Completely agree. They've proven themselves easy to repair and upgrade.

Wow, elevated rail with single supports (not pairs of legs like we're used to) looks totally strange to me, like it could tip over and pull the whole system down if one support got damaged.

Though not all that much different than a single pier concrete aerial guideway.

Not a whole lot could have damaged them in those days. The cable cars wouldn't have gone fast enough to have gone very far if they derailed, and there weren't big mechanical trucks in common use yet. I suppose the biggest threat would be a fire or other problem causing a building to collapse on them.

Truly an age of innocence.

They aren't consistently over-engineered. A modern station requires concrete platforms, stairs, elevators, and so forth. ADA requirements demand wider platforms.

But yeah, I'm skeptical about the longevity of the newer structures. The new viaducts at Fullerton and Belmont retain water, so they need a complicated drainage system that will eventually fail. The new viaducts on the Douglas branch have the same construction as most highway structures, so they have probably a 40-year lifespan?

BTW, do you have any idea about the "Casperfield and Cleveland" rooftop sign in the above photo? I've seen those in vintage Chicago photos too. Are they painted on glass? Or are the letters hung off of a net? I'm trying to figure out how the transparency works.

Work to begin on $475M Chicago interchange project

The so-called Circle Interchange project involves reconstruction of the intersection of Interstate 90/94, Interstate 290 and Congress Parkway. The goal is to reduce traffic delays by about 50 percent.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...change-project

Yeah. The first contract is for the rebuilding of the Morgan St Bridge over 290, which will be let in August. Certain design elements will mirror South Lake Shore Drive.

http://s14.postimg.org/fnljkiz5t/slsd.jpg

Really? Have you seen/ do you have may renderings? I can't find anything on it except text.

Some in here...

http://circleinterchange.org/pdf/doc...0for%20web.pdf

Very informative! Thanks

Netting, I think. I've seen photos where the wires are visible. Much less wind loading to worry about.

Incidentally, the photo is a New York El line, not a Chicago L line. Those are electric streetcars running on The Bowery, but using conduit rather than overhead wires. Another view:

http://www.oranga.com/pics1/scan8856.jpg

Newer stuff here:
http://www.circleinterchange.org/pdf...0community.pdf

Only if Green Line customers won't have to give up their rail for another 2 years in the next couple decades to finally replace the support structure. Is it expected to hit 151 or 181 or 201 years (assuming ridership demand doesn't warrant expansion/demolition) given it's come this far? I actually don't understand what is meant by replacing "column footings" - just the concrete portion comprising the bottom couple feet, or some of the steel?

Why did they need a 28 month shutdown if they weren't actually replacing it? What was the main reason for not using the long shutdown as an opportunity to rebuild or reroute, for example to reflect the South Side's population distribution changes in the intervening decades (century), and the fact that a Red Line now exists nearby?

Are NYers more consistent about using the term "El" than Chicagoans are about their heavy rail system nickname? Between the CTA, the local press, and private citizens, there seems to be no agreement on a single moniker, which is embarrassing. I think the worst form is having the single letter in quotes.

Nope. Few here and there refer it to as an "El" - most just call it the subway, elevated or not or just simply "the train".

CTA, the Sun-Times, and the Tribune all write "L." It has a long unwavering history with the actual operators of the service, and is fiercely defended by all right-thinking people.

The Chicago Reader, Chicago magazine, and Crain's Chicago Business write "El."

Talk at the time was that the renewal of the steel would allow it to last another 100 years. And there were a few short sections that got all new structure.

A little of both. Especially on the South Side, the concrete footings were shallow, and salt spray had corroded the bottom of the columns. So deeper footings were poured that also stuck up higher above the ground, and the columns lost their bottom 18 inches and were welded to new bottom plates, bolted to the taller footings.

The line goes through black neighborhoods. You simply can't have a rational discussion about rerouting. There are just too many decades of mistrust, fueled by political opportunists. Look at how difficult it was to convince people that the Red Line's complete replacement was different from the Brown Line station reconstruction.

Greg Hinz is reporting that the Infrastructure Trust is looking at some interesting projects.

I think we knew about the Red Line extension previously, but they're looking at station rehab/replacements as well. The article discusses the possibility of "neighborhood parking lots" near CTA stations, which seems like a good idea for every business district in the city except the ones near CTA stations.

Also mentioned was the possibility of heated streets, which presumably would be financed through bonding against the savings in the snowplow and resurfacing budgets.

Honestly, that along with heated sidewalks has been on my mind for 30 years. I just always assumed it was too pie-in-the-sky, Jetsons talk.

If that were seriously proposed and even if it meant an increase in taxes to fund, I would support it. We can't control the cold yet, but if we could start to control impassable/slick-as-crap-death-trap sidewalks, Chicago could change its image as a snowbound place to avoid during winter.

And I would no longer be tempted to move to LA when I retire.

Based on the context of the article (link here)—which also discussed things like solar farms and urban agriculture—I got the impression that this would be something targeted more at neighborhoods with pretty low land values on the south and west sides, along the lines of the 55th Street elevated station park-and-ride. While it’s in abstract not a good thing to put near a transit station, it’s still a better than a vacant lot and effectively banks the land for a potential future (if, at this point, unlikely-looking) when there’s demand for some decent new construction near the station. Adding some park-and-ride capacity might also not be a bad idea for some of the stations on the outer stretches of the Dan Ryan or Eisenhower lines, either.

Or at least I hope that’s the case. If these are put along Broadway or Milwaukee, for instance, it would be an absolute disaster (though I expect that’s not the case), but given the heavily parking-centric dynamic of neighborhood politics I can easily imagine that becoming the case.