I don't think so. I read all that as well trying to figure out the final sketches of the area and what was going to be the finished product.

If you walk down Grand in front of Rock Bottom and look where the entrance use to be, you'll see absolutely no clue that there has ever been an entrance on that spot - at all.

It's all brand new nicely finished concrete, completely reconstructed street, curb, gutters and sidewalk. This is a finished product, not temporary.

Across the street on the East side you also have this brand new concete and reconstruction - but you'll find a subway entrance has been built into the sidewalk as well.

CTA Oakton Street Station, Schematic Design

http://www.skokie.org/images/Downtow...0Rendering.jpg

My guess is that the entrance is being relocated, either around the corner on State Street or further west on Grand. The station renovation project involves the expansion of the mezzanine into sidewalk vaults as well as virgin dirt... logically, if the mezzanine is getting bigger, then the entrances would need to shift outward as well.

http://www.skokie.org/images/Downtow...0Rendering.jpg

^Boy, that's $14 million worth of station, all right!

And the renderer couldn't even get the typeface right for the signage.

:previous:

Man that thing is ugly, welcome to ye ole train station. Here is a great posting by The Urbanophile about the importance of compelling design when it comes to train/bus stations/subway entrances, etc.

That's true, but on the east side, the street is wider. If the sidewalk on the southwest side maintained an entrance at this point, Grand might be down to 1 lane. I think it's possible that they will keep that entrance there once they're done with the northwest side.

We should all email feedback@transitchicago.com and ask them/tell them we want the SW entrance to remain. And maybe also email Ald. Reilly

Again, we're treated to a retro design, this one gothic inspired. I getting more puzzled by the day as Chicago's leadership must know what is going on in competitor cities around the design of public space.

Skokie is in charge of the design of the new station, not CTA. CTA simply places signage and staffs the station.

They can't be serious....

lol, i like it. I like it better than the SOM stuff on the blue line anyway...

At least it seems to have a canopy.

Joliet Intermdel from State Journal-Registar
 

http://www.sj-r.com/high-speed-rail/...wide-rail-push

Joliet center part of statewide rail push

By TIM LANDIS
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Sep 16, 2009 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Sep 17, 2009 @ 06:04 AM
JOLIET —


Springfield’s concerns with high-speed rail service and increased freight train traffic are part of a much larger rail-improvement push in Illinois involving hundreds of millions in state and federal dollars.

The biggest push, by far, is in the Chicago region.

The Union Pacific Railroad broke ground this month on the $370 million Joliet Intermodal Terminal, which promises to create 6,900 to 7,400 full-time jobs and an increase in annual freight capacity equivalent to 500,000 cargo-ship-sized containers.

As plans stand, some of that increased freight traffic would use the Third Street corridor in downtown Springfield.

“Right now, there’s probably about 2,000 tradespeople out there working. There’s probably more earth-moving machines on that property than any project in the Midwest,” said John Greuling, president and CEO of the Will County Center for Economic Development.

Greuling said the Will County group first learned of the Union Pacific construction about four years ago, though the goal of making Joliet a hub for one of the nation’s largest “inland ports” is part of much more ambitious long-term plan.

“We are marketing ourselves as part of the global supply chain. … It’s a pretty aggressive plan we’ve been working on for eight years,” said Greuling, who added that six other major rail carriers will use the Joliet facility.

____________________________________

About the Union Pacific Joliet Intermodal Terminal

* Estimated cost: $370 million; joint project of the UP and CenterPoint Properties, a California-based investment company that specializes in development of industrial real estate and transportation projects.

* Location: 785 acres five miles south of Interstate 80 and seven miles east of Interstate 55.

* Construction schedule: First phase scheduled for completion in June 2010. Facility then will expand based on demand.

* Capacity: Annual capacity equivalent to 500,000 ocean-going containers; four 8,000-foot tracks capable of handling 107 “double-stack” rail cars; six 8,000-foot tracks to sort cars by destination; six tracks in a car staging area; more than 3,400 parking spaces for trailers and containers; four cranes and two mobile-packers to load and unload freight cars.

Source: Union Pacific; city of Joliet.

__________________________________

More

http://www.sj-r.com/high-speed-rail/...wide-rail-push

Realistically, given this project is already at nearly twice the original budget, I doubt any design changes whatsoever are feasible at this point. I guess at most it speaks to the need for at least some public involvement in the early design stages to avoid obviously detrimental steps like this.

^ Wow, I'd love to take a drive out there just to see that massive construction site.

It's great to see more job-creating infrastructure being created in the southern half of the metropolitan area. Anything to help balance things out...

One would think that additional CTA stations in Skokie would b in keeping with the Insull era station at Dempster, not a yellow birdcage. And can we put those shepard hook lights to sleep already? They look like what the early 90's sounded like.

http://marquettetribune.org/2009/09/...il-jk1-jm2-mn3

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail moves ahead

By Tim Seeman. Published September 17, 2009.

The absence of a functional regional transit authority did not discourage members of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission from presenting a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed commuter rail connection between the cities of Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee Wednesday.

The research found that overall, potential adverse environmental effects throughout the areas affected by the proposed railroad would be minor. Most of the stations and tracks the proposal would use already exist, said Ken Yunker, executive director of SEWRPC.

The proposed line would run 14 trains per day between Milwaukee and Kenosha, stopping in several municipalities in between. It would also allow for transfers to the existing rail connection between Kenosha and downtown Chicago, Yunker said.

...

Anyone know the exact location of the Oakton station? I know it's going to be west of the tracks and north of Oakton, but how far north?

Island station (i.e. in between the tracks) north of the street. I believe the platforms will be 4 cars long (Skokie Swift currently only ever runs 2 car trains), but obviously the station is designed so that the platforms could be easily extended to 6 or 8 if somehow needed in the future. There is a little signal hut just north of Oakton that I dont think is being moved, so the platform doesn't start until north of that (you can see it from Google Maps aerial).

I know at one point there was talk of a walkway on the north end for an auxiliary entrance/exit at Searle Parkway but I'm not sure if that's being built now or just being left as a 'hook' in the design for future construction. I would guess it's not being done now since it would also require removing/relocating a track crossover which would be an unnecessary expense given the expected ridership level for the forseeable future. In happier economic times there was some talk of a midrise TOD on the triangular parcel at Skokie Blvd and Searle which could potentially have paid for transit improvements in exchange for a density bonus, but I assume that proposal is dead as a doornail for the time being.

I honestly don't think the design is that bad. Obviously, there could be so much more done, but it seems to be a station with generous platforms, a full canopy, and a large sheltered/interior area. It gets the fundamentals right, even if the style is not to your liking.

Yeah, I don't find the station all that bad either. It looks more spacious than similar surface stations near the end of the brown line. And the yellow coloring certainly keeps with the color theme of the line. Ultimately I'm just happy that there will be a station serving downtown Skokie (well technically the station's a few blocks east, but close enough....).

^ This is some exciting stuff.

Of course, I'm not sure who would use this "transfer" at Kenosha to Metra.

Anybody from SE Wisconsin headed to Chicago would almost certainly use Amtrak's Hiawatha train

Not if they wanted to visit Evanston.

Thanks for the info. I was concerned it was going to be too far north of Oakton.

The station looks decent, and I'm really excited that downtown Skokie will finally have a stop. Hopefully it will spur more development in the area.

^ I guess, but I doubt that visiting Evanston justifies a KRM to Metra transfer on a commuter line.

It's silly, really, to take a train to Evanston from Wisconsin--most people would drive.

Downtown Chicago is different. Parking in downtown Chicago garages is an exercise in money disposal

The transfer would be fairly lightly used, but those who would use it would be people traveling between intermediate stops, e.g. going to Great Lakes Naval Station, Lake Forest, North Chicago/Abbot, Waukegan, etc. not all the way to downtown Chicago. The UP-N is unique among Metra lines for how many trip generators are spread along the route.

The analogous situation would be the Purple Line Express compared to Metra - Evanston residents would generally commute to downtown via Metra, but the Purple Express serves a major role in connecting bi-directional worker/resident flow between Evanston and Lakeview/Lincoln Park as well, for which Metra doesn't suffice (might be surprised at the number of people taking the Purple Express north from Belmont in the mornings and south from Davis/Howard in the evenings).

I hope, once the KRM is built, Metra comes to an agreement with the Wisconsin transit agency (as yet unformed) to run through service with limited stops. If it was priced properly, it wouldn't compete with the Hiawatha, but it would offer a transit option to people heading to Evanston or Great Lakes or Waukegan from Wisconsin without the inconvenience of a transfer in Kenosha.

(link to blog main page) http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...l?page_id=2308


Seedy el stations to get $10M fed fix-up
Posted by Greg H. at 9/18/2009 4:22 PM CDT on Chicago Business

Some of the Chicago Transit Authority's seediest el stations are in for a $10-million fix-up, U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin reports.

In a statement, the Illinois Democrat said the fiscal 2010 transportation funding bill approved by the Senate includes $10 million for projects on Red Line stations from Sheridan north to Jarvis.

Eligible work includes improved lighting, signage and windbreaks; new escalators, benches and public-address systems, and better landscaping and bicycle amenities.

The stations are among the oldest in the CTA system, with some not having received any significant work since before World War II.

The $10 mil. won't go far . . . but it's a start. The CTA had no immediate comment, and it was not clear whether the federal funds will be matched by state and/or local monies, as is usually the case with transit projects.

Mr. Durbin also announced that the CTA is in line for $2 million for very preliminary work on the CTA's proposed Circle Line in the central area of the city.

The problem that makes station renovations so expensive is ADA compliance. Basic maintenance like painting, retiling, and replacing light fixtures is all really cheap stuff. Don't get me wrong, there's a huge value in having ADA compliance in the system, it's just that it's so expensive to retrofit older stations in a dense environment.

I hope the $10M is able to strip those stations of their grime. Some pigeon-proofing might also be a good idea to help keep the stations looking nice.

^Don't forget not enough competition in the bidding pool.

Doing major reconstruction on an active transit line, in an active station, with auto and pedestrian traffic below is never easy. Only a few firms have the necessary expertise to manage the staging of such a job. True, this often leads to errors in judgment - like how the Oakton station is ridiculously overpriced. The only precedents that contractors have to go off of for that bid are previous station construction jobs for the CTA, most of which involved urban lines with little to no on-site storage and frequent trains. Oakton, on the other hand, has plenty of breathing room, since plans include demolition for an adjacent bus turnaround and kiss/ride that will, before paving, offer plenty of on-site storage. If the station comes in under budget, it may go towards gold-plated fixtures or towards padding the contractors' salaries.

Fortunately, the small-ball renovations that this $10m will fund are easy things that can probably be done in one weekend by any joe-schmoe contractor, if the station is closed temporarily. Replacing light fixtures and installing windbreaks? C'mon, I could do that in a weekend. Too bad I'm 900 miles away and not a union member. Most of the cost here is going to materials and not labor - CTA has to install fixtures that withstand weather and vandalism. The only marginally complex bit are escalators, but I'm assuming that refers to replacements at Loyola, Granville, and Bryn Mawr, not new escalators in stations that don't currently have them.

More than likely, for $10 million spread across several stations, the work will be done in-house by CTA facilities maintenance, and their labor hours would get charged to the capital grant rather than the CTA operating budget.

Since no one replied to my timing question about this, I emailed the CTA to see if they would tell me. Here's their response:

Orange Line Extension Meeting tonight
 

Connecting Midway to Ford City

The Orange Line Extension Project would extend the transit line from the Midway Station at the Midway International Airport to approximately 76th Street near Ford City. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared to evaluate environmental, social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project.

Public and agency input is important. This site will keep you informed about the proposed project, the planning process, and opportunities for public input and participation.
What's New

Scoping Meeting (What's this?)

6 to 8 p.m.
Monday, September 21, 2009

Hancock College Preparatory High School
4034 W. 56th St.
Chicago, IL 60629

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

I don't recall if this has been posted. I will not be able to go tonight, perhaps someone who is free can attend.

Now that the "Alternatives Analysis" is complete, which resulted in a "Locally Preferred Alternative," the "Scoping" stage is the first round of public outreach for the "Environmental Impact Study."

After the multi-phase EIS comes 100% design & engineering (I think EIS includes preliminary/10% D/E so that more concrete cost/timeline estimates are done before bidding out the full design and construction work).

^ So how much longer do these meetings, studies, and more meetings drag on before shovels hit the dirt?

The meetings now are dealing with specifics; station design elements, noise mitigation, the precise track alignments down to the inch, etc.

The earlier meetings were to identify which plan would best serve the need - although it seems to be merely a formality, since the LPA is always obvious from the beginning of the Alternatives Analysis.

To answer your question, I believe construction on all 3 projects will begin in about 2-3 years, assuming funding comes through in the next transportation bill, and assuming we win the Olympics (CTA's completion date for all 3 lines is 2016, which reeks of Olympic optimism to me...)

Except that none of the proposals are anywhere near any of the Olympic venues. I really don't understand the CTA's love of building rail lines in lower-density areas that will likely never significantly increase in density, instead of adding support for already-dense and getting denser areas closer to the core. Making better use of Metra capabilities is a much better regional strategy for outlying neighborhoods than extending lines that are already relatively underused. Reinforcing the central area with additional lines will lead to better overall usability and usage more than extending existing lines farther and farther out will.

If it connects to 2 different systems, I'm sure Amtrak would consider placing a stop on the Hiawatha to allow commuters from both KRM and Metra to transfer over, much like they do in New Jersey and Connecticut.

in theory that sounds all well and good, but the ROW that amtrak's hiawatha runs on is about 4 miles west of the ROW that metra's UP north line (and maybe the KRM someday) runs on, ie. they don't meet up at any easy and convenient transfer point, they'd first have to create a new kenosha station on the hiawathe ROW and then they'd have to run some kind of shuttle bus service between the two stations to allow someone to transfer between amtrak and metra/KRM. i would hazard a guess that the demand for such transfers might be too small to support a shuttle bus service.

I have some semantical nitpicks. In terms of new trackage and operating ROW that CTA built as a result of CTA initiative (i.e. not federal earmarks), recent projects have included:

1) restoring the Paulina Connector
2) Block 37
3) the Dan Ryan connector subway

...all focused on the Central Area, no? And the only New Start that was arguably advanced solely due to CTA pressure (rather than outside political will) is the Circle Line.

Stuff like the Orange line and the expressway median lines were built by the city then turned over to the CTA for operations. Red Extension is Jesse Jr's pet, and Orange Extension is Lipinski's, and Yellow is the one considered most "iffy" because it doesn't have a powerful enough champion to quash any opposition or ignore any cost effectiveness measures.

In fact, CTA owning and advancing major system expansions is a very recent development historically, occurring only in the Kruesi years when his knowledge of and contacts in the Washington transportation bureaucracy meant CTA was the best equipped local agency to own such projects. It may seem minor, but I think differentiating amongst bureaucracies (and how each of those separate bureaucracies are funded and staffed) is important in understanding why things are the way they are.

I accept your point about different agencies, although it sort of goes to a larger issue of a lack of coordinated long-term planning. To your other points:

1) While this is a Good Thing as it's a portion of the Circle Line, it didn't really add any new service for downtown, did it? It did increase frequency of service on the Douglas Branch, as well as for the Ashland and Clinton stops on Lake, but it did so at the expense of rush hour capacity in the Loop and I think overall it hasn't really enhanced mobility downtown significantly, if at all. If it ends up being a precursor to the Circle Line, or even just a station at Madison, great, but in and of itself it's not so exciting.

2) This isn't even completed, and there are no plans for it to be completed, and even if it was completed, it wouldn't add much new service. Although, I would LOVE to see the CTA create the Lake Street portal and route Green Line trains through the subway instead of over the Loop, which would free up capacity on the Loop during rush hour. I would think with the new signals and switches, that would be doable without causing too much chaos in the Red and Blue Line schedules. I actually think a West Loop express to the airports would make more sense, and that building a double-cross between the Blue and Red under Block 37 would have been a lot more valuable in the long term, and opened up some interesting Red/Blue routings.

3) You're citing a 20-year-old project that created no new service and allowed the CTA to better match ridership between branches to save costs as evidence of downtown investment? This is another one of those "could be helpful" things that, at present, isn't really adding much benefit for the central area per se.

For the cost of the Orange, Yellow and Red Line extensions, you could make a lot of progress on the the Clinton Street Subway and West Loop Transportation Center, both of which benefit downtown and outer neighborhoods. Or even revive the much-needed West Loop/Streeterville/McCormick Place portion of the 1968 Central Area Transit Plan. Either of those would not only benefit the Central Area, but would create potential for tie-ins for expanded rail service in a number of neighborhoods. If the Central Area Transit Plan portions I mentioned had been built in the 1970s, we'd now be talking about expanding the McCormick branch to Hyde Park, and maybe punching the Streeterville Branch north to Fullerton. But those aren't even options now, because of the lack of vision when it was first (and second and third) considered.

Most of the outlying neighborhoods in Chicago are built to a density that works very well with buses. It just amazes me that we're spending billions of dollars to enhance rail service in areas where existing bus service is either adequate or capable of being made adequate with far less expensive projects. I don't have a problem with the projects, per se - I am always glad to see more rail routes - and if the region had figured out how to do those AND build new routes in the central area, I'd have zero complaints. But if we can only invest in one or the other I think it's just plain mismanagement to invest in rail solutions in relatively low-density areas while doing nothing beyond generating constantly-changing plans for the densest, most economically critical portion of the city.

Well, it's not like the projects don't have a decent rationale. The 95th Terminal station is indeed overcrowded, and heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic there slows down operations. Roseland, Auburn-Gresham, and West Pullman (and Altgeld Gardens) are all areas of transit dependence with a convenient ROW linking them all.

Bus congestion is also an issue with the Orange Line's Midway terminal, which was supposed to go to Ford City from the start, but got cut back (the destination signs on Orange Line trains have had a Ford City label for years).

Of course, full-blown line extensions are far more expensive than rebuilding the terminals to better manage large numbers of pedestrians and buses.

^emathias, I don't disagree with your reasoning, but remember, WLTC and the ever-changing downtown circulator are and always have been City of Chicago projects, not CTA projects :)

Isn't that the whole gist of his post? If CTA was really interested in improving service downtown through capital spending, then they would have jumped on board with these projects.

The fact that city government is pushing these projects with little to no reciprocation by CTA is evidence of how at-odds their respective goals are.

No - my point is that's simply not how it works. Of course CTA staffers attend meetings at the City about CDOT projects, and city staffers attend meetings at CTA HQ about CTA projects. It's not like there isn't constant exchange of information, updates, input, insight, and so forth for any of these initiatives. I'm not sure what you mean by "jumping on board" or "reciprocation" - it has much more to do with City Hall wanting to own any and every capital improvement downtown, with the exception of when CTA's ownership allows it to tap different funding sources (i.e. CTA paying for the subway track renewal projects via bonding and stimulus funds vs. CDOT taking decades to rebuild downtown subway stations with formula-based CMAQ grants from the Feds).

If anything, I think the entire weird arrangement is just an argument in favor of *gasp* regional-level planning. But the one thing everyone agrees on is that RTA isn't equipped to spearhead these projects (and besides, RTA power is now skewed heavily towards the suburbs, the city would lose out in such an arrangement). Meanwhile CMAP (formerly NIPC and CATS) still struggles immensely to be taken seriously and listened to because of its relatively low visibility and general lack of binding decision-making power, though CMAP would be the best agency to handle conducting and prioritizing the planning studies for large capital projects before handing off design/construction to the actual operating agency e.g. CTA, IDOT, and so on.

Residents protest Yellow Line extension

I personally support the extension of the yellow line to Old Orchard...

I do too, but CTA needs to build the station closer to the mall, for cripes' sake. Extend the line 2 blocks further east from the current (planned) terminal, to place the station on Old Orchard property. I know the mall management doesn't want it on their property, but it makes the most sense there, and there's always eminent domain.

Based on that meeting, my ideal outcome at this point would be to eminent domain the school parking lot, bulldoze it, then just pull the plug on the entire project and sell the land for redevelopment specifying that the only allowable uses as part of a responsive bid to buy the land include an adult book superstore / strip club megaplex, halfway house, methadone clinic, or some combination thereof.

Or just kill the project now and stop wasting anybody's time and money. Either way.

^ Yeah, I mean if they don't want mass transit then to hell with it.

As they say, be careful what you wish for...

Will they regret this decision in 20-30 years? I know some people in Georgetown, Washington DC regret blocking a station in the DC Metro when it was being built in the 60's/70's.

Anyhow, this means one less competitor for other projects such as the Orange/Red Line extensions, Carrol Ave subway, Monroe Transitway, Airport Express, etc etc (projects that I'm more interested in seeing get done anyhow).

Yeah, to hell with it. Any other alternative will cost more, or will be just a waste of money. Screw it, they deserve their plight when traffic grid-locks their community in the future. Plenty of other uses for that money.

I am actually considering a personal boycott of all Skokie businesses. If they don't want "dirty and dangerous" public transit riders arriving in their community, then I guess they don't want the additional sales tax revenue from them.