Is the expected bridge going to be at Taylor Street or Polk Street? On the eastern side, Polk make more sense. Anyway, no mention of it in this 100-page document, so apparently it's down the priorities list.

Also, whatever happened to the Central Avenue bypass over the Belt Railway, the mother of all (recent) flyovers?

The CDOT document also has several pages on freight movement, including CREATE initiatives. I wonder if Rahm can leverage his political capital and push Davis/Rush/Jackson to stop roadblocking the Englewood Flyover, or broker some changes to the hiring, or something. He's probably been in the trenches alongside these guys in past years/decades and can prevail upon them, you'd hope, since CREATE is obviously important to his initiatives.

Don't know if it was mentioned anywhere, but the Loop Wabash/Washington station construction is to occur by 2014, per the 100-page CDOT "Chicago Forward" / "Action Agenda" released recently. Same timetable for Cermak/McCormick.

http://www.scribd.com/ChicagoDOT

P.S. Mr Downtown, who loves to respond to rail-lust comments with bus-lust, will probably enjoy seeing the pie chart on page 47. Others will just admire the photo to its right.

The Central Area Plan calls for bridges at Taylor and Polk, but the Taylor one is viewed as a higher priority probably because it extends over the Dan Ryan to become an important street in its own right, only disintegrating after Western. It could also be a handy reliever for Roosevelt Road, which is sure to become congested once Roosevelt Collection really gets going, and it has bike lanes through Little Italy that are an ideal candidate to be extended through UIC and into the South Loop.

Polk exists in numerous, discontinuous segments and is not a major artery. On the other hand, it does continue east of Clark and the distance from the USPS gate to Wells is 1/3 the distance they would need to build along Taylor - i.e. the Polk bridge would be far cheaper, although there might be thorny political issues dealing with USPS and River City.

The Central Avenue project is actually planned to be an underpass, a half-mile trench. IDOT used to have a video on their website, it might still be up.

I'm sure Rahm can find support from the president if it really boils down to that. Davis, Rush, and Jackson are all seriously enthralled by BHO to the point where Jr. held arguments with Halvorson over who supported the president's agenda more. :rolleyes:

Chicago subway station walls turned into virtual grocery store shelves


May 10 2012

By Lesley Ciarula Taylor

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...e-shelves?bn=1




• Video Link

Is there any word on when Train Tracker will finally get out of beta, and the LEDs will be rolled out to all stations? It all seems very piecemeal right now.

Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022


May 14, 2012

By Angie Schmitt

Read More: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/14...eaths-by-2022/

PDF Report: http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...tionAgenda.pdf




Chicago's transportation "action plan" calls for increased camera-based traffic enforcement. Image: Chicago DOT

http://dc.streetsblog.org/wp-content.../Picture-9.png

New O'Hare cargo facility promises 11,000 jobs
 

Never mind....

Wait. Am I crazy, or is Midway on the wrong side of central in _the city's_ red light map?

It is. It's Cicero that Midway is west of.

Hybrid Diesel-Electric Buses Coming To Chicago
 

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/hybri...ago-45910.html


Hybrid Diesel-Electric Buses Coming To Chicago

PUBLISHED MAY 15, 2012

BY PHILIPPE CROWE


New Flyer Industries Inc. announced yesterday an order for one hundred 60-foot articulated buses for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in support of its fleet renewal and customer enhancement strategies.

Of the new buses, 33 are hybrid diesel-electric buses (model DE60LFR) and the other 67 are clean-diesel buses (model D60LFR).

The order is worth $80.1 million. The D60LFR and DE60LFR can accommodate up to 115 passengers and are ideal for high-capacity, high-frequency routes.

New Flyer will commence building the buses in 2012, with all deliveries completed by mid-year 2013. The last purchase of heavy-duty transit buses by the Chicago Transit Authority was in 2009 - and was also with New Flyer. The CTA currently operates 1,780 transit buses in its fleet, 1,258 of which are New Flyer buses.

Each bus will be equipped with New Flyer Connect, New Flyer's onboard remote vehicle management system, enabling the CTA to achieve the best performance and safety out of its buses by providing the right information, to the right people at the right time. Real time problem reporting of operational and vehicle health data is said to provide transit authorities with the ability to monitor and improve fuel economy, schedule preventative maintenance and ensure that the vehicle operates safely.


Mike Payne

Transport Chicago Conference
 

Just got my reservation confirmation as a Poster Exhibitor at the Transport Chicago Conference in 2 weeks, hope to see all of you there:
http://www.transportchicago.org/

Mike Payne

CTA Gray Line Project

Question for those in the know:

Has there been any discussion about creating a new stop at Clinton (or Canal) on the O'Hare branch of the Blue Line?

And if not, does the planning for a future Canal/Clinton St subway have anything to do with why this hasn't been given a priority?

Thanks to anyone

That would start with questioning..."Why?"

The Blue line is on a curve, one track is at the deepest spot on the entire 'L'/subway. The area is already served by the Green/Pink lines. A blue line stop at Grand/Halsted is mere blocks away.

No serious discussion.

No, Clinton Street subway talk has nothing to do with a Clinton Street Blue Line stop.

1) the cost would be enormous, given the proximity to the river, the proximity to multiple levels of rail lines and roadways, and the proximity of utilities.

2) the benefit would be minimal. It would assumedly have entrances at Milwaukee/Lake and/or Milwaukee/Clinton. From Milwaukee/Lake, the Blue Line Wells/Lake entrance is a 6 minute walk. From Milwaukee/Canal, it becomes an 8 minute walk, or a 10 minute walk to the Grand Blue Line stop. And that's from the locations *best* served by a hypothetical Clinton/Canal stop on the Blue Line. Other areas benefit even less.

3) So, given that balance, why would you want them to? A station that might cost something around $150 million (or more) for minimal benefit? We could add 3-4 new elevation stations in other parts of the system for that price.

I dont know if its been covered earlier (I dont think it has), but would anyone care to have a discussion on the merits of the Streetcar line proposed for Clark Street by the Chicago Streetcar Renaissance? It has been getting a little bit of coverage recently, both in New City and then subsequently linked on Curbed

Having been to several European cities that have Streetcars which run in pedestrian only corridors similar to what CSR is proposing for Clark street, I would say that if done correctly I believe if could be very successful given the scale of Clark and the density of uses and residents. However, this is not Europe and people already scream bloody murder about protected bike lanes, so how on earth would something like this go over? But to counter that, the 36 and 22 are downright terrible and maybe with enough assurances residents could accept the trade off of losing a roadway for gaining a quick, reliable, timely transit system to replace the bus lines.

Regarding the routing, I would imagine a Broadway routing North of Diversey would be more successful... but either way you will run into issues of a appropriate Northern terminus and future Northern extension pathways which I dont think has easy answers.

I know this is more of the hypothetical transit nerd dream scenario talk, but does anyone have thoughts regrading CSR's work?

Well, it seems to be someone's napkin sketch with a website. I'm not aware of anyone seriously studying this. I think the idea of moving all the express bus riders from Marine Drive/Sheridan/Lake View all the way over to Clark just so they can support a streetcar is a nonstarter with the highrise residents who currently enjoy bus service at their doors. They might walk over to Clark for a subway, but I don't think they will for a streetcar.

I was also amused by their bald assertion that a streetcar
when the National Transit Database shows streetcar operating costs per hour averaging 180 percent of bus costs.

Exactly. On Lake Shore, the 135 takes you to work; the 146 takes you to Michigan Avenue. Life runs parallel to the Lake. The L is considered pretty far west. Clark is considered remote.

I wasn't familiar with the plan, but if I were making it, I might push to follow Broadway to Belmont, then run west on Belmont to Southport and take Southport to Clark. I know that doesn't get you to Wrigley, but Wrigley is already well-served by transit, whereas the north stretch of Southport is not.

I do like the idea of running some of the commuter lines on a no-car Clark instead of on Cannon Drive. I do think that north of Belmont or Addison or at least Irving, it may be necessary to mix the streetcars with cars on the road. One way you can do that is to alternate directions for cars every few blocks, which eliminates through-traffic but allows some local traffic. It also means you could make half of the streetway no-car, which would either be the best of both worlds, or the worst. Places like Andersonville will probably not be able to densify fast enough to make eliminating car travel on Clark realistic in the short-to-mid term.

Finally, I think it would be best served to tie it into at least two other lines - one on Chicago Ave and one on 18th Street (yes, that would mean running Clark streetcars at least as far as 18th, it might make sense to run them to McCormick via Cermak to MLK, then possibly also one down Martin Luther King, Jr. to 35th, to Cottage Grove to either 55th or 57th to the Museum of Science and Industry because then you tie in Hyde Park and U of C and the museum.

Ultimately, a system would be better than a single line.

That said, I know there's at least one other "master plan" for the central area and south lakefront being worked on by a highly experienced but independent group (I'm not at liberty to discuss details, but I will say I think any of you Chicago transit fans would find it inspirational and I know many of you are already fans of some of the key players). Done right, the streetcar proposal could probably tie into that pretty well.

Not at liberty? Do tell. :haha:

I'm doing my best Paddy Bauler here, but I think Chicago ain't ready for streetcars.

Battles over on-street space are incredibly contentious - in New York, Sadik-Khan removed the wrong set of parking spaces and soon had some of the city's most influential residents pissed off and steaming at the whole bike lane program. Even NYC couldn't close streets entirely, as the contentious 34th St Transitway showed. Any kind of proper streetcar or BRT program will have to take space away from autos somehow, and I don't think (in the Central Area) that such a plan is politically feasible.

On the other hand, I think as a city we need to start having these debates about the proper use of roadspace. It might be possible to implement this type of thing on more outlying corridors with excess roadspace. I'm very interested to see what attitudes the Western BRT project will turn up. The gradually-escalating rollout of bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected bike lanes, etc. is a good way to ease into the larger conversation.

Also, it doesn't help that the city signed away the rights to almost a third of its total roadspace through the parking meter deal. That deal cripples the ability of CDOT to implement the innovative strategies seen in other cities, except in places with severely-overbuilt roads where whole lanes can be removed without penalty.