[VivaLFuego]

So can't they repair any of the stations in the loop?

Ask CDOT.

[k1052]

There's no glory--or federal capital funding--in repairing an existing station, only in building a monumental new one.

Various stations have been rebuilt over the years though more slowly than is needed. The Chicago Red Line station is next on the list for renovation (and it really needs it).

Some of the Loop stations are indeed somewhat dilapidated (Wabash) with State/Lake being in really terrible shape and much to small to serve it's purpose as a significant transfer station.

[Mr Downtown]

I think you mean Grand Red Line station is next. And I consider the Chicago station a "monumental new one," as nothing except the basic trainroom survives from the old station.

Though expansion at Grand and Chicago can be justified by changing traffic patterns, I'm anguished to see the very handsome Moderne finishes of Chicago's downtown subways torn out simply because they need cleaning, restoration or lighting. If you look behind the grime and insensitive conduit installation, Chicago's downtown subway stations are a very elegant example of PWA Moderne, with curved gray glass tile guiding you into mezzanine floorplans geometrically designed for maximum efficiency and safety, and graceful touches like incised Futura lettering and "radio black" marble on the stairway walls. We should be restoring those, not covering them up with pseudo-Victorian slipcovers or New York-style mosaics.

[honte]

^ Yes, exactly. All they need is to uncover the greatness, and to accentuate it tastefully so that people no longer read them as utilitarian places with no sense of style.

The stations were also a monumental and groundbreaking achievement in the field of soil engineering.

[k1052]

I think you mean Grand Red Line station is next. And I consider the Chicago station a "monumental new one," as nothing except the basic trainroom survives from the old station.

Though expansion at Grand and Chicago can be justified by changing traffic patterns, I'm anguished to see the very handsome Moderne finishes of Chicago's downtown subways torn out simply because they need cleaning, restoration or lighting. If you look behind the grime and insensitive conduit installation, Chicago's downtown subway stations are a very elegant example of PWA Moderne, with curved gray glass tile guiding you into mezzanine floorplans geometrically designed for maximum efficiency and safety, and graceful touches like incised Futura lettering and "radio black" marble on the stairway walls. We should be restoring those, not covering them up with pseudo-Victorian slipcovers or New York-style mosaics.

Yes, Grand. That's what I get for posting before I've had enough coffee.

[Mr Downtown]

The stations were also a monumental and groundbreaking achievement in the field of soil engineering.

Tell me more. I've recently been doing some research on Chicago's subway construction in the engineering literature and didn't see any reference to this.

[honte]

^ Oh gosh, that was a long time ago that I uncovered the information on this. I will go back through my notes and PM you if I can remember where the info is.

You might try looking into the career of Karl von Terzaghi, one of the most prominent US (later non-US) soils engineers. He was the consultant to the project, and I believe this might lead you to other facts about the Chicago Subway.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ctacapitalnov09,0,7465496.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

CTA's other crisis: Rehab needs billions
500 buses rack up 580,000 miles each; trains fare no better

By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune transportation reporter
11:31 PM CST, November 8, 2007

The CTA says it is more than $6 billion short of adequately modernizing its rail and bus lines, a staggering number lost in the debate as the agency lurches from one "doomsday" to another searching for the tens of millions of dollars it needs to keep operating.

The result is that more than 500 CTA buses, one-fourth of its fleet, have been on the road for 16 years, logging an average 580,000 miles apiece.

..............Even if the current transit operating crisis were resolved, the system would remain under siege until a funding stream is established to overhaul and replace aging equipment, transit officials said.

"My concern about the transit discussions in Springfield is that the focus has been solely on funding operations," CTA Chairwoman Carole Brown said. "The capital needs are equally as critical, and they really seem to have been ignored."...................

[k1052]

The $6 billion figure is the CTA wish list, to achieve a state of good repair throughout the system would cost a more modest $2.5 billion.

To my mind the the biggest failing of the transit system layout is that the two busiest METRA stations are totally disconnected from the CTA's rail system. The West Loop Transportation Center proposal is the only realistic solution I've seen that would address the problem.

[aaron38]

I wouldn't say they're totally disconnected. It's what, a 3 minute walk from Ogilvie's north exits to the Clinton L station?
In a perfect world they'd be the same building, but I've never had issue making the transfer.

[k1052]

I wouldn't say they're totally disconnected. It's what, a 3 minute walk from Ogilvie's north exits to the Clinton L station?
In a perfect world they'd be the same building, but I've never had issue making the transfer.

It isn't exactly a piece of cake to get to the Red Line from either station or the Blue from Ogilvie, especially for people from out of town.

A single station that integrates Union/Ogivie Metra and Amtrak services, CTA bus and rail (Blue line connection), intercity Bus, and plans for future services (Light Rail, High Speed rail, etc) would be hugely beneficial.

[VivaLFuego]

It isn't exactly a piece of cake to get to the Red Line from either station or the Blue from Ogilvie, especially for people from out of town.

A single station that integrates Union/Ogivie Metra and Amtrak services, CTA bus and rail (Blue line connection), intercity Bus, and plans for future services (Light Rail, High Speed rail, etc) would be hugely beneficial.

I like the idea of a short subway under Clinton from Lake to Congress. The flying junction at Lake/Canal already exists (thank you, 1940s engineers!), and under Clinton it could be largely cut-and-cover, i.e. cheaper than deep tunneling. The Clinton ROW has supposedly been preserved from having many utilities running underneath, so that's one less cost. A station next to Ogilvie, a station next to Union, then a junction just east or west of the Clinton Blue Line station (this would be the most expensive part, a few hundred million). Then you've basically got a Blue Line Loop.

But I guess the scope of this proposal is too small or something, since the only one in the long range plans is the full Clinton/Larabee subway (Red Line bypass), which is total overkill and doesn't even give particularly advantageous routing for connecting the Metra stations. Bah. Politics.

[aaron38]

I like the idea of a short subway under Clinton from Lake to Congress.

Like the Shuttle line in NYC, under 42nd street from Times Square to Grand Central Station? Just a single line going back and forth?

[k1052]

Like the Shuttle line in NYC, under 42nd street from Times Square to Grand Central Station? Just a single line going back and forth?

It would be either integrated as part of the regular Blue Line service or made a loop circuit through the Dearborn subway. It could effectively be a 2nd loop moving people from the State St. subway and elevated into Union and Ogilvie.

Granted it would be better if the WLTC was built for integration purposes.

[lalucedm]

Various stations have been rebuilt over the years though more slowly than is needed. The Chicago Red Line station is next on the list for renovation (and it really needs it).

Some of the Loop stations are indeed somewhat dilapidated (Wabash) with State/Lake being in really terrible shape and much to small to serve it's purpose as a significant transfer station.

I wouldn't call Randolph/Wabash or Adams/Wabash dilapidated. Madison is pretty bad but it could be really nice given, oh, $20 million :) . Randolph is awesome because it is straight out of the 50s, right down to the chrome sign. Love the enclosed waiting room, especially. Adams was actually renovated in 1988 so it probably won't be renovated again too soon.

The Grand renovation is a nice start. Pretty soon all the tourist stations will be renovated. Clark/Division is next after Grand, I believe, though some of the funding for it has been earmarked for Grand's renovation. Neither North/Clybourn (love the old stationhouse, but it needs work, especially given the rising importance of the area) or Harrison (2 turnstiles?? In the middle of the college district??...and it's a pretty nasty station anyway) are even on the renovation list, at least anytime soon.

Personally, I have trouble liking the WPA Moderne style of the subways. Even the original photos look extremely plain. I guess that's the point, but I think the mosaics add to it, though they are a bit corny.

Also, I'm definitely for keeping the elevated. In this time of cheapskate corrupt, inefficient governments (especially ours), I doubt a subway under the Loop 'L' could even get built (note the crazy bureaucracy and 12-year timeline for the first phase of the new Second Avenue Subway in New York.) Chicago chose to keep the 'L' (well, mostly through momentum, but still...) whereas New York buried its 'L' lines. That choice defines our city, and no episode of ER would be the same without that choice. And without the elevated lines, we would never get those incredible upper-floor views of the canyons at the same time as the streets below that the 'L' and its platforms provide. So, I'll fight for keeping it, that beautiful ancient relic that I depend upon.

[k1052]

I wouldn't call Randolph/Wabash or Adams/Wabash dilapidated. Madison is pretty bad but it could be really nice given, oh, $20 million :) . Randolph is awesome because it is straight out of the 50s, right down to the chrome sign. Love the enclosed waiting room, especially. Adams was actually renovated in 1988 so it probably won't be renovated again too soon.

The Grand renovation is a nice start. Pretty soon all the tourist stations will be renovated. Clark/Division is next after Grand, I believe, though some of the funding for it has been earmarked for Grand's renovation. Neither North/Clybourn (love the old stationhouse, but it needs work, especially given the rising importance of the area) or Harrison (2 turnstiles?? In the middle of the college district??...and it's a pretty nasty station anyway) are even on the renovation list, at least anytime soon.

Personally, I have trouble liking the WPA Moderne style of the subways. Even the original photos look extremely plain. I guess that's the point, but I think the mosaics add to it, though they are a bit corny.

Also, I'm definitely for keeping the elevated. In this time of cheapskate corrupt, inefficient governments (especially ours), I doubt a subway under the Loop 'L' could even get built (note the crazy bureaucracy and 12-year timeline for the first phase of the new Second Avenue Subway in New York.) Chicago chose to keep the 'L' (well, mostly through momentum, but still...) whereas New York buried its 'L' lines. That choice defines our city, and no episode of ER would be the same without that choice. And without the elevated lines, we would never get those incredible upper-floor views of the canyons at the same time as the streets below that the 'L' and its platforms provide. So, I'll fight for keeping it, that beautiful ancient relic that I depend upon.

Madison is in pretty bad shape, Randolph not as much so though still in need of some work. I'd still have to rate them (and State/Lake) as being in the worst condition of all the loop stations.

CDOT has the say on what gets renovated when in the subway since they own it. The Grand renovation will be a welcome event. The existing station's mezzanine is too small and way too dingy to be left alone, especially when you consider the massive tourist presence in the area. It is flat out embarrassing at this point. Even the platform area is depressingly filthy with seemingly decades of accumulated grime covering the tube walls.

[ardecila]

I like the idea of a short subway under Clinton from Lake to Congress. The flying junction at Lake/Canal already exists (thank you, 1940s engineers!), and under Clinton it could be largely cut-and-cover, i.e. cheaper than deep tunneling. The Clinton ROW has supposedly been preserved from having many utilities running underneath, so that's one less cost. A station next to Ogilvie, a station next to Union, then a junction just east or west of the Clinton Blue Line station (this would be the most expensive part, a few hundred million). Then you've basically got a Blue Line Loop.

But I guess the scope of this proposal is too small or something, since the only one in the long range plans is the full Clinton/Larabee subway (Red Line bypass), which is total overkill and doesn't even give particularly advantageous routing for connecting the Metra stations. Bah. Politics.

Can't they both be done? Build only the segment from Lake to Congress, but engineer the junctions at the north and south ends of the new subway with stubs pointing north and south to allow for future expansion. Who knows, it might take another 2 generations to use them, but they'll be there.

The point of the Clinton/Larrabee Subway is to relieve the traffic in the State Street Subway that would be created when Circle Line trains are routed through there. Since we have no Circle Line, and people keep telling me it's pointless without a comprehensive TOD plan, I don't see the Larrabee or South Clinton subways happening anytime soon, either.

[ginsan2]

Why is it that in a city of Chicago's size with so much tax revenue, there's no money left over for transit? Should $6 billion really be such an unachievable figure? Really and truly?

[ardecila]

I'm gonna ask a somewhat obvious question (or maybe not).

Do y'all think that transit improvements should serve existing development, or dictate new development in low-density areas?

Compare, say, the Carroll Transitway with the Circle Line. The Carroll Transitway serves a huge corridor and provides service to an extremely popular trip - going from the West Loop commuter stations to Streeterville destinations like the Mag Mile and Navy Pier. Currently, the thousands of people per year who make this trip either use bus, taxi, or foot - but they're already making that trip somehow. These thousands of people have effected lots of dense development around the Mag Mile, simply because of their numbers. A few people choose to drive from home to avoid the long trip across the Loop from the Metra stations.

The upside to this type of transit-building is that you have guaranteed high levels of ridership. The downside is that the new transit line won't really serve to increase development levels along its route, since high-density development already exists there. Another downside is that, with heavy, tall buildings over much of the corridor, the route needs to conform to the streetgrid more, which limits your turning radii and makes diagonals very tricky.

The Circle Line, on the other hand, attempts to create a totally new trip type - transferring from Metra lines and CTA lines to other Metra/CTA lines without going downtown. Crosstown trips like this haven't ever been facilitated by Chicago's rail network, which means that for many years, people have avoided rail for crosstown trips, using either buses or driving.

So by building the Circle Line, you are creating a new corridor and a new trip type, and then hoping that people start making that trip. Once the transit line is in place, you then hope that developers latch on to the possibilities and over time, restructure the city to accommodate the new line. These lines can, in essence, be built anywhere. There are infinite possibilities.

The upside is that you can bring development to low-density, perhaps poverty-stricken areas. The construction of new lines is also easier through low-density neighborhoods, since property values are lower. The downside is that you run the risk of low ridership, making the new line a tremendous waste of money.

I think it's great to propose plenty of new CTA and Metra lines that look good on a map, but we all need to remember that the most popular commutes in Chicagoland still lead from outlying areas to downtown. There's plenty of other commutes, but they all have highly-dispersed start and end points that are difficult to serve with transit.

[lalucedm]

I definitely think the most important new transit proposal is the Red Line extension. Talk about an untapped market... there are hundreds of thousands of people down there in the city alone, not to mention the suburbs that it will also serve, that have no transit except Metra (which is nice during rush hours but not too useful otherwise) and a few buses that go miles out of their way to connect to the 95th/Dan Ryan terminal.

[bnk]

What is this all about?

www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/chi-faa_10nov10,0,5140885.story


TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE: O'Hare stuck with flight cap: FAA decision shocks city, threatens runway project funding

By Jon Hilkevitch

Tribune transportation reporter

November 10, 2007

In an about-face, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday that a 3-year-old cap on flights into O'Hare International Airport won't be lifted in November 2008, when the first new runway is scheduled to open.

The policy reversal delivers a potential setback to the city's $15 billion expansion plans at O'Hare and could hamper new airline competition that promised to benefit consumers.

During a visit to Chicago, Henry Krakowski, the FAA's new chief of air-traffic operations, told the Tribune that the decision to extend controls on airline arrivals at O'Hare is aimed at keeping flight delays and cancellations in check.

"The new runway will get traffic on and off the airport faster," Krakowski said. But it won't lead to a significant increase in flights, he said.

...

Krakowski's disclosure that the flight caps won't be lifted a year from now took city officials by surprise.

"When flight caps were proposed for O'Hare, the city was assured that they would sunset in 2008," said Karen Pride, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Aviation. Rosemarie Andolino, director of the O'Hare expansion project, said that based on city projections, O'Hare would be able to handle an additional 50,000 flights annually after the first new O'Hare runway opens and an existing runway is extended.

FAA projections were far lower.

"I think we need to sit down with Mr. Krakowski because he is new to this position," Andolino said. "The flight caps are not supposed to be in place for perpetuity."

Robert Everson, the FAA's tactical operations program director in the Midwest, confirmed Krakowski's assessment that the initial airfield changes are designed to address delays, not boost capacity.

"The new runway is going to relieve some congestion, but not all delays are going to go away," Everson said.

...

The FAA originally promised that the O'Hare restrictions, limiting the airlines to a maximum of 88 arrivals per hour, would be eliminated when the first new runway opened as part of an eventual eight-runway reconfiguration of the airfield.

Before the FAA restrictions, the airlines often scheduled as many as 120 arrivals per hour during busy periods. Combined with an equal number of departures, that often created gridlock at the airport and hours-long flight delays in Chicago and elsewhere.

FAA officials said the opening of the first new O'Hare runway, at the north end of the airfield, likely won't increase flights much because of its proximity to several existing runways.

"You really don't get much capacity increase until you go to Phase Two with the next runway on the south end," said Krakowski, a former United executive who was an O'Hare-based captain at the airline for many years.

But so far, the airlines have not agreed to pay for the second portion of O'Hare expansion, citing concerns about construction delays and spiraling costs.

The Daley administration initially said the massive airport project would be finished in 2013. Lacking airline agreements and still fighting airport opponents in court over the relocation of a nearby cemetery, the city has not set a date for the project's completion.

The extension of flight caps would severely complicate Chicago's effort to pay for the O'Hare expansion, which is behind schedule and at least $400 million over budget.

...

:(

[DHamp]

Why is it that in a city of Chicago's size with so much tax revenue, there's no money left over for transit? Should $6 billion really be such an unachievable figure? Really and truly?
The CTA is part of the RTA (which also runs Pace and Metra serving the suburbs primarily), which is and always has been funded by the STATE not the city. Spread the word because there are a lot of people that think it's the city's fault for not funding the CTA properly, and that's not the case at all.

[ginsan2]

I'm pretty sure Chicago could just pay Detroit to send some mobs to burn down southern Illinois for ya'll ;)

At the very least, MSU probably has a department that handles these sorts of things.

[UChicagoDomer]

I'm gonna ask a somewhat obvious question (or maybe not).

Do y'all think that transit improvements should serve existing development, or dictate new development in low-density areas?

Compare, say, the Carroll Transitway with the Circle Line. The Carroll Transitway serves a huge corridor and provides service to an extremely popular trip - going from the West Loop commuter stations to Streeterville destinations like the Mag Mile and Navy Pier. Currently, the thousands of people per year who make this trip either use bus, taxi, or foot - but they're already making that trip somehow. These thousands of people have effected lots of dense development around the Mag Mile, simply because of their numbers. A few people choose to drive from home to avoid the long trip across the Loop from the Metra stations.

The upside to this type of transit-building is that you have guaranteed high levels of ridership. The downside is that the new transit line won't really serve to increase development levels along its route, since high-density development already exists there. Another downside is that, with heavy, tall buildings over much of the corridor, the route needs to conform to the streetgrid more, which limits your turning radii and makes diagonals very tricky.

The Circle Line, on the other hand, attempts to create a totally new trip type - transferring from Metra lines and CTA lines to other Metra/CTA lines without going downtown. Crosstown trips like this haven't ever been facilitated by Chicago's rail network, which means that for many years, people have avoided rail for crosstown trips, using either buses or driving.

So by building the Circle Line, you are creating a new corridor and a new trip type, and then hoping that people start making that trip. Once the transit line is in place, you then hope that developers latch on to the possibilities and over time, restructure the city to accommodate the new line. These lines can, in essence, be built anywhere. There are infinite possibilities.

The upside is that you can bring development to low-density, perhaps poverty-stricken areas. The construction of new lines is also easier through low-density neighborhoods, since property values are lower. The downside is that you run the risk of low ridership, making the new line a tremendous waste of money.

I think it's great to propose plenty of new CTA and Metra lines that look good on a map, but we all need to remember that the most popular commutes in Chicagoland still lead from outlying areas to downtown. There's plenty of other commutes, but they all have highly-dispersed start and end points that are difficult to serve with transit.


I don't know that the two conceptions of transit (dictate new development vs. serve existing demand) are all that mutually exclusive. Yes, the Circle Line will go to currently underdeveloped urban areas, but the point of the Circle Line as I understand it isn't necessarily to serve those areas. It seems instead that the Circle Line will create transit options for entertainment-tourism purposes rather than just merely the daily commute. It allows the everyday commuter to reach areas of the city that otherwise would have been accessible only with a trip downtown and then back out again. I agree that for those commuting to work everyday, the Circle Line is only of minimal importance and that Daley's Carroll Avenue Plan (which, I believe, is also needed) is much more useful. But Chicago's transformation from industrial city to financial/legal/technological service industry city has also transformed Chicago from backwood Midwestern stockyard city to tourism city. To make the city more accessible to its Euro-toting tourist-shoppers, it should make its transit look more like this:

http://subway.umka.org/map-paris.html

than this:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_sd_2005-map.htm

so, in short, the city needs both Carroll Avenue and the Circle Line (and, for that matter, the Cicero Avenue Mid-City Transitway Line).

[Attrill]

it should make its transit look more like this:
http://subway.umka.org/map-paris.html

than this:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_sd_2005-map.htm

so, in short, the city needs both Carroll Avenue and the Circle Line (and, for that matter, the Cicero Avenue Mid-City Transitway Line).

Or like this (http://www.oxfordtube.com/assets/london/underground_map.jpg).

I think we actually need two circle lines - an inner one that roughly follows the currently proposed route and an outer one that extends the brown line to the Blue line and then follows Cicero down to at least Midway and cuts back to the Red line.

[the urban politician]

I think that transit should serve existing development, especially where it would generate a lot of rides, all things considered. I'm not going to get into the whole CTA crisis, but you all know what I"m talking about.

We have office towers sprouting up north of the River, another major hospital coming, more residential & hotel development, and of course tourist attractions (MCA, Navy Pier, etc) which, combined, justify a transit line.

On the flip side, I'm not sure how a new transit line in a less populated area will really spur development if the city doesn't have much of a comprehensive TOD strategy.

[Busy Bee]

Or like this (http://www.oxfordtube.com/assets/london/underground_map.jpg).

I think we actually need two circle lines - an inner one that roughly follows the currently proposed route and an outer one that extends the brown line to the Blue line and then follows Cicero down to at least Midway and cuts back to the Red line.

Agreed. Now we just need a few more billion on top of the 5-8 we already are pleading for.

[ardecila]

It's been repeated many times - money for expansion comes from the Feds. Money for operating comes from locally-collected sales taxes, ticket sales, and other sources (including, unfortunately, state bailouts).

The Feds also fund major renovation projects (like the Brown Line) that involve large amounts of construction, and increase capacity.

Guys, I'll put it to you this way: if we ever want to see something that remotely resembles the L network we've dreamed up, then CTA needs to find a way to lower construction costs. It's as simple as that. Hire foreign labor, relax the weird ADA interpretations, and stop building huge expensive new stations when small, conservative ones will do. As the cost of our transit proposals goes down, their likelihood goes up.

Let's see - assuming CTA can cobble up the land that's needed for the Carroll Busway, construction shouldn't require more than 40 or 50 million. Cincinnati is building a streetcar line with 4 miles of track, overhead wire, 18 stops, 6 streetcars, and a maintenance facility for $88 million (and that includes a 20% safety factor!). The sheer cost of new construction in Chicago is appalling.

[OhioGuy]

Anyone know how soon the Montrose & Addison brown line stations will be reopening? They closed down in early December last year and reconstruction was suppose to take 12 months. I would assume we're just 3 weeks away, but I haven't heard if everything is on schedule. I'm also curious if there is any word as to when the Damen stop will be closing down? Will it be as soon as Montrose reopens? When it does I'll have to start using the Western stop (fortunately it's only an extra 2 block walk compared to the Damen stop for me).

[ardecila]

I would assume we're just 3 weeks away, but I haven't heard if everything is on schedule.

Yup, everything is on schedule. Everything you mentioned will happen.

Nov. 8th CTA Press Release (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/ctaandpress.wu?action=displayarticledetail&articleid=125077)

[Marcu]

O'HARE | Limits set to expire as planned: FAA

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/645244,CST-NWS-FAA11.article

"The report is wrong," said FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Cory. "We have had no change. The rule has always stated that the caps are in place until Oct. 31, 2008, [and] they're scheduled to be lifted in October of 2008 as planned."

[Marcu]

The sheer cost of new construction in Chicago is appalling.

The bids coming in suggest there's a very high probability of antitrust behavior. There definitely needs to be an investigation.

[k1052]

Let's see - assuming CTA can cobble up the land that's needed for the Carroll Busway, construction shouldn't require more than 40 or 50 million. Cincinnati is building a streetcar line with 4 miles of track, overhead wire, 18 stops, 6 streetcars, and a maintenance facility for $88 million (and that includes a 20% safety factor!). The sheer cost of new construction in Chicago is appalling.

The largest (most expensive) hurdle is going to be the river crossing. The clearance of the existing rail bridge is too low to allow river traffic to clear when in the down position. They are either going to have to demo the existing structure and build a new bridge (Like they had to do at Kinzie) with higher clearance or go under the river.

[VivaLFuego]

Guys, I'll put it to you this way: if we ever want to see something that remotely resembles the L network we've dreamed up, then CTA needs to find a way to lower construction costs. It's as simple as that. Hire foreign labor, relax the weird ADA interpretations, and stop building huge expensive new stations when small, conservative ones will do. As the cost of our transit proposals goes down, their likelihood goes up.


The politicians who fund such things are the only ones with the power to allow such cost-saving measures in construction.

[VivaLFuego]

The largest (most expensive) hurdle is going to be the river crossing. The clearance of the existing rail bridge is too low to allow river traffic to clear when in the down position. They are either going to have to demo the existing structure and build a new bridge (Like they had to do at Kinzie) with higher clearance or go under the river.

Yeah....$40-50 mil is way low....costs to procure the vehicles alone will probably be close to that much. The bridge would probably be another $50-100 million (since the old one has to be removed). Station facilities would likely run in the ballpark of $10 mil each for the easy ones, anything requiring excavation or significant utility relocation could be more. Then there's integration with the existing traffic control (signal) systems. Upgrades to maintenance facilities to deal with the new vehicles. Systemwide signage (don't scoff, this is expensive....several million $). Plus, much of the construction has to take place without interuption to the local surroundings....such mitigation factors (for noise, dust, and traffic impacts) will be expensive in their own right, not to mention make the project schedule longer and therefore more expensive. Including overhead costs for architectural services and construction management, I don't see how the thing could possibly come in under $200mil. Likely it would cost in the $300m range for BRT. LRT would be more because of the power delivery infrastructure and signalling costs; would probably require a new substation and of course higher-voltage utility lines.

[honte]

^ I am nearly positive that this Kinzie bridge was included in the City's landmark designation of old rail bridges not long ago. :tup: So, it probably will have to be worked around when the circulator comes into play.

[k1052]

^ I am nearly positive that this Kinzie bridge was included in the City's landmark designation of old rail bridges not long ago. :tup: So, it probably will have to be worked around when the circulator comes into play.

There would be no room to go around on the western side without demolishing that set of older townhouses, Fulton House, or Riverbend.

As the owner of a unit in Riverbend I don't endorse the latter.;)

[VivaLFuego]

Well, rehabbing the bridge would probably be somewhat similar in cost to removing it and performing all-new construction. Given costs for other bridges along the river, something close to $40 mil for design and construction for that bridge seems reasonable; bridges along the north branch no longer have to lift, correct?

[k1052]

Well, rehabbing the bridge would probably be somewhat similar in cost to removing it and performing all-new construction. Given costs for other bridges along the river, something close to $40 mil for design and construction for that bridge seems reasonable; bridges along the north branch no longer have to lift, correct?

The cost of the new North Avenue bridge is estimated at 20ish million. Assuming it overruns (like almost all projects do) say 25-30 million to replace the rail bridge. That also assumes approval can be secured to remove the existing structure.

Edit: Yes no lifting required anymore. The bridge at Grand is now bolted together and I think they only managed it to lift for the inspection by praying to Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, and sacrificing a small goat.

[OhioGuy]

Yup, everything is on schedule. Everything you mentioned will happen.

Nov. 8th CTA Press Release (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/ctaandpress.wu?action=displayarticledetail&articleid=125077)

They have signs up in the Damen station now with information. I hadn't been on the brown line for a couple weeks. Thanks for pointing out the press release though. :)

I had a nice pleasant surprise today while riding the brown line from Lakeview back to Lincoln Square. We didn't have to slow down to go through the Southport construction zone! My little trip only required a slow down through the Addison construction. Otherwise both Montrose & Southport we flew through. I was quite happy! :banana: I'll be even happier if they can run trains just as quickly through the construction zones at Damen & Irving Park as they consistently maintained through the Montrose construction. My fingers are crossed.

[VivaLFuego]

The cost of the new North Avenue bridge is estimated at 20ish million. Assuming it overruns (like almost all projects do) say 25-30 million to replace the rail bridge. That also assumes approval can be secured to remove the existing structure.

Edit: Yes no lifting required anymore. The bridge at Grand is now bolted together and I think they only managed it to lift for the inspection by praying to Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, and sacrificing a small goat.

I heard $21mil for construction only....I would assume design/engineering/management was on the on the order of $5-10million. The Kinzie site is much smaller with less room for staging. I think $40 mil is a reasonable estimate.

[VivaLFuego]

They have signs up in the Damen station now with information. I hadn't been on the brown line for a couple weeks. Thanks for pointing out the press release though. :)

I had a nice pleasant surprise today while riding the brown line from Lakeview back to Lincoln Square. We didn't have to slow down to go through the Southport construction zone! My little trip only required a slow down through the Addison construction. Otherwise both Montrose & Southport we flew through. I was quite happy! :banana: I'll be even happier if they can run trains just as quickly through the construction zones at Damen & Irving Park as they consistently maintained through the Montrose construction. My fingers are crossed.

There will be 15mph slow zones in place at Damen and Irving Park for a couple months while the foundations and structural steel are repaired...same story as the other Brown Line stations. However, I believe the ties and running rail on the Ravenswood El north of Clark Junction are pretty old (~20 years), it would be a shame if that all starts getting slow zoned just as the station reconstruction is wrapping up. It would be nice to have a state capital program to move stuff like that along so we don't wind up with another O'hare Blue Line fiasco.

[bnk]

O'HARE | Limits set to expire as planned: FAA

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/645244,CST-NWS-FAA11.article

"The report is wrong," said FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Cory. "We have had no change. The rule has always stated that the caps are in place until Oct. 31, 2008, [and] they're scheduled to be lifted in October of 2008 as planned."

...Daley said, speaking from the seventh floor of the State Street Macy's, where he joined Martha Stewart for the ceremonial lighting of the store's 45-foot Christmas tree.:ahhh:

I could not find the puke smile avatar.

Hey at least he got the Frango Mints back, but only the Frango Mints and not the rest of the candy that Macy's will sell.

Oh well.

[spyguy]

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27100

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita

Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

---------

“For them to meddle in interstate commerce like that, it’s just not going to happen,” Chicago railroad attorney Michael Blaszak says.

Good old commerce clause.

[ardecila]

Yeah....$40-50 mil is way low....costs to procure the vehicles alone will probably be close to that much. The bridge would probably be another $50-100 million (since the old one has to be removed). Station facilities would likely run in the ballpark of $10 mil each for the easy ones, anything requiring excavation or significant utility relocation could be more. Then there's integration with the existing traffic control (signal) systems. Upgrades to maintenance facilities to deal with the new vehicles. Systemwide signage (don't scoff, this is expensive....several million $). Plus, much of the construction has to take place without interuption to the local surroundings....such mitigation factors (for noise, dust, and traffic impacts) will be expensive in their own right, not to mention make the project schedule longer and therefore more expensive. Including overhead costs for architectural services and construction management, I don't see how the thing could possibly come in under $200mil. Likely it would cost in the $300m range for BRT. LRT would be more because of the power delivery infrastructure and signalling costs; would probably require a new substation and of course higher-voltage utility lines.

New vehicles? What's wrong with the buses we have? Just pull buses from the cross-Loop routes that are being replaced by the Transitway, and give them a different paint scheme.

As for stations - why are caissons or even major foundations required to build a simple platform? Obviously, several of the platforms will need stairs and elevators up to the upper streets, and the platforms will have to be separated into paid/unpaid areas - so some turnstiles and fences. In the West Loop and Streeterville portions of the route, only Curitiba-style waiting pods are needed.

Can you please explain to me why Cincinnati is able to build 4 miles of new streetcar track, overhead wire, purchase 8 streetcars, build 18 stations, a maintenance facility, and install the TSP systems on stoplights all for $88 million? How is a basic BRT line on an already-existing right-of-way more expensive than building a streetcar? Something really isn't clicking here, if the Cincinnati price is accurate.


Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita

Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

I've never been more embarassed to live in Barrington. The traffic problems we have are a result of a poorly-planned road system, not freight trains. If CN can avoid running trains between 6-9am and 5-7pm, there will be very little impact. Everybody here is eager to point the finger at people from other towns, and at outside corporations for all of Barrington's problems.

If I had known about the meeting in advance, I would most assuredly have gone and voiced my opinion.

[VivaLFuego]

New vehicles? What's wrong with the buses we have? Just pull buses from the cross-Loop routes that are being replaced by the Transitway, and give them a different paint scheme.

If you're not even getting nice new BRT vehicles (e.g. this (http://www.winnipegrapidtransit.ca/Images/BRT!.jpg)), then why bother? Put in some paint stripes for some bus-only lanes and some signage to disallow turns at certain intersections during rush hour, glorify a few bus shelters, and call it a day with the existing 124, 125, and 157.


As for stations - why are caissons or even major foundations required to build a simple platform? Obviously, several of the platforms will need stairs and elevators up to the upper streets, and the platforms will have to be separated into paid/unpaid areas - so some turnstiles and fences. In the West Loop and Streeterville portions of the route, only Curitiba-style waiting pods are needed.

Stairs and platforms would require some sort of foundation work, or they would start to crack and buckle before too long. Turnstiles are very expensive, if anything you could consider leaving them out and using the honor system like most LRT systems. The vending machine installations would still run several hundred K per station.


Can you please explain to me why Cincinnati is able to build 4 miles of new streetcar track, overhead wire, purchase 8 streetcars, build 18 stations, a maintenance facility, and install the TSP systems on stoplights all for $88 million? How is a basic BRT line on an already-existing right-of-way more expensive than building a streetcar? Something really isn't clicking here, if the Cincinnati price is accurate.

$88 million seems to be the number thrown around by the rail activists there, a group that unfortunately have a long history of both low-balling the cost and high-balling the ridership projections for rail projects in order to get them built. Do you have a breakdown or substantiation of that cost estimate?

Also, the Carroll ROW exists, but it's hardly in shape at the moment to handle BRT traffic.

And don't forget design/management costs with any of this; 25% soft costs is a reasonable overhead burden.

[aaron38]

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan

Yeah, I was going to post that when I saw it in the Daily Herald this morning. The new NIMBY group is named Barrington Communities Against CN Rail Congestion

I loved the divaness of this line: "I believe that this has become our communities' worst threat ever," said Dave Nelson, Cuba Township supervisor.

What threat? I live less than a thousand feet from the Union Pacific NW line, with Metra and freight running up and down it, and it's no big deal.
I hope these McMansion nimbys get smashed hard. And of course they don't care that shutting down the freight trains clogs the roads with trucks.

[MayorOfChicago]

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27100

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita

Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

---------



Good old commerce clause.

AWWWWWW, HONEY......

I mean I totally agree, I can't believe we're trying to screw over the Anderson family out in Barrington just for the sake of the regions economic health and freight traffic tie-ups through an urban area of 10,000,000 people. Shame on you CN!!

[UChicagoDomer]

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27100

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita

Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

---------



Good old commerce clause.


maybe this has already been covered, so I apologize if it has, but won't this impact Metra's STAR Line plans? or will Metra still be able to obtain a ROW?

[Mr Downtown]

Well, some of us secretly hope it dooms the STAR Line plan.

There are much smarter ways to serve suburb-to-suburb commuters than to start with poorly located railroad tracks and then look for some way to use them.

[UChicagoDomer]

Well, some of us secretly hope it dooms the STAR Line plan.

There are much smarter ways to serve suburb-to-suburb commuters than to start with poorly located railroad tracks and then look for some way to use them.

oh. well. i can't say i have an answer to that, not being knowledgeable enough to rebut it but not being dismissive enough of suburban transit to agree with it.

[the urban politician]

The article also says that these suburbs don't have a PRAYER in stopping this project (thank God).

Not that I like that STAR line project, but anything that helps relieve Chicago's freight rail bottleneck is ultimately good for the local economy

[Chicago Shawn]

The article also says that these suburbs don't have a PRAYER in stopping this project (thank God).

Not that I like that STAR line project, but anything that helps relieve Chicago's freight rail bottleneck is ultimately good for the local economy

Its key for the national ecconomy too. It takes a train 48 hours on average to reach the Chicago area from the west coast and takes another 48 hours to get through the bottleneck. Some frieght is rerouted through other cities, but Chicago is where the majority of trans-continential railroad routes pass through, and since we don't build new rail lines anymore and abondonded others, using what we have left to the fullest extent possibile is what is in store for the future.

I loathe these whinny suburbanites. DON"T MOVE NEXT TO RAILROAD DUMBSHITS! Has entitement really gotten this out of control, or is a bigger segment of the population just plain stupid these days?

[Marcu]

I loathe these whinny suburbanites. DON"T MOVE NEXT TO RAILROAD DUMBSHITS! Has entitement really gotten this out of control, or is a bigger segment of the population just plain stupid these days?

The problem is the court system has over the years moved form a system of correcting wrongs and making parties whole to something people use to simply annoy the crap out of others and waste their money in the hopes of reaching a settlement or a payout.

Suits like this usually get dismissed fairly quickly on summary judgment, but the mere fact that they're filed raises the cost of almost everything companies do. I guess it's a matter of balancing the right to seek a court remedy with the high costs involved.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm sure that CN would be happy to cooperate with Barrington's construction of a grade separation to prevent traffic congestion from trains.

[OhioGuy]

I was watching WGN this afternoon and their reporter said there were talks going on this morning between the big wigs at the state level, city level, and transit officials. Mayor Daley was part of the talks this morning, but then he left early, leaving some of his people there to continue in the meeting. According to the WGN reporter, he left over frustrations with the way the talks were going. He wants both a short term & long term fix and apparently the talks this morning weren't addressing both.

[Chicago2020]

Why dont the douchbags who represent Illinois in congress do something at the Hill. :hell: :hell:

sorry folks low blood sugar

[Dr. Taco]

I haven't really spent much time on the transit thread, so maybe I'm being redundent

I read a letter to the editor today in the Suntimes, and I read the most ridiculous thing I've ever read concerning transit. The person (who lived in a far northwest suburb, I believe) proposed that the city actually just get rid of the El in the Loop. She said if we want to become a major player (like New York) we need to just cut up the el tracks and remove them. She didn't propose any kind of replacement idea, but mentioned that new york had done the same thing a couple of their downtown areas.

My initial reaction: the el tracks are one of those things that make chicago chicago. Even if she's right and the tracks suck and a more pleasing and efficient plan can be implemented, I'm willing to live with "mediocrity" because I love riding the train in the loop.

But as I thought about it more, I can't help but wonder what it'd be like if we did get rid of it and replaced with a subway that runs in a similar fashion. Once we got over the change and the ridiculously expensive cost of replacement, could chicago be a better place?

[Attrill]

This (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2007/11/shouting-ends-t.html) is pretty infuriating:

A meeting this morning among top legislative leaders, Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Mayor Richard Daley to negotiate transit funding devolved into an "unproductive" shouting match, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan said.

Madigan left the meeting about an hour after it commenced in Blagojevich's Chicago office. He said he left because the meeting "deteriorated to a nonproductive level."

[the urban politician]

Daley + Blago + Madigan + their egos + a small space = NUCLEAR MELTDOWN

It's simple physics

[VivaLFuego]

This (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2007/11/shouting-ends-t.html) is pretty infuriating:

Do yourselves a favor and don't read the comments following the story. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points.

[ardecila]

I'm sure that CN would be happy to cooperate with Barrington's construction of a grade separation to prevent traffic congestion from trains.

Actually, I'm getting involved with the anti-CN coalition purely to introduce some logic into this process (my main idea is splitting the cost of improvements between municipalities and CN.)

The freight tracks in Chicago were all grade-separated 80-100 years ago to remove the trains from the busy streets below. Today, grade-separation is usually a matter of moving the crossing roads onto over or underpasses. Road overpasses create unsightly views and underpasses have drainage issues. They're both relatively inexpensive solutions, though.

Has anybody done any cost-benefit studies of grade-separation by modifying the rail tracks? I think a open-cut arrangement like the one in Winnetka is desirable. At several points in Barrington, the land drops off and the railroad becomes higher than grade level, so it wouldn't involve as much excavation as it seems. This is of course extremely unrealistic, but it's what I'd like to see happen in a perfect world. Sound-barrier technology also exists that is reasonably-priced, and could be implemented relatively quickly.

So far, the Barrington coalition's strategy is purely aimed at stalling CN and putting off the approval of the EJ&E purchase by requiring CN to perform an Environmental Impact Statement. All this will do is postpone the increase in rail traffic, and the problems with road traffic will be even worse as more development happens in the surrounding area.

Rather than creating bad blood with CN by angrily delaying them at every turn, why not work cooperatively with them on mitigation projects?

[aaron38]

Has anybody done any cost-benefit studies of grade-separation by modifying the rail tracks?

Palatine did some studies on putting Palatine Rd under the UP NW line in 2004 I believe. At evening rush it can back up a lot when the Metra trains are 5 minutes apart. Arlington Heights might have done something similar for Arlington Heights road.

The results of the Palatine survey were that it wasn't worth the cost and effort, but I don't remember how far off the numbers were.
I'll see if I can dig up the study.

[Chicago Shawn]

Do yourselves a favor and don't read the comments following the story. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points.

I thought this comment was pretty good..


I suggest these so-called leaders have their meeting in an el train endlessly circling the loop until they have a solution. There will be no bathroom breaks. (Isn't that what some riders use the little one seat booth at the end of the cars for?)
No food or beverages. Every time the el goes round the loop once each "leader" will pay $2 out of his own pocket.

I also suggest voter vote these idiots out of office. And if no one is running against use your vote for a right in protest cause the uncontested candidates will win no matter what you do.

Posted by: MACK | Nov 14, 2007 2:46:22 PM

[ardecila]

Palatine did some studies on putting Palatine Rd under the UP NW line in 2004 I believe. At evening rush it can back up a lot when the Metra trains are 5 minutes apart. Arlington Heights might have done something similar for Arlington Heights road.

The results of the Palatine survey were that it wasn't worth the cost and effort, but I don't remember how far off the numbers were.
I'll see if I can dig up the study.

Thanks. I don't think high costs will be a very big deterrent to many people when weighed against the spectre of... gasp... moderately-heavy traffic! Remember, we're Barrington - we're used to wasteful spending. :haha:

Cary recently (within the last 20 years) built a nice underpass on Cary-Algonquin Road, which is nowhere near as highly-traveled as Northwest Highway, Palatine Road, Arlington Heights Road, Lake-Cook Road, or Highway 59.

Franklin Park also has built a new underpass on Grand Avenue as part of CREATE.

The chances of Barrington building an underpass at Hwy 14/Northwest Hwy are very good, considering the road's tremendous volume of traffic. The other grade crossings, probably not.

[Chicago Shawn]

Thanks. I don't think high costs will be a very big deterrent to many people when weighed against the spectre of... gasp... moderately-heavy traffic! Remember, we're Barrington - we're used to wasteful spending. :haha:

Cary recently (within the last 20 years) built a nice underpass on Cary-Algonquin Road, which is nowhere near as highly-traveled as Northwest Highway, Palatine Road, Arlington Heights Road, Lake-Cook Road, or Highway 59.

Franklin Park also has built a new underpass on Grand Avenue as part of CREATE.

The chances of Barrington building an underpass at Hwy 14/Northwest Hwy are very good, considering the road's tremendous volume of traffic. The other grade crossings, probably not.

I remember when Cary-Algonquin road used to have an overpass over Northwest Highway and then had a grade crossing at the top of the embankmet. I thought the underpass came about because of the need to replace the crumbeling two lane bridge, moreso than because of traffic volume.

Grand Avenue was desperately needed because the trains at that location are passing between yards and often stop across the roadway if there is a backlog or delay in switching.

[OhioGuy]

Did I hear correctly on the radio yesterday morning that the tax increase proposed by some to fund the CTA that the governor is against would only mean Chicagoans paying an extra 25 cents for every $100 spent, and residents in the 6 county region would only be paying an extra 50 cents for every $100 spent? That's what someone was saying that was in support of the tax increase as opposed to raising fares which would obviously hit riders much harder than the measely 25 cent tax increase on $100 spent.

[Attrill]

Did I hear correctly on the radio yesterday morning that the tax increase proposed by some to fund the CTA that the governor is against would only mean Chicagoans paying an extra 25 cents for every $100 spent, and residents in the 6 county region would only be paying an extra 50 cents for every $100 spent? That's what someone was saying that was in support of the tax increase as opposed to raising fares which would obviously hit riders much harder than the measely 25 cent tax increase on $100 spent.

Sounds about right - it's a quarter of a percent increase in the RTA tax. That would be the bill Julie Hamos introduced. It is pretty much dead because Blago wants casinos instead and refuses to allow any tax increases. I think there is also a Republican proposal to raise the gas tax and give some of the money to the RTA and the remainder would be used for roads projects downstate. But again, Blago refuses to even consider it.

[ardecila]

Blago calls out Madigan for not bringing the sales tax plan to a vote in the Senate, but then pledges to veto that same tax plan should the Senate pass it.

IL government is full of shit.

I think the gas-tax plan would have some momentum if not for the governor's attitude. As it stands, I don't think any plan for transit-funding can secure a veto-proof majority, so the governor can basically dictate his terms and the 51-65% of legislators have to comply if they want to get anything passed at all.

[the urban politician]

I don't get it. Blago doesn't want to burden poor people with a sales tax, but at the same time it is the poor people who rely the most on transit.

So if he drops the ball on transit, he still ends up burdening them. Makes no sense

[Alliance]

I kind of liked the idea of redirecting the gas-tax in the 6 CHicagoland counties to go to the CTA.

[k1052]

I don't get it. Blago doesn't want to burden poor people with a sales tax, but at the same time it is the poor people who rely the most on transit.

So if he drops the ball on transit, he still ends up burdening them. Makes no sense

He's acting like a little child because the legislature shot down (hard) the gross receipts tax he was pushing earlier this year to fund his health care initiatives.

[Marcu]

^ Yes. They not only shot it down but embarassed him in the process (deservingly too since the GRT was one of the worst ideas to come out of Springfield in recent memory). Maybe Blago can get some "testicular verility" (his words not mine) and show some leadership on this issue.

[UChicagoDomer]

^^^nice post

The only thing i would add is this.

Discontinuing service anywhere seems to be a bad idea. How moronic was the destruction of the green line in woodlawn? The area is seeing some redevelopment and you know what they need now? Yep, more transit. It seems better to operate a line at a loss for awhile and hope for redevelopment than to get rid of it and lose it forever. It so hard to build new lines, lets hold onto what we have like grim death.


This discussion is from 2 weeks ago, but I have since learned information that caused me to change my original response to this post (my original response: local Woodlawn groups worried about crime fought to tear the el down and now the area is "vibrant" with 200K and 300K condos):

basically, the Woodlawn groups (who were church based in a crime ridden area) should have learned from the experiences of another church-based group in a crime-ridden area, New Bethel Life, in West Garfield Park, that, instead of fighting for the Lake St. Green Line El to be dismantled, instead built around it: an arts center, a community center at Lake St. & Pulaski (i.e. right next to the El), senior housing, residential housing that they are now trying to sell at affordable rates and market price, retail development etc. etc. Instead of seeking to get rid of the El, they actually fought for more El stations. I don't know the crime rates in West Garfield Park currently, but they can't be any worse than the areas south of 63rd st. So, basically, (and in contrast to what I argued before) the myopic hostility to transit lines in Woodlawn was extremely short-sighted, leaving those areas with oddly situated housing on what should be a retail thoroughfare, and no little to no public transportation, in contrast to West Garfield Park, which has sought out TOD options and retail development.

anyway, apologies for beating a dead horse. i just wanted to clarify my stance.

[honte]

^ Glad you came around on that issue. I suppose we'd expect nothing less from the U. of C. ;)

In general, I never support reduction in urban infrastructure.

[BVictor1]

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27100

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita

Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

---------



Good old commerce clause.


More nonsense.....

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/barrington/news/651356,ba-eje-111507-s1.article
Barrington leaders speak out against Canadian National's plans

November 15, 2007
By TONY A. SOLANO
Staff Writer

Barrington trustees spoke adamantly at Monday's meeting about the negative impact the purchase of the EJ & E Railroad by the Canadian National Railway could bring to the area.

Barrington trustees spoke adamantly at Monday's meeting about the negative impact the purchase of the EJ & E Railroad by the Canadian National Railway could bring to the area.

[Chicago2020]

Did I read that right "abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop."

That would be nice :banana: :yes: :banana:

[ardecila]

More sheer idiocy from my neighbors... my god. Absolutely NOBODY is talking solutions, only griping about the problems and campaigning against the increase in trains - as if they have any power to stop it.

Seriously, all we can do is plan around the increase in traffic, and make our town better and safer in the process.

[ardecila]

I was working with this idea over the weekend, and I'm posting it in response to a comment in the Boom Rundown thread.

I was thinking about this. Chicago needs something like an east-west subway line running under Chicago Avenue, from the lake all the way west, with some kind of spur that turns south to the train stations. That could really turn the area north of the river into a real, mixed-use "Midtown" type district. Or even better, running east along Chicago Avenue until a couple of blocks before the lake, and then turning south through Streeterville, Lakeshore East, and down the south lakefront to Hyde Park, which I think would spur massive development between McCormick Place and Hyde Park.

I've thought about it too.

The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5170/lakefrontlinelb3.jpg

[AnotherPunter]

[QUOTE]The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)[QUOTE]

This should be on the agenda. But instead we'll be talking about propping up the existing El system for the foreseeable future... As someone who lives on the north side but works in hyde park though, I can say I'd ride this every day and happily so.

Obviously, it would be great for the olympics too. Maybe once Obama become prez he'll help shepherd through some federal funds for this kind of project.

[10023]

Looks pretty good. I would run the "Lakefront Line" a block further east south of the river, so that it's accessible from Lakeshore East (station would be under the stairs south of Aqua). I know this would require a new tunnel through Grant Park rather than running along the existing South Shore tracks, but 1) I'm not sure there's extra capacity on those tracks and 2) it can't be that tough to dig a trench through the park, as Columbus should be an easy road to close (given that I don't feel it's existence is necessary, anyway).

I would, however, run this line west along Chicago Avenue to meet up with the existing Blue Line, rather than north along the lake, at least for the first phase. I know that there are parts of Lakeview/Lincoln Park near Lake Shore Drive that are pretty far east of the Red and Brown lines, but these are well-developed neighborhoods and I know a lot of people who take the bus downtown just fine.

Running it west to meet the Blue Line provides the huge benefit of allowing transit between the part of downtown north of the river and the airport without going into the Loop, and allows commuting to this neighborhood without going into the Loop. The whole North Michigan Ave / Streeterville / River North area is really a second downtown in Chicago, much like Midtown in New York, albeit conjoined with the Loop across the river. Having transit lines that go directly into this area from other parts of the city (other than the north lakefront) without a transfer in the Loop could do wonders for the efficiency and convenience of the whole system.

Eventually, this could be extended west along Chicago Avenue, past the Blue Line, and then begin to run under Grand Avenue when it crosses Chicago at about California. End result would be to fill a big gap in transit coverage on the West / Northwest side as the Green Line and Blue Line become further and further apart.

Whatever happened to the Circle Line? That was supposed to connect the Red/Brown lines and the Blue line under North Avenue, right?

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gettingaround_26nov26,1,2294080.column?coll=chi_news_local_mezz&ctrack=1&cset=true

For some, I-PASS costs less upfront
Jon Hilkevitch
November 26, 2007

Q: "What, if anything, is the city of Chicago's plan for the Kinzie Street bridge over the Chicago River in the downtown? This eyesore is permanently stuck in the up position and it appears to be of no purpose anymore. Will it stay up forever?"

--------
The answer continues on page 2

[Dr. Taco]

^ what a tease. subscribers only :(

[honte]

^ It doesn't say too much, actually, except that there are no plans to remove it (obviously, since landmarking is happening), and that it is still under private ownership.

However, quotes like the one above about the "eyesores" are really evidence that the city made a very wise decision to protect some (not enough) of these bridges before the eyesore camp (probably new-condo dwellers?) gets a strong enough voice.

[OhioGuy]

WGN's top news story this evening was something about a possible solution to the RTA funding problem that is getting support from some of the state's top politicians, including the governor. I'm not sure exactly where the money is coming from as the WGN report didn't seem particularly clear to me on the first viewing. There was something about taking money from the state's budget that covers things such as welfare & other programs, and redirecting it to the RTA. They interviewed Julie Hamos, D - Evanston, quickly during the news piece and she commented that she felt downstate politicians might not be in support of it as it would mean taking their money that funds these state programs and instead using it for regional purposes up here. I don't think she actually came out in opposition, just that she thought it might have difficulties getting support from downstaters.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I hate downstate, we should totally kick them out of Illinois come next constitutional referendum...

[VivaLFuego]

^ It doesn't say too much, actually, except that there are no plans to remove it (obviously, since landmarking is happening), and that it is still under private ownership.

However, quotes like the one above about the "eyesores" are really evidence that the city made a very wise decision to protect some (not enough) of these bridges before the eyesore camp (probably new-condo dwellers?) gets a strong enough voice.

When they're in a decaying state, I don't think it's unreasonable for many people to consider them eyesores....it takes a certain type to envision the structure as it once was, or to fully grasp or appreciate its significance. Not an argument for removal, but more an argument for eventual rehabilitation. Perhaps it's nit-picking, but I think it's worth pointing out, as the argument of preserving these as beautiful structures (be it an old bridge, St. Stephen's Church in Hyde Park, etc.) won't gain much traction outside of a very narrow architecture/preservation-minded sector. A rusted/rotting/crumbling historic structure is quite likely an eyesore, but that doesn't mean that at minimum there aren't many or all elements worth preserving or saving (see: Ogden viaduct. What ever happened to those relief sculptures, speaking of cool old bridges?)

[denizen467]

Q: "What, if anything, is the city of Chicago's plan for the Kinzie Street bridge over the Chicago River in the downtown? This eyesore is permanently stuck in the up position and it appears to be of no purpose anymore. Will it stay up forever?"

Q: Why the hell do people, scarily including Hilkevitch, keep calling this the Kinzie Street Bridge? I have fond memories of driving across the Kinzie Street Bridge - many of them from last week, like when I was driving behind the Merchandise Mart headed towards Halsted.

Kinzie Street has a fine bridge and it's not stuck in the up position, thank you very much. At a minimum they need to call it the Carroll Street Bridge or something.

[Mr Downtown]

Ogden viaduct. What ever happened to those relief sculptures

CDOT has them in storage. One was on display in the State Street bridgehouse when that was a bridge museum/art gallery in the late 90s.

[Marcu]

CTA solution on track?
Madigan accepts Blagojevich, GOP funding plan

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) backed off their longstanding push to increase sales taxes in Cook and the collar counties by a quarter percent to fund mass-transit.

Saying it is not his “preferred solution,” Madigan indicated he would support a plan by Gov. Blagojevich and House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) to redirect $385 million in state sales taxes on fuel to the Regional Transportation Authority.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/667720,deal112607.article

[ardecila]

Haha - there are two discussions on the C&NW Kinzie Street Bridge right now. The one in the Transit thread focuses on the preservation merits of the bridge, and the discussion in the General Developments thread focuses on the transit usage of the bridge. I guess they should be flip-flopped?

[headcase]

(see: Ogden viaduct. What ever happened to those relief sculptures, speaking of cool old bridges?)

Check this out. (http://www.forgottenchicago.com/ig.php) Timing is everything I just read that page this morning.

SSDD

[VivaLFuego]

^ Wow, obscure. I'll have to get over to St. Iggy to have a look. I figured they were sitting somewhere collecting dust and forgotten.

[UChicagoDomer]

I was working with this idea over the weekend, and I'm posting it in response to a comment in the Boom Rundown thread.



I've thought about it too.

The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5170/lakefrontlinelb3.jpg

This lakefront line is redundant. You COULD reach Hyde Park from the North Side with the Metra Electric with one transfer at Washington/Lake (through the Pedway) IF we had a Universal Fare Card AND the Metra ran the Electric trains during non-peak hours as often as they run them during peak hours. I don't see the point in creating another duplicative train route along the Electric tracks coupled with an expensive subway project under the river just to provide service between the North side and Hyde Park. And in any case, the UFC + increased Metra service is lot more likely than a huge new capital project that hasn't even been approved for alternative analysis by the Feds. The tragedy of the city's train system is that a lot of the components are already in place. it just needs a bit of tweaking in certain areas to make it viable for and accessible to multiple areas (e.g. making the Metra Electric, and other Metra lines more than just peak-hour commuter lines).

[emathias]

I'm gonna ask a somewhat obvious question (or maybe not).

Do y'all think that transit improvements should serve existing development, or dictate new development in low-density areas?

Compare, say, the Carroll Transitway with the Circle Line.

No offense, but the Circle Line is a poor example. It will serve both some existing fairly high-density areas (Wicker Park, Ukranian Villiage, Pilsen) as well as some areas that are increasing fairly rapidly in density (the area around the United Center, the Medical Campus), and make it more possible to help spread the density around. Additionally, the areas served by the Circle Line are going to become more dense over the next 20 years even if we don't build the Circle Line. Rather than myopically only building in the (now even more expensive to build in) dense areas, building in areas that have the inertia to become dense is important. 40 years ago, it was proposed to build a subway from the West Loop to Streeterville and also branching south to McCormick Place through what is now the Central Station area. At the time, most of those places had moderate and/or decreasing density, but planners saw that those areas would become very dense in the future. Unfortunately, they chickened out. Well, what happened in the last 40 years? Where is our biggest need for a rail line?

You already mentioned it - from the West Loop to Streeterville/Gold Coast, followed closely by a line from Streeterville/Gold Coast to the McCormick Place area. Given the density already in those areas and scheduled to continue, not building the original Central Area Distributor subway (under Monroe from the West Loop to Grant Park and then north around the Watertower and South to McCormick) was <I>stupid</I> and short-sighted. Not building it now is because it would cost 5 times as much, but not building the Circle Line would be equally stupid. Chicago needs both.

The better example is the stupid billion-dollar Star Line.

The biggest problem with Chicago transit today, though, is the refusal of the city to force high-density development within 3/8 of a mile of all existing "L" stops. If they did that, not only would it help all areas economically with "L" lines, but it would dramatically increase "L" ridership.

[VivaLFuego]

The biggest problem with Chicago transit today, though, is the refusal of the city to force high-density development within 3/8 of a mile of all existing "L" stops. If they did that, not only would it help all areas economically with "L" lines, but it would dramatically increase "L" ridership.

a-to-the-men.

In fact, without encouraging specifically more employment density along the Circle Line route, it would never reach a critical mass of ridership to justify the investment (I'm thinking, particularly in the far West Loop/Ashland area, get some actual mid-rise and high-rise office towers there).

The "saving time on cross-town trips" was always a spotty argument, seeing as the Circle Line is only a couple stops out from the downtown transfer points and the extra transfer negates any in-vehicle time savings.

As it is, the only employment district for which the Circle Line would improve access is the Medical District, which already has a presentable transit mode share (i.e. the Circle Line wouldn't generate that many new transit trips on account of the IMD, rather just siphoning them from other existing services). And for trips to the Loop, well, we've already got our radial system for that.

The Mid-City line is the time-saver. The Circle Line is a genesis for expanding the downtown core. Unless the city is on board with the latter, it's DOA.

[OhioGuy]

I just checked out the new Montrose & Sedgwick stations today and I must say they're quite nice. I particularly like the Sedgwick station since they incorporated the old brick stationhouse into the new design. It's my understanding they're also doing this at the Damen stop which I think is great (and maybe one additional stop as well?). I do have one little nitpick for both stops though. At Montrose I don't like that the canopy is way at the other end of the platform from where people will be entering. If it's raining, riders will have to walk all the way down the platform to reach the canopy for cover. And at Sedgwick, the heating area isn't positioned all that well. The heat coils up above are too far forward from the little enclosure that's been created. If you want to feel the heat, you have to step forward away from the enclosure which defeats the purpose because you get hit by gusty winds. And if you step back into the enclosure to avoid the winds, you're too far back to feel any warmth from the heat coils. Two nitpicks... but otherwise I must say I like the new stations. :)

[j korzeniowski]

transit plan failed.

fuck this state.

[OhioGuy]

:maddown:

[Haworthia]

:yuck:

Wow, this blows. I thought it would actually pass this time.