Build the tunnel
A transformative vision for regional rail
Star:Line Chicago is the social media handle of a Chicago-area transportation advocate based in suburban Forest Park. While they requested anonymity for professional reasons, the City That Works editorial team (Conor and Richard) can confirm that the author is extremely qualified to write this article and lacks any conflicts of interest that would require disclosure.
This newsletter has spent a lot of time documenting Chicago’s many transit challenges.1 What’s missing, however, is a unified vision of what could be possible with a single, easy-to-use, and comprehensive network connecting Chicagoland. So today, let’s outline a positive vision for what our transit system could be, with both structural reforms and sufficient funding.
The promise of regional rail
Historically, Metra and the CTA have been two different entities with two different primary constituencies: Metra prioritizes bringing suburbanites downtown in the morning and back out in the evening, and the CTA focuses on getting Chicagoans around the city. That picture has always been flawed (a third of Metra stations are in the City, and CTA service extends well past Chicago’s boundaries), but it’s been the standard operating paradigm for a long time.
If this paradigm was ever a good way to think about transit, it certainly isn’t today. Jobs are less concentrated in the downtown core than they used to be, and the rise of work-from-home policies means that a greater share of trips take residents between suburbs or city neighborhoods, and for non-commuting reasons, rather than peak-oriented commutes to and from downtown. While Metra’s 2024 weekend ridership had nearly fully rebounded to 2019 levels, peak-period ridership was only 52% of 2019.
Unfortunately, our current antiquated system is simply not constructed to address these modern, 21st-Century travel flows. Our existing CTA lines were designed to support commuting into and out of the Loop. Moreover, now that we’ve pegged the politically-acceptable price for a mile of new above-ground ‘L’ at $1.02 billion a mile with the Red Line Extension, it’s safe to say that any major expansions of the ‘L’ network will be cost-prohibitive for the foreseeable future.2
The good news is that we already have another set of rail lines crisscrossing the City: our existing Metra network.
This is the challenge that the “regional rail” model was created to solve. We can’t easily build our way out of the problem with more ‘L’ lines, but we can repurpose our existing Metra lines to create a new transit network throughout the city and inner suburbs. By adding more frequent point-to-point trips on existing Metra lines, we’d be able to dramatically expand transit service at a fraction of the cost of more CTA extensions.
Nearly two years ago, I published the 2034sight Plan, a regional rail vision for Chicagoland that built upon many existing plans and documents including the High Speed Rail Association’s CrossRail Chicago, the Coalition for a Modern Metra Electric, Mike Payne’s Gray Line proposal, and others. 2034sight is a bundle of five major projects – two of which are already under active consideration by Metra and Amtrak – that would create strategic connections downtown between Metra lines to unlock a six-line, 150-station regional rail “CrossTowner” network that stretches from Highland Park to Hyde Park, Palatine to Pullman, South Chicago to O’Hare, and more. Similar to S-Bahns in central Europe or Reseau Express in the Francosphere, CrossTowners would be something of a hybrid of Metra and CTA service here in Chicagoland.
These CrossTowner trains would also use smaller, lighter, electrified rail vehicles operating on Metra’s existing tracks, rather than Metra’s existing fleet of diesel-hauled bi-level coaches. The CrossTowner lines would operate at relatively low frequencies (every 30 minutes) in the suburbs where they need to share operations with freight traffic and serve less-dense areas. By coordinating each line’s schedules and overlapping operations closer to the urban core, these interlined trains would combine to function as a ninth ‘L’ line with trains every 7.5 minutes between downtown and Hyde Park, and every 15 minutes through much of the city including nearly the entire South Side.
Figure 1: Comparison of "CrossTowner" regional rail service compared to existing Metropolitan Rail (Metra) and Rapid Transit (CTA) service. Adding CrossTowners to our rail transit network can expand the reach of faster and more frequent rail transit beyond the footprint of the CTA without expensive extensions, while also speeding up rail service to and from the collar counties by creating a new “local” service pattern to allow existing trains to run express all day long.
And because these lines would operate through downtown rather than simply to it, the system would create new direct connections between the North and South Sides with simpler transfers to other destinations. These two strategies – interlining and thru-running – are the crux of what makes regional rail so effective to expand the reach of our rail network at a far lower expense than continuing to build out the ‘L’ network, especially in areas where the ‘L’ and regional rail can complement each other.
The 2034sight Plan consists of three phases.
Phase 1: The Chicago Hub Improvement Program
The earliest phases of 2034sight would be to connect Union Station with Metra’s Rock Island Line, which currently terminates at LaSalle Street. By doing so, we’d allow for more efficient thru-running of trains at Union Station and allow for initial CrossTowner service to connect Blue Island and the Rock Island Beverly Branch with O’Hare Airport.
Most of this is already in the works. Plans are already on the books for Amtrak’s Chicago Hub Improvement Program (CHIP) and Metra’s plans to modernize the A-2 interlocking at Western Avenue as well as adding an infill station in Fulton Market somewhere between Ashland and Ogden Avenues. What 2034sight calls for is simply using these existing efforts to create a new passenger rail route connecting the Rock Island Beverly Branch to O’Hare.
Figure 2: Amtrak’s Chicago Hub Improvement Program could be used to connect Metra’s Rock Island Beverly Branch to O’Hare via the Metra Milwaukee West and Metra North Central Service lines in advance of the major new downtown tunneling efforts. Following completion of the tunnel, O’Hare service would be connected to the Metra Electric South Chicago Branch, with Rock Island CrossTowner trains extending to Elmhurst instead. Convenient transfers would still be available at the Ashland-Ogden Fulton Market Superstation.
Phase 2: The Ohio-Columbus Tunnel and Fulton Market Connector
While we can make some real progress by leveraging the CHIP improvements and Metra’s Fulton Market initiatives, we’ll have to think bigger to truly realize the promise of our regional network. Right now Metra trains connect the far reaches of Chicagoland to edge of the Loop (at Ogilvie, Union Station, LaSalle Street Station, and Millennium Station). Then, the tracks simply end. Riders hoping to get anywhere other than downtown are left to fend for themselves.3
To fix this, we need to build a central city tunnel to connect the Metra Electric to the Metra Union Pacific North and Northwest lines. The 2034sight Plan calls for a tunnel under Ohio Street and Columbus Drive to accomplish this connection. We’d also add a spur to the new Fulton Market Superstation from the previous phase to connect with Metra’s Milwaukee North, Milwaukee West, North Central Service, and Union Pacific West lines, and to provide a direct connection from the Metra Electric to O’Hare via the North Central Service.
In addition to connecting the south suburbs to the north and northwest ones, this route would have added benefits for the city. We’d get a supercharged version of the Metra Electric line, with far more regular service throughout the South Side (especially from Hyde Park through McCormick Place to downtown), and then on to O’Hare or the North Side. We’d also get high-frequency all-day service and new stations to cover popular destinations that are not necessarily commute-oriented such as Museum Campus, the Art Institute/Millennium Park, Lakeshore East, Streeterville, and River North.
Phase 3: The Clinton Street Subway
Finally, we’d add a second tunnel under Clinton Street to connect Metra’s three busiest lines: the Metra BNSF line to the Union Pacific North and Northwest lines. In the process we’d add another connection to Union Station and the Ogilvie Transportation Center, as well as better interagency connections with integrated transfers to the CTA Blue Line at Clinton/Congress and the CTA Green and Pink Lines at Clinton/Lake. Beyond adding new stations on the edge of the booming West Loop, the Clinton Street Subway would better connect the northern and western suburbs while providing single-seat transfers to the rest of the CrossTowner network.
Figure 3: The core improvements of the 2034sight Plan overlaid on a map of downtown Chicago.
CrossTowner regional rail achieves a rare trifecta of benefits that would ripple throughout the region:
Within Chicago proper, since CrossTowner lines are interlined with each other, each line operates with frequencies comparable to CTA ‘L’ operations: 15-minute frequencies along the Union Pacific North and Northwest lines, as well as on the Metra Electric main line between Hyde Park and Kensington and on the South Chicago Branch, with a main “trunk” between Hyde Park and downtown with trains every 7.5 minutes all day long. In addition to the dramatic enhancement to frequency, CrossTowners also provide for a single-seat trip from the South Side to O’Hare Transfer, as well as more frequent service on Metra lines far from the reach of the ‘L’ network including the Rock Island Beverly Branch and the Grand Corridor of the Milwaukee West line on the Northwest Side.4
In suburban Cook County, CrossTowners would provide far more frequent all-day service not only to and from downtown but also through the Loop to communities beyond Chicago, all by serving existing Metra stations more frequently. Fifteen-minute service would extend as far as Winnetka and Des Plaines, with the latter extended to Arlington Park if that’s where a certain football team happens to end up (or if another event venue of some sort replaces the former racetrack site). Additionally, with CrossTowner service as far south as Harvey on the Metra Electric, as far west as Elmhurst on the Union Pacific West, plus increased all-day frequency throughout the near suburbs and Northwest Side on the Milwaukee West/North Central Service, regional rail would also improve commutes for working-class riders throughout the county.
For the collar counties, CrossTowners would not replace existing Metra service. However, with CrossTowner trains in regular service, Metra trains to and from the collar counties could make fewer stops closer to the urban core, translating into faster trains and shorter trip times all day long.
Figure 4: 2034sight CrossTowner network map. While each individual line would operate every 30 minutes, where two lines are interlined headways would be every 15 minutes, with 7.5-minute headways along the primary "trunk" between Hyde Park and downtown.
Figure 5: 2034sight Suburban Service (Metra) network diagram. With CrossTowner regional rail providing regular, frequent service in Chicago and the near suburbs, many existing Metra lines can make fewer stops, speeding up trips to and from the collar counties. Additionally, with CrossTowners providing local service between downtown and O’Hare, all NCS trains can now operate with limited stops, creating a new “O’Hare Express” service that can also extend to McCormick Place with the enhancements as part of Amtrak’s Chicago Hub Improvement Program.
Figure 6: The 2034sight Plan for CrossTowner regional rail with projects identified.
These changes, achieved almost entirely with existing infrastructure, could transform transit in the Chicagoland region.5 And while they certainly won’t come cheap, they’re a lot more achievable than you might think. There are two key investments that we’ll need to make.
Metra needs a new kind of train
Metra’s rolling stock is large and poorly suited for the relatively-dense station spacing seen in much of Chicago proper and the inner suburbs. Metra’s current diesel locomotives require more time to accelerate and decelerate between stations, with more “dwell” time at stations themselves as passengers have to climb multiple steps through a single door on each train car just to board or alight.
Fortunately, Metra is already procuring some new vehicles with fewer of these challenges. Metra is procuring up to 16 Stadler FLIRT battery-operated trainsets for use on the Metra Rock Island and elsewhere in the system. In addition to being zero-emission, these trains can operate with faster acceleration and deceleration and only require a single step to board, speeding up operations in areas with frequent stops such as the Rock Island Beverly Branch.
Figure 7 (Source: Metra/Stadler)
Importantly, that doesn’t mean we need to get rid of Metra’s existing fleet. It’s actually quite good at doing what it’s intended to do – operate fast, limited-stop peak-oriented service to bring a lot of people from the suburbs into downtown in the morning and back out in the evening . The new vision for regional rail will require adding to Metra’s existing fleet, rather than simply replacing it.
We need to dig some tunnels
While new tunnels through downtown would undoubtedly give any fiscally-minded Chicagoan pause, it’s worth noting that, as a region, we’ve done this before: the 4.8-mile State Street (Red Line) Subway, opened in 1943, and the 4.1-mile Milwaukee-Dearborn (Blue Line) Subway, opened in 1951, are both notably longer than the proposed 3.6-mile Ohio-Columbus Tunnel and 2.2-mile Clinton Street Tunnel would be.
Tunneling costs, even in the American context, also don’t have to be astronomical: while megaprojects like New York City’s Second Avenue Subway and the San Francisco Bay Area’s BART extension to San Jose have attracted attention for all the wrong reasons, Los Angeles has been quietly constructing rail tunnels at costs that came in at or even below CTA’s Red Line Extension estimates: LA Metro’s light rail Regional Connector, which included 1.9 miles of tunnel through the heart of downtown Los Angeles and three new stations, came in under $2 billion, or about $950 million per mile; Metro’s ongoing heavy rail D Line extension will add nine miles of subway under Wilshire Boulevard and seven stations for $9.5 billion, or $1.06 billion a mile.6
If we assumed a $1 billion per mile tunnel cost plus an extra $100 million per station, 2034sight’s tunnels would cost just under $7 billion: undoubtedly a major investment, but also hardly a moonshot. Additional costs would inevitably be required – a proper regional rail fleet, combined with electrification considerations, infill stations, and other infrastructure needs, would likely push the full cost of 2034sight to up to $12 billion, but many of those additional costs could be phased in over time or deferred to later stages once the initial concept has proven itself.
A more affordable variation, the CRCL Plan, would use a single tunnel under Clinton Street and Roosevelt Road rather than the Grant Park/River North alignment. That would consolidate all regional rail routes with a single transfer point at Chicago Union Station, and would require about two fewer miles of tunneling. While the project would likely be cheaper – possibly as much as $2-$2.5 billion cheaper than 2034sight – its smaller downtown footprint and lack of additional service to dense, relatively-underserved downtown neighborhoods like River North, Streeterville, and Lakeshore East would have some downsides and require further study and consideration.
Figure 8: The core improvements of the CRCL Plan alternative overlaid on a map of downtown Chicago.
Figure 6: Tunnel comparison chart showing how the 2034sight and CRCL Plan proposed tunnels compare to the CTA's existing Red and Blue Line subway tunnels.
It might sound crazy to pitch a $12 billion transit program in the face of a fiscal cliff. But one of the things mostly missing from the debates about revenues and reform is a real vision of what a modern, unified, seamless transit network could look like. Taxpayers are a lot more likely to invest in big, aspirational-yet-attainable visions when the value and return on investment is evident.
By having a unified vision with a package of programs and initiatives, rather than a single “project”, costs can be handled more efficiently in smaller increments. The 2034sight Plan includes a three-phase implementation plan that allows for incremental implementation, providing improved service sooner while more efficiently distributing funding needs and sources. Some of these concepts, including Amtrak’s Chicago Hub Improvement Program (CHIP), Metra’s A-2 Interlocking Modernization, and a Fulton Market Superstation, are already on the books in some way, which also means that while those improvements are included in the $12 billion price tag, they also are not “new” investments. Improvements at Chicago Union Station would likely be primarily funded by Amtrak rather than local taxpayers, and infill stations beyond downtown can be built as funds allow.
Finally, while there has never been more uncertainty about federal funding streams than there are now, historically speaking these kinds of capital investments do have significant federal assistance of up to 50% of the cost through programs like the Federal Transit Administration’s Core Capacity grants. As federal funding becomes more competitive, Chicagoland can present stronger applications by demonstrating how our region would use these investments to complement each other to create a unified network of operators, modes, and technologies that all work together to create significant economic value for our region. That’s a much more compelling pitch than our current paradigm, in which an assortment of local agencies compete against each other for scarce discretionary funds.
This is no time for small plans: Chicagoland deserves a bold vision to create a 21st Century transit network around, a vision befitting of a global city but also grounded in the fiscal realities and challenges that face us. If we really want a better transit system, we should put a transformational plan on the table and then work to drive down its cost. But right now, we’re so paralyzed by the current model that we’re not even really trying.
To Metra’s credit, the railroad has already told the RTA that increased operational funding could support a “Regional Rail 2.0” model that could potentially include through-running downtown for their busiest lines as well as more frequent “inner zone” service and improved service to O’Hare. Now Chicagoland needs a bold vision to not only save our transit system, but to bring it into the 21st Century.
It's time to #BuildTheTunnel.
In short, our current system of four competing agencies pits the city against the suburbs, delivering a sub-par experience for riders that’s worth a lot less than the sum of its parts.
Between how far leveraged the CTA will be to pay for the Red Line Extension, as well as other big-ticket projects inevitably coming down the pike including a desperately-needed Forest Park Branch rebuild, later phases of the Red-Purple Modernization, and completing the fleet replacements of the 2600- and 3200-series ‘L’ trains – to say nothing of other line extensions that have been atrophying on the books for decades including extending the Yellow Line to Old Orchard Mall, or the Orange Line to Ford City – new transformative neighborhood-to-neighborhood rail projects like extending the Brown Line to Jefferson Park or building the “Circle Line” or the “Mid-City Transitway”, or the daydream of a Western or Ashland ‘L’ line, feel as far away as manned missions to Mars at this point.
It's no wonder that Metra is often considered only a way to move between the suburbs and downtown rather than as a comprehensive network to connect the entire region.
It is important to note that CrossTowners are not intended to be a replacement for the CTA’s Red Line Extension; indeed, with a goal to enhance regional mobility and create a unified network, a modified Red Line Extension that provides for direct connections to the Metra Electric as well as a coordinated South Shore Line infill station adjacent to Altgeld Gardens would be a major enhancement for the entire South Side and southern suburbs. However, with CrossTowners expanding the reach of our existing radial rail network, future CTA ‘L’ expansions can focus exclusively on neighborhood-to-neighborhood connectivity rather than further radial extensions deeper into less-dense parts of the city and suburbs.
They also avoid some of the hangups of our existing infrastructure. While Metra has to navigate heavy freight traffic on its outlying routes, the primary components of this CrossTowner network have minimal or no active freight traffic, including on the entire Metra Electric, the Beverly Branch of the Rock Island District, the Union Pacific North Line south of Lake Bluff, and the Union Pacific Northwest line east of Des Plaines.
Of course, by international standards even Los Angeles’s construction costs are bloated, but that could be an entirely different post altogether.
 | A guest post by
|
I'm a lifelong Chicagoan who has always lamented the lack of such often-proposed projects as the Circle Line or the Brown Line extension to O'Hare. So it's really exciting to see a possible transit project that would be more impactful than either of those, at a comparable cost, leveraging existing infrastructure that I hadn't even thought about. Consider me on board.
Interesting proposals.
It would be important to study Philadelphia here. Philly already through runs its commuter trails via a downtown tunnel and is 100% electrified (though not entirely high platform). For a period of time, they even rebranded the lines to emphasize their through-running nature. My understanding is that this didn't really work to drive ridership.
Transit advocates have also done some visioning around a tunnel linking North and South Stations in Boston, along with electrifying the system. I'd engage with their proposals.
Through running sounds great in theory, and riding the RER in Paris is great. But I wonder how much demand there is for this kind of route in the near term. Commuter flows have been structured around the existing transportation network. Building infrastructure where there's little existing travel demand will require a multi-decade vision of how to reorient development to generate that demand. New York found this out the hard way with East Side Access, which appears to be a debacle. There are multiple reasons for this, but one of them is that people don't choose to live on Long Island if they work in Midtown East.
It's also worth calculating how much through traffic there is on the L. My impression from when I lived in Chicago: not much. But I could be wrong. If there's isn't a lot of through utilization on the L, which has been there for a very long time, then how much ridership would there be here?
And Chicago is in a declining demand market, where the office preferred office locations are shifting. It's hard to justify building when ridership is still way down and hybrid appears to be here to stay. And perhaps Northwestern Station will end up being the center of the action after all.
Another thing to consider is what such a system does for us with regards to Amtrak and potential high speed rail. Unfortunately, Alon Levy has demonstrated that Chicago isn't actually a great market for HSR. HSR works best when cities are laid out linearly, as in the NEC. We have a star topology here. But keeping an eye on the long term is important.
I don't want to be a Debbie Downer as I think this is a very interesting proposal. But we'd want to be sure to get it right, not end up like East Side Access or Richard M. Daley's high speed rail "superstation" under Block 37.