The current situation is untenable, but if CTA plans to introduce true express trains on the Purple Line, then keeping all Red Line stops in place is much more acceptable.

What I still don't see is any kind of big-picture planning from CTA about how an express service might work. The plan still seems to be simply extending the operating hours of the Purple Line and adding new stops at Loyola and Wilson. This doesn't do anything to improve travel times, though, since the Purple Line will still slog its way to the Loop making all stops on the elevated south of Belmont. The Clark flyover allows for much more Brown Line frequency, so the Purple Line won't need to stop at all the local stations anymore.

I'm just guessing here, but the decision to completely rebuild Wilson up front might have cleared up enough room in the hypothetical budget to build the Clark flyover. IIRC the projected cost of the Clark flyover as determined during the early phases of the Brown Line Project was roughly $150 million, which is close to the amount currently being spent on Wilson.

One last bit: it's really too early to start talking about specific designs, but I'd much rather see the solid-fill embankment replaced in kind, instead of an aerial structure. This has been done recently (PDF) at a cost of $53 million/mile for a conventional freight railroad. Perhaps they could switch to an aerial structure at stations to allow for a stationhouse underneath. A continuous elevated viaduct would just invite crime and littering.

Except in this area it really hasn't. It is an incredibly useful and interesting space... and the aerial viaduct, unlike a solid fill embankment, does not create a boundary within neighborhoods.

The viaduct is already there, so replacing it in kind won't "create" a boundary.

I don't really see it as a boundary, though. The neighborhood has a grain, and the viaduct mostly runs with that grain. The only places where an open viaduct might improve the adjacent neighborhood are in the business districts around stations, which I agree should have such a design. Jarvis, Morse, and Loyola would all be much better with open space underneath them. The stations paralleling Broadway are fine with solid embankments, and in fact the design there allows for an unbroken streetscape with CTA retail space bridging the gap beneath the tracks.

The spaces underneath Fullerton and Belmont kinda suck, apart from the fancy fare-controlled portions that are part of the station. They're well-lit but there's no good use for that space except more parking.

It seems to me if you reconfigured it so that the alleys near the stations functioned more like narrow streets that you could make them commercial strips. This would work especially well if more intense development were encouraged with up-zoning. If a major renovation of the line is completed and adds express service and the Clark flyover and so travel times are greatly reduced, it will induce interest in the area and support additional demand. Good planning could yield areas around stations with additional retail and intense use. It would create some challenges, but the benefit to area residents could be pretty high.

The areas that are currently solid fill I agree are fine the way they are. The neighborhood has developed and adapted to their existence and a change to an open viaduct at this point would have negligible effects. But going from an open viaduct to a solid fill for the stretch under consideration in the RPM project, Belmont to Wilson would be disruptive in spots. Most notably I am thinking of the stretch from Clark to Irving Park where the viaduct occupies active alley ways and crosses (checks Gmaps) 11 streets.

It would be interesting to see if the stretch along Graceland could be solid fill and shifted West to directly abut the cemetery wall, which should free up the Kenmore's active alley way

As for the space under Belmont... if they can ever get someone to come in and rebuild along Wilton that area will return to its original use as an active alley way... but that might be a long ways from now.

And another thing I am rather curious about... does anyone have an idea of how the CTA could rebuild this line, either going from solid fill to open viaduct, or open viaduct to solid fill or even solid fill to solid fill without completely shutting down stretches of the branch? Or is it inevitable that they will just shut down stretches and run shuttle buses between stops for the duration of the project?

^One half at a time, with temporary side-platform stations. That's one of the reasons the track centers shift a bit in all the rebuilding schemes.

So judging by the RPM pdf, the two full modernization plans only consider entirely replacing the earthen viaducts within Chicago rather than just building new retaining walls? As others have noted, the earthen viaduct in certain locations fits in with the neighborhood (or rather the neighborhood naturally developed with it in place). Are they not going to study whether it's worthwhile to do a mixture, with certain areas having the earthen retaining walls rebuilt and other areas receiving a full replacement with an aerial concrete structure? Is it just too difficult to rebuild the earthen retaining walls due to the close proximity of surrounding structures?

Overall, the station consolidation looks reasonable since reconstruction of the remaining stations would allow additional entrances to be located generally within a block or two of stations being closed. Eliminating Thorndale doesn't seem like much of a loss, particularly with a new entrance to the Granville station just one block north of Thorndale. The loss of Lawrence creates somewhat of a hassle for direct bus connections to the red line. Would Lawrence bus service be diverted two blocks south to Wilson (preferable)? Or maybe one block north to the new south entrance to Argyle on Ainslie? My one reservation regarding station consolidation is the removal of Jarvis as I'm reluctant to see *direct* rail access removed from the businesses near the station. Even with the addition of an entrance at Rogers, the location of the main platform at Howard Street would still require basically walking all the way to/from Howard Street. And for anyone living along Jarvis, Sherwin, and Chase Avenues, particularly eastward toward the Lakefront, the loss of Jarvis will very much increase their time spent just walking to the next nearest station (Howard angles further northwest away from residents east of Jarvis, and Morse, despite an entrance added at Lunt, is a bit too far south for convenience).

I'm no engineer, but couldn't they just tear up on side of the Purple line tracks at a time and then drill down with rigs to make one of those overlapping circle retaining walls (forget what they are called) along each side of the existing embankment just inside the current walls and then demolish the existing wall and clad it with precast or something?

Seems to me that something like that could be worked out and would be far cheaper and the rebuilding the whole thing at the expense of clogging up the purple line on an off for a few years.

From Ald. Fioretti's newsletter today:


Central Loop Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project

TIF funding has just been approved for the Central Loop BRT Project, which includes the Union Station Transportation Center and transit improvements on sections of Canal, Clinton, Washington and Madison streets as well as bicycle improvements on these streets and Randolph. $7,342,500 in funding will be matched with federal funds for engineering, construction and Transportation Center property acquisition.

This project will improve speed and reliability for users of the downtown segments of a great number of bus routes, and encourage access to Navy Pier, Millenium Park, the Near East Side and Streeterville through combined Metra-CTA trips rather than by car. It will also improve bicycle facilities in the Loop.

But how exactly does one go about removing... or adding half of an solid fill embankment? Its just two retaining walls and the fill correct?

^Temporary sheet piling down the center.

Am I correct in assuming that design/engineering work is done, and now CDOT is free to bid the work?

Except for the Union Station bus depot, this is basically just paint and signage. Given how long they've taken to design the damn thing, these bus lanes better be pretty damn rapid.

^ $7.3 million dollars for paint?

Damn, that paint better look good! ;)

Since there's a federal match, the total is presumably $14m, but note that covers acquisition of the off-street terminal site at CUS, and construction of the facility. I'm usually the first to protest cost, but this seems like a very cost-effective improvement for CUS.

What speed camera legislation means for Chicago


February 8, 2012

By Steven Vance

Read More: http://gridchicago.com/2012/what-spe...rid+Chicago%29




A car crash on North Avenue at Kedzie Avenue, in the new safety zone around Humboldt Park. There’s not a red light camera here but there could be a speed camera in the near future. From 2005-2010, there have been 22 injuries to pedestrians and pedalcyclists at this intersection, inflicted in automobile crashes.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/...528108a76f.jpg




If there was a speed camera on Dearborn Street north of Hubbard Street, the camera would probably issue citations to 100% of automobile drivers.

http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7156/...3e6ac0fd53.jpg

Any idea which buildings would have to go to straighten the Red/Purple track at Sheridan and Irving? That intersection has seen enough carnage (Walgreen's, Thorek) in the past few years already...

Or we could just design our roads in such a manner that they don't resemble miniature freeways and people wouldn't be able to drive that fast in the first place.

This is all about revenue and not at all about safety. People are still going to drive as fast as they want as long as you keep building roads that encourage them to drive fast. I go 40 or 50 on Cicero Ave all the time because it's a freaking racetrack of a road, but on side streets I usually go 20 or 25 because they are so skinny and I want to avoid side swiping a car or hitting a kid.

The real solution would be to put all the problem spots on a road diet and implement pedestrian friendly features like bump outs and islands.

Primary thoroughfares should actually be designed so that car can legally go the speed traffic naturally flows at. Non-primary roads, sure, do some traffic calming, but the bigger problem is that some people think they should be driving at 35 on a major road even when the majority of traffic is going 45-50. Who's right? I'd say that, usually, the people going 45-50 are.

That should only apply to primary roads, but as long as that's held, primary roads can be designed for and then all non-primary roads can be better designed for pedestrians.

I don't own a car, I haven't owne done in 13 years now, so I am hardly a fanatical advocate of a driving lifestyle. But cars and roads do serve a purpose and I think it's far worse to stiffle the primary purpose of arterial roads than to simply design certain corridors for efficient and fast vehicle traffic. A large part of the reason people speed is that the authorities have proven time after time that they aren't interested in logical, rational road laws and speed limits, so drivers have no real concept of what is actually a safe speed to be driving. If road designers and lawmakers want drivers to respect their authority, then they need to actually use reason and logic to apply their authority instead of using simplistic and often just plain wrong guidellines for speed and traffic flow.

In summary, the purpose of laws should be to stop the outliers, not to punish the merely average but unlucky.

Also, it should be a helluva lot harder to get a drivers license in this country.

Yeah, these speed cameras are too oppressive. It's makes sense to slow down in school zones when children are being let out of school in the afternoon and in morning. But the rest of the day should be normal traffic flow. Why should I have to slow down for a school zone at 3am? It doesn't follow common sense. To me these cameras are worse than the parking meter fiasco. I can afford an extra $.25 for parking but getting a $100 ticket for a red light or speeding puts a hit on my bank account IMO.