a system somewhat comparable to those in Western Europe (although without any new tunneling): subway lines and the old and much improved suburban lines have been joined into one gigantic system (see my earlier post on this system). There are some moves in this direction only in a small number of cities in North America. Denver’s brand-new suburban rail lines have fare integration with the rest of the transit system, and Philadelphia built an underground line connecting its two suburban train stations that opened in 1984, but there is no fare integration with the subway system. Furthermore, both Toronto and Montréal are planning an enormous increase in service levels on certain suburban train lines (although apparently with no fare integration in Toronto).

There have been proposals to set up “through-running” of a sort in Chicago, of which the most serious is probably CrossRail Chicago. This proposal avoids the need for downtown tunneling by suggesting that lines be joined via the St. Charles Air Line south of downtown. CrossRail comes much closer to being a thoroughly worked-out scheme than just about anything else proposed by members of the public. If it were actually built, I have no doubt that life in Chicago would be improved enormously, but it does need to be said that the line would have the peculiarity of not serving the central Loop at all, much less its northern extension. It also would have poor connections with the CTA, which does not have any rail line to Union Station, or, in fact, to most other Metra stations in Chicago and its suburbs.3 The fact that CrossRail in one form or another has been around for a decade without acquiring significant government support could be interpreted in any number of ways. Maybe it just isn’t quite radical enough to excite very many people.

Perhaps I’ve missed something obvious, but I’ve never actually seen a completely worked out proposal for through-running Chicago’s suburban trains that included service to the Loop proper and to its northern extensions.4 The geography is, indeed, a bit awkward, since service from the north now ends up in stations west of the Loop. Pedestrian Observations blogger Alon Levy, a supporter of through-running in New York (where the geography is also awkward), in a discussion of through-running in Chicago, seems to have just given up. But I wonder whether this is not rather premature. It is true that new downtown tunnels would be fantastically expensive and that the cost would have to include electrification of the lines passing through them. In a city and state with a structural deficit of billions of dollars a year, it might seem absurd to imagine that money could be found. But let us imagine that the federal government does indeed get into the business of building infrastructure on a large scale in the next few years and at least fantasize what might be done with it.

One obvious problem with rail transit in Chicago is that it (inevitably) tends to focus on the central business district as it was some decades back, when it was largely confined to the Loop proper. But the most prestigious retailing in Chicago’s CBD moved north, up Michigan Avenue, many years ago. There is only one rail station in this area now, the Red Line’s Chicago stop, and it’s three blocks from the major retail establishments at, and near, Water Tower Place. This area, in fact, is not just a retailing center. Numerous hotels and densely built-up residential districts are close by, as are Chicago’s most prestigious hospital, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and its neighbors, the highly regarded Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and Chicago Children’s Hospital. There are also numerous offices in the area, and even more closer to the River, a few blocks south. Setting up through-running of suburban train lines would ideally solve the problem of poor rail transit in this area.

As it happens, Metra’s major north-south line (UP-North) is roughly 2 km west of Water Tower. Why not run this line east from just south of the Clybourn station over to Michigan Avenue (or just east of it)? Passengers wanting to travel south to Ogilvie Station (formerly the Northwestern Terminal) could change at Clybourn, which is served by two UP lines. There would be connections with the Red and Brown Line stations on Chicago Avenue. The tunnel would turn south somewhere around Michigan Avenue (or maybe Columbus). It would need to be very deep, partly because the area is so built up, and partly because the turn near Water Tower Place would only be possible with a radius large enough to require passing under some existing buildings. The tunnel would join with the already electrified Metra Electric at Millennium Park. There would have to be another east-west tunnel somewhere south of this, perhaps under Monroe Street, that would have connections with Red and Blue Line stations as well as with those on the Loop. Again, a very deep tunnel would be required, partly so that it could pass under the existing subways and other infrastructure and partly because large-radius turns to and from Metra Electric and the tracks to Union Station would require going under some existing buildings. The tunnel would join with the existing tracks north of Union Station (and, in an ideal world, with the Rock Island tracks as well).

Here’s what this looks like on a map:

Map, Metra and CTA rail lines (actual and fantasy), central Chicago, Illinois

Central Chicago showing proposed new Metra lines as well as existing CTA and Metra lines. The filled circles are stations. The large brown circles mark both new stations and existing stations that would presumably acquire new underground tracks. Most of the base GIS data come from the City of Chicago’s data portal.

And here’s the larger picture: a view of Chicago and its inner suburbs showing the relationship between CTA lines and Metra rapid transit lines:

Map, Metra and CTA rail lines (actual and fantasy), Chicago and vicinity, Illinois 9and a small part of Indiana)

CTA lines and the five Metra rapid transit lines mentioned briefly in the text. Assumes that rapid transit is extended only to inner suburbs. There are of course many other possibilities.

This arrangement would permit many different service patterns. Perhaps Metra Electric (“IC”) trains could be rerouted through the east-west Loop tunnel and end up in O’Hare (thus providing the express service to O’Hare that Mayor Emanuel has been supporting). Trains from Evanston (or further north) might pass via Water Tower and the Millennium Station to the east-west tunnel, and turn south at Union Station to, say the Burlington Line (although there is more city demand on the Rock Island Line, which now terminates at the LaSalle Station). Additional suburban lines could be joined in eventually.

Service on the Chicago and inner-suburban portions of the main suburban lines might be every 15 minutes all day and every 7.5 minutes through the east-west tunnel (since two lines would share it), and could, of course, be even more frequent during rush hour. If more suburban lines were brought into the system, service on the shared tunnel stretches could become even better. Chicago and its inner suburbs would thus gain an enormous amount of new rapid rail transit that would in fact be much more rapid than the existing lines. Suburbanites would find it much easier to get where they wanted to go, either because the trains would actually take them there or because connections would be easier. The elimination of noisy diesel engines on the affected routes would improve the environment. And fast-accelerating electric trains could make a few additional city stops without increasing their total transit time unreasonably. The trains would also no longer have to crawl into stub-end stations at 10 kph, since the stations would be through stations.

Altogether something like 5.8 km of tunneling and several new stations would be required. This construction, along with electrification, might cost something like ten or fifteen billion dollars, a huge amount but not an unimaginable sum in an urban area of perhaps eight or nine million people if there were a generous federal subsidy. The Chicago urban area is only a little smaller than the Paris and London urban areas where much larger rail building plans have been completed, and where even larger and more expensive projects are under way. Construction would of course take several years but would not have to be enormously disruptive, since the new tunnels would generally be so far beneath the surface.

Of course, all this is just a fantasy!

  1. Figure based on a quick perusal of titles with subject heading “Local transit—Illinois—Chicago (or: Chicago Metropolitan Area)–Planning” or having a call number beginning with HE4491.C4. I didn’t look at every item.
  2. See blogroll on Pedestrian Observations for a very partial list.
  3. I acknowledge the exceptions, Irving Park, Main Street Evanston, Oak Park/Harlem-Lake, 35th-Lou Jones/Sox-35th. Downtown, the LaSalle Street and Millennium stations are within a block of CTA lines.
  4. “Itinerant urbanist” Sandy Johnson once proposed an east-west Loop line, but it misses the Near North Side.
This entry was posted in Transportation, Urban. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Fantasy transit in Chicago: a proposal

  1. kclo3 says:

    Alon did make a Chicago through-running map, only he announced it on Twitter and not his blog:
    https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/832792407112441856
    https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1GSq16WGfi0u34opAQWmifYEMUz4

    Sandy Johnston also made one a few years back, taking advantage of the Block 37 superstation:
    https://itineranturbanist.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/an-ambitious-plan-for-regional-rail-in-downtown-chicago/
    https://itineranturbanist.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/envisioning-an-ambitious-future-metra/

    I think both proposals try to consolidate all operations to the east of the Chicago River through LaSalle rather than try to salvage subpar termini at CUS and Ogilvie. One solution that did attempt to keep West Loop service was George Ellsworth Hooker’s 1914 plan, “Through routes for Chicago’s steam railroads”, a particularly elegant solution of 9 downtown stations set up as a grid. People have been thinking about through-running Chicago’s suburban lines for quite some time now!
    https://archive.org/details/throughroutesfo00hook

    • Christopher Winters says:

      I didn’t know about the Alon Levy Twitter map–thanks for sharing. Interesting that it involves a geography that’s vaguely similar to my proposal, but, after all, how many options could there be? Alon Levy’s proposal is not quite as similar to mine as it first looked to be, since the critical North Michigan Avenue area isn’t covered.

      I did refer to the Sandy Johnson proposal, or one version of it anyway–see my footnote 4.

      The trouble with moving all Metra operations east of the River would be that there are now a huge number of offices west of the Loop proper, especially around Union and Ogilvie stations.

      Chris

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have also gmade a fantasy map for Chicago regional transit.

    https://goo.gl/tMoZGu

    A few things.
    As for Regional routes, there are two, four-track ‘trunks’ which would allow the entire Metra network to become “Rapid Transit” rather than just some of it. These trunks are designed to maximize existing infrastructure.

    The main principle is that regional trains serving the loop via the IC ROW through Grant Park, and the Union Station ROW through the West Loop, is actually good enough. Local transit service in the central loop is already ridiculously dense, and if walking doesn’t do the trick for you then there’s bound to be a good Regional-Local connection that will. Regional trains are BIG, can’t turn very sharply, and even if electrified can’t climb as steeply as lighter weight CTA trains, so a scheme involving lots of complicated underground flying junctions would have to be very expensive and also very deep, which would lessen the convenience factor (due to time spent on moving between deep platforms and the surface) compared to sticking to the Union Station and Grant Park rights-of-way.

    The first trunk follows the IC right-of-way through Grant Park, and then along a similar alignment to your suggestion through Streeterville and River North. The difference is that I have suggested using Columbus/Fairbanks instead of Michigan in order to serve Streeterville better, but I can certainly see the argument for Michigan Avenue as well.

    The second trunk uses the existing, surface-level Union Station right-of-way. Through trains would stop at new platforms beneath the Old Post Office and at the northern half of Union Station on the platforms between Adams and Madison. The two trunks would be connected via the St Charles Air Line.

    Other notable things related to local transit:
    The loop is de-looped, and all trains are routed to go through the loop area.

    You may also think “What the heck is going on with the brown line.” I agree. That’s the most ‘out there’ line on the map. I do think that each individual element probably makes sense in a way, but is it a good idea to tie them all together into a gigantic 40 mile loop? Eh. Maybe, maybe not.

  3. newton82 says:

    “Again, a very deep tunnel would be required, partly so that it could pass under the existing subways and other infrastructure and partly because large-radius turns to and from Metra Electric and the tracks to Union Station would require going under some existing buildings”
    I disagree, read
    https://www.seattletransitblog.com/2017/02/14/sdot-tweaks-metro-night-owl-proposal-adds-service-to-ne-seattle/ Mollie

  4. cartwright51 says:

    “This arrangement solves several problems at the same time”
    I don’t agree: http://chicagoist.com/2014/04/16/could_this_be_the_future_of_public.php

    Esta

    • Christopher Winters says:

      I mention the “Transit Future” plan above. Those north-south lines through medium-density West Side Chicago neighborhoods would be nice, but it seems to me they probably have even less chance of adoption than using the suburban railroads more intensively–if only because the latter would benefit more people.

  5. Tim H. says:

    I know I’m close to 2 years late, but I can’t not contribute.

    This is the first blog I’ve come across in a while that mentions CrossRail Chicago; kudos to you for getting the word out.

    As for the east-west regional rail, I like the goal it’s trying to accomplish, although I still think an east-west CTA line would do a better job of serving the area between the north and south sides of the CTA’s Loop. I agree that there needs to be a connection between the North Side Metra lines and Millennium station, although I would have the line from Millennium station connect exclusively with the UP-NW. I’ll explain why below.

    The Milwaukee-Dearborn Blue Line between Jefferson Park and the Loop is going to reach capacity sometime over the next 20-35 years, thanks to the growth [or call it gentrification if you must] of that entire area. Rides will become extremely crowded, and there is no alternative CTA rail line. As such, the underutilization of the nearby UP-NW line looks like a travesty — it needs to be electrified for frequent service (as in 10-12 minute headways during rush hours, and 15 minute headways at other times). Most Union Pacific double-stack traffic heads west towards Iowa, Nebraska and points beyond, and the best route in that direction would be the UP-W, so I don’t see an issue with double-stack vs. overhead wires on the UP-NW, at least not from UP executives. Plus, the suburbs served by the UP-NW are fairly dense by Chicago standards, and the nearest highways to the centers of Des Plaines, Mt. Prospect, Arlington Heights, and Barrington are a ways to the southwest and northeast. With three tracks, there is room for both frequent local service and express service from further out, so there is a lot of potential to capture additional ridership with more frequent service. As for where the electrification should end, run it to Barrington, as density and potential for density drops off significantly past there. The McHenry Branch should be converted to “shuttle” operation (and I use the term loosely); shuttle service should be timed/scheduled to provide a cross-track transfer to service into Chicago. The longer the transfer time, the less that people will ride. Yes, I know that a rapid-transit style UP-NW duplicates the Blue Line — that’s the whole point, given how crowded the Blue Line will be in 25 years. The UP-NW diesel service should be renamed Northwest Service, while the electric service should retain the UP-NW name.

    As for the UP-N, electrify it but don’t add extra stations. Close Ravenswood station and open a new station for the UP-N at Irving Park; keep the Rogers Park station open. The amount of potential for development along the UP-N from Ogilvie to Evanston Main Street is huge, simply because of the high rent along the Red Line — the corridor deserves a new L line of its own (above the UP-N tracks) from a new stop on the Skokie Swift at Ridge Ave, along Ridge Ave to the UP-N, along the UP-N to Clybourn, southeast along Elston Ave, under the Blue Line at Milwaukee, then a short distance under Kinzie to Canal St and south under Canal, jog along Canalport to Halsted, then south along Halsted all the way to 87th/Gresham Metra station on the Rock Island Line. Additionally, the electrification of the UP-N will allow 10-minute headways during rush hour, obviating the need for the Evanston-Loop express, as there are 3 UP-N stations in Evanston, 2 of which are directly adjacent to the Evanston Line. This may allow the Evanston Line to become part of the Red Line. However, the UP-N only has 2 tracks for most of its length between Clybourn and North Chicago. This means that express service from Kenosha, Waukegan and other stations in that area can’t reliably operate where rapid transit-style service is in effect. There is a rail connection between Lake Bluff UP-N station and the MD-N just north of North Glenview. Electrify the UP-N as far as Lake Bluff, and have diesel service stop at all stops between Kenosha and Lake Bluff, then reroute the diesel trains to the MD-N, and build a new switch between the Milwaukee District and the UP-W at Ashland Avenue. This switch may also allow some diesel trains from the MD and North Central lines to terminate at Ogilvie, freeing up room at Union’s north platforms for more MD-W service, additional Amtrak Hiawatha service, and a second daily Empire Builder train between Chicago and St. Paul. Extend UP-N diesel service (to be renamed Wisconsin Coast Service) to Racine WI if it is determined financially and operationally feasible. The rapid-transit section of the UP-N should retain the UP-N name.

    The UP-N rapid tunnel going east past Clybourn Metra station should turn south at LaSalle Street and tunnel south to connect with a new underground platform for an electrified Rock Island District (on both the Beverly Branch and the Main Line; add a new stop at Clark/16th (The 78). The Midwest HSR Association has updated their CrossRail Chicago plan with a new stop at Clark/16th, so a stop on the Rock Island at that location would facilitate transfers and would likely provide the same functionality as an expensive east-west Metra tunnel, even if the UP-N/RID connection under LaSalle is not built. Finally, add a stop on the Green Line at 29th St. Those are my modifications to your Metra tunnel connections. After CrossRail and Rock Island electrification, electrification of the UP-NW should be highest priority before any Metra tunnels are dug.

    @cartwright51, I would probably run an L down Kedzie and Kimball, rather than Western, Pulaski, or Cicero, as Transit Future suggests. Reason being, Western seems too close to Ashland’s BRT, Pulaski leaves too much of a gap in L service between the Oak Park Green Line and the O’Hare Blue Line, and Cicero is just too far out there for a non-radial L line. However, before we build any north-south L lines, we should up the frequency of CTA buses on Cermak/Blue Island/26th, Roosevelt, Grand, Chicago, North, Fullerton, Belmont, Irving Park, Lawrence, Peterson, Halsted, Ashland, Western, Kedzie, Pulaski, Cicero, Central, Ridgeland-Narragansett, 31st, 35th, Pershing-39th, 47th, Garfield-55th, 63rd, 71st, 79th, 87th, 95th, and 103rd. The north-south route with the highest ridership should be considered for an L line. The east-west route with the highest ridership should be considered for BRT, with an in-depth analysis to determine what other routes are deserving of BRT.

Comments are welcome