So you are basically talking about the Crosstown Expressway?

I guess, but the original Crosstown proposal was massive. The truck highway would be about as narrow as they could manage, kinda like the newer toll roads in Houston. Ideally it would have no property takings at all, and fit completely inside the railroad ROW. It would pull trucks off of city streets like Cicero and Western, and off of the downtown highways.

I'm just not sure the Belt Railway corridor is a good choice for transit, given Chicago's urban pattern. Imagine the Orange Line, but without the strong anchor of the Loop at one end.

http://www.aaroads.com/texas/texas99...ge_pkwy_02.jpg

Yes - the green part, anyway. The black parts I don't think are that necessary - perhaps ideal, but then those included demolishing the elevated Loop, which might be good for transit but not good for the "feel" of downtown - although building a subway entrance under Lake so that, with the Block 37 connector, you could route the Green Line through the subways instead of over the Loop which might be good for some things. The Blue Line subway was built with a stub to accommodate that.

Additionally, I've always thought that extending Lower Michigan all the way to Oak as a bus-only road, and putting BRT on CHicago Ave and running a Lower Chicago tunnel intersecting with the extended Lower Michigan would enable some really efficient and helpful bus routes. It would cost as much - or more - than a subway of similar size, but the flexibility of running the express buses through it would make it a really valuable addition to the Near North and the North Michigan cooridor. It would also greatly enhance the utility of a Carol Street busway and put a lot more pressure on the RTA and McPier people to open up the Grant Park busway to CTA use.

Reinventing mass transit in metro Chicago
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,2642840.story

Can anyone really defend the status quo?

April 7, 2014

In a more temperate moment, Mayor Rahm Emanuel might have used the term "blue ribbon panel" to describe the task force assigned to rethink metropolitan Chicago's mass transit system........

One of the relatively few times I will say to the Tribune: SPOT ON!

Indeed. And what I find most disappointing (though not surprising) is Rahm's flip dismissiveness of the report and condescension towards the panel and its recommendations.

Instead of name calling why not put forth a rebuttal of a list of points why he thinks it wouldn't work instead of resorting to name calling. Really such antics should be beyond a big time city mayor. The public deserves a more civilized stick by the facts debate.

I know that Rahms is intent on maintain control of his and the citys turf and leverage but there has to be a better reasoning for not overhauling the system then that. Because ultimately these agency and geographic fights about who gets what is a high stakes game that isn't good for the public.

It is N O T "his and the citys turf" -- And that is EXACTLY the BIG problem with things the way they are; that "turf" belongs to the Citizens of the "City of Chicago", and it's surrounding Suburbs.

They are supposed to be "Administrators" -- N O T "Owners", and "Owners" is their ingrained long-term attitude (the curtain gets pulled back).

They do NOT have a "Title" to CTA and Metra like I do to my old-@$$ed car!

If I put MY car into your possession (or Elect you) to repair, improve it, or whatever: I want you to do what I (Me) want you to do with MY car (or City).

N O T what YOU (all arrogant, Imperial, and paternalistic) think is "best" for ME and MY car (or my City)!!


It is really too bad that Pace is caught-up in this mess, because they seem to be a well-run -- and dare-I-say-it "honest" Organization. But there's not to much you can do when you're swimming much too close to the Titanic

Which governor?
 

Realistically, governor whom would be more likely to support Transit Future: Quinn or Rauner? Quinn is not well regarded with our taxes/spending; Rauner is likely too privatization-oriented to support.

Plan criticism: Ashland need to be rail, and an extension of the Englewood green line along 63rd to Midway would eliminate the need for that 75th street lime line segment. 63rd already intersects the Dan Ryan red line.

Displacement: it's a fact of life. Does individuals' right to exist in any given space for a lifetime, outweigh the region's progress well beyond this generation? There would be no expressways with that reasoning.

At this point, Quinn's knee jerk reaction to just raise taxes in nearly every instance is out of control. Rauner is better.

Yes!! 100%!! Actually an Ashland subway was proposed back in 1939 (when we still had money) to run under the southern portion of Ashland, use the Paulina Connector and then use existing Brown Line tracks. It's the line parallel to the Red Line (man I have been uploading a lot of old transit plans).
http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/image...bways_prop.jpg


I'd still rather prefer that the southern leg of the Lime Line is kept. The gap between the Orange and Red Line is a pretty big gap and would certainly benefit from having more lines to fill it in. Also the Line Line runs on 79th, not 75th, which would be a 16 block gap between the two and if it were removed, then people will certainly have to walk much further for no reason (and we all know how much Chicagoans love to walk to stops). You could argue that they could take the Ashland Subway but the problem is that many people live perpendicular to the line instead of parallel so the new line wouldn't help them that much, and that if they wanted to transfer to the Red Line then they wouldn't be left with a good alternative.

if you look closely at that map, it is aligned on an old railway between 75th and 76th street, well north of 79th. that right-of-way was formerly included as part of the old cross-town exp. east leg plan.

Well, actually, we didn't. Chicago's subways were built with federal PWA grants.

Yeah, the Red Line transfer occurs at 79th but I can't imagine the rail line anywhere except the 75th St corridor. There would probably be a short stretch of elevated built to link between the two.

It's unfortunate that we are wedded to the idea of turning freight railroads into transit corridors, when most of the city was explicitly built to keep railroads away from commercial areas where transit is most needed.

That's why I think BRT running on major streets, or LA-style light rail lines with a mix of surface/elevated/subway, is the better choice for Chicago neighborhoods. When coupled with TOD, it would definitely produce higher ridership even if the travel times are slower.

Chicago looks a lot like Toronto based on the map's orientation.

The World’s Subway Maps Show How Poor Transit Is In Chicago
 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/04/...ampaign=543922

By John Dodge

CHICAGO (CBS) — Gazing at the work of Jug Cerovic, evokes very different reactions.

1) Maps of subways–which themselves are mostly invisible, often dark and gritty–are beautiful.

2) Chicago’s subway system design sucks.

Cerovic is a Paris-based architect..........

^. What part about "streetcar city" do people not understand?

Most public transit in the US sucks compared to other country's cities. Huge surprise.

Also what part of "hub and spoke city" do people not understand. Anyone who compares Chicago's built environment to Paris' (other than the occasional Paris on the Prairie quip) is clearly massively ignorant. The two cities couldn't be any more different in terms of history, layout, function, industry, etc... They literally have nothing in common other than the fact that they are both pretty, pleasant, places in spring time.

appreciate our transit
 

since chicago transit bashing seems to be heating up lately, i just want to add something. i think that what we have is overall pretty good. i mean lots of cities would just kill for the system(s) we have. realize how innovate the expressway median transit was at that time--how many other cities wanted, but never materialized with that? how many other cities in this country even have subway(s) or only get light rail as another thread is discussing? how many african cities, much larger than ours, manage without rail?

we simply need to get moving on some of the many plans (yes, planning fatigue someone mentioned earlier here is real) because we have languished behind for far too long in a city of this size.

let the photo of the o'hare "stair climbing" train symbolize of our low point, cause we can find our way up.

I'll agree. CTA, MBTA, and Pace when considered as part of the whole isn't as bad as some will suggest. Just look at th daily ridership data....
1) CTA = Bus: 925,074, Rail: 715,420, Subtotal: 1.64 million
2) Merta = Rail: 303,800
3) Pace = Bus: 87,000
Totals = Rail: over 1 million, Bus: over 1 million
2 million daily trips each day is not bad for a metro population over 9.7 million.