Lawrence Ave Streetscaping and Lane Reductions

http://www.ward47.com/site/files/160...e_Presentation

They are going to reduce the lanes on Lawrence Ave between Western and Ashland from 4 lanes to 3, adding bike lanes, and center pedestrian islands for crossing the street. With 2 lanes each direction and a center turning lane. This will make it really nice for pedestrians crossing Lawrence since right now it's like playing frogger other than at major intersections. But it might slow down traffic.

I've always wondered why Lawrence is 4 lanes just between Western and Ashland and 2 lanes the rest. :shrug:

Bridge

Some ten years of talking about it—something's finally going to happen. Merry Christmas!

Good. I used to live along that stretch of Lawrence and I support any attemps at creating a more pedestrian friendly environment.

^ Just reviewed the document. Looks like a good project.

It's good to see that cities are beginning to come to their senses (slowly) and undo some of the post-war streetscaping that ignored the pedestrian altogether

Will Metra stations meet their promise?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5347768.story

from the article

"On the North Side, state Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, said an additional $10 million from the state capital bill should suffice for now. He wants the station at Peterson and Ridge avenues to have ample parking and a design that's "a nice fit for the community."

The station would be an added stop on the Union Pacific North line that runs from downtown Chicago to Kenosha, Wis. It would help ease heavy traffic between the city and suburbs, especially the bottleneck at Ridge, said Osterman, who has advocated for a new station for at least five years.

"It's going to create another public transportation that would be an asset for people in the community," he said. "My strong belief is the ridership will be there, and over a period of time it will be one of the most used stations."

Though it will take at least three years for the station to be built, Osterman said, "it will be well worth the wait." "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds particularly ominous......ample parking....just what that stretch of the northside needs is another traffic driver. It sounds as if Osterman is more interested in catering to would be car commuters from the suburbs or far flung neighborhoods that in creating a dense economic driver that is what is required for economic development

This station I think is well intended but ill-placed and it sounds like maybe ill-conceived. I would replace the Lunt station with one at Howard and one at Devon; but that is unlikely. Critical to the success of this proposed station as an economic driver will be proper design /development priorities and integration into and for the surrounding community. If as Mr. Osterman seems to desire there is "ample parking" the end result will be a potentially worse outcome than the status quo. The parking lots necessary will devalue surrounding land and crowd out and ultimately dissuade more intense economic uses. ie those focused on providing the surrounding community with services which it can use throughout the day as opposed to a weigh station for car commuters who will not spend time / money in the neighborhood. This station is designed as Mr. Osterman seems to indicate is his preferred choice has the potential to develop into little more than a "kiss-and-ride" style station; instead of the transit oriented nexus it could become. If designed as such the traffic intensity in that area will worsen as people will be lured by the ease of parking who otherwise may use an alternate transport method to get to the station or to their terminus. It essentially becomes transformed into a traffic driver without the added benefit of also being an economic driver.

This station incidentally is one of the reasons why I am so annoyed about the development choices along Western Ave. north of Peterson to Granville...ie car-topia style Walgreens and such. The Peterson / Western stop is a 5-6 minute bus ride to this proposed station. Development within such a close boundary should be focused on the ease of transit access, not auto-centric stly development. The zoning is in place, if I am not mistake it is c2-2 which given the accompanying lot sizes of the available parcels along Western Ave would allow buildings with commercial / retail on the first floor and residential above to the tune of 5 stories or so.

These types of decisions are precisely why this region needs a more unified transit / land use authority to overcome the balkanized decentralization of power that plagues the Chicago metro area.

... dupe from general development thread ...

I got the chance to speak for this beauty at plan commission a few weeks ago. I told the TENG guy well, the plan commission in general that I hope that this is a project that TENG could actually complete. There was a chuckle around the chambers. Here are a few more images that I took for this project.

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...5%3C5324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...5%3C6324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...94648324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...5%3C7324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...94652324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...99335324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...34%3A324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...99256324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...3A947324nu0mrj

^ I hear ya, but remember that Osterman can only get the station built, he can't dictate what kind of development goes up around it. That's the job of zoning, developers, and (sigh...) the Aldermen. Besides, having parking at a Metra station does not necessarily preclude urban, walkable design--think Arlington Heights' Metra stop.

And when you sit there and let developers do what they do best, sometimes things go right--even in Chicago. The condo boom of 1999-2008 was clear evidence of that.

Whats the area like where this new bridge is being built? I dont make it down that way often, the renderings look nice though.

That bridge looks fantastic. I really like the looks of the planned West Approach entrance.

So this suspension bridge at 35th St is going to cost $16mm, and the pedway over the river is going to cost $40mm? I smell bullshit.

*sigh* The Streeterville bridge can't have any center supports, like the 35th bridge does, and it has to be high enough to permit larger tour boats to pass at all times, and MOVABLE, to allow sailboats to pass during spring and fall.

I suppose you're one of the ones that believe it cost $9mm to design as well...

No center support for what, the stretch between Grand and Illinois? That is maybe 50 feet more than the distance over the rail tracks.

Maybe this was already posted here and I missed it, but in case that's not the case, the CTA has posted a "Red and Purple Line Vision Study" page on TransitChicago.com.

It appears to be their project to prepare to get funding for a renovation of what I've seen commonly called the "North Main" tracks, plus all the rest of the Purple Line tracks to Linden, and they had public meetings about it at four sites on the North Side and Evanston the week after Thanksgiving. Looks interesting.

EDIT: On the first PDF, page 10, there is a column that says "Population w/in 1 mi." for each station. I think that means within 1/4 mile, because on the other PDFs, with station details, they show satellite images with 1/4-mile radius circles superimposed on the stations.

There's more engineering involved for the pedestrian flyover bridge. Also, I believe that the flyover is 2 seperate branches: one that follors the exit ramp that leads to Navy pier and one that follows LSD along the west side of Lake Point Tower.

Ardecila , will this flyover be attached to the LSD bridge that spans the river, or is it totally seperate?

Oh, ChicagoChicago definitely said "pedway", so I assumed he was talking about the pedestrian bridge over the river at McClurg that is mentioned in the Central Area Action Plan. My statement about the high cost is about THAT bridge.

The lakefront trail flyover, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. $40 million is a pretty penny for that bridge, especially when there is ample lawns and greenspace in the area to use for staging. There will probably be traffic impacts, though, which are usually an indicator that construction will be expensive.

I'm not sure how far south the flyover project goes. A September Crain's article says that the project will expand the cantilevered sidewalk a few feet outward, and cut holes for the northbound lane through the bridge towers. But a more recent December article in Chicago Journal says that the flyover project will leave the bridge alone, and only go as far south as Ogden Slip.

After the first article, a section of the cantilevered sidewalk collapsed, forcing CDOT to shut down a northbound auto lane to detour the bike trail. It could be that CDOT crews uncovered structural issues with the original bridge that would prevent the sidewalk from being expanded safely, so they are just going to repair the existing sidewalk and reduce the scope of the flyover project.

...

Could this lead to an official Grey Line project? I'll be following this one...

This article states that the South Side is the densest part of the city. That's not the case.

^ Perhaps they meant the part of the city with the densest population of people who do not own cars or rely on mass transit?

I'm sure somebody here will know