Is the Ravenswood station being built to the north of Lawrence now? I thought the neighbors threw a fit and demanded it be built south of Lawrence where the old one is.

There all guilty of neglecting their tracks , switches and bridges , they cut alot of corners and don't enforce the rules as with the FRA or I should say select enforce....

Good point - the work seen in the photo is probably just for the new trackbed, not the station. But I'm curious what is the purpose of the existing platform north of Lawrence?

Yes, the station is being rebuilt south of Lawrence. Initially UP balked because it was expensive to build platforms extending over Leland, but they backed down after the neighborhood/alderman demanded changes.

It's probably for the best, since there will be two entrances and there are numerous businesses and restaurants to the south, whereas there's nothing (yet) to the north.

The full canopies on the new station are welcome, too.

As part of the ongoing study for the Eisenhower widening, IDOT is now looking at how to reconfigure the interchanges. The infamous left-exits at Austin and Harlem could be reconfigured into right-exits, while still flowing into a single intersection suspended over the highway median (this is unique as far as I know). IDOT is also looking at the SPUI design for these exits.

It looks like there's also a potential to create some small plazas around the CTA entrances, and bus lanes for dedicated queuing. This could be a substantial upgrade to the access at these stations.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5843/ike1.jpg

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6647/ike2t.jpg

Meanwhile, Oak Parkers are protesting the highway expansion and the city is examining the possibilities of liner buildings, especially at Oak Park Ave.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5821/ike3.jpg

Between IDOT and Oak Park, I think the future is looking bright for these stations which are currently very unpleasant.

Agency Meetings this week
 

Will anyone be attending the Metra Strategic Plan meeting Downtown tomorrow? (in reference to Metra assisting in the Red Line shutdown - and interagency cooperation in general):
http://gridchicago.com/2012/metra-se...an-in-decades/

And the CTA Red Line Shutdown meeting next Saturday (I will be at both):
http://www.transitchicago.com/redsouth/

Is the idea of decking over the expressway through Oak Park still a realistic priority for Oak Park officials?

No, they've pretty much dropped discussion about it.

The liner buildings seem like a much more cost-effective way to restore some continuity, and rebuild the Oak Park Ave business district that was gutted by the Ike.

Harlem and Austin could get the same treatment with liner buildings, but they're not heavily pedestrian streets. Best thing to do there is simply to provide wide sidewalks with a solid barrier facing the highway and planter boxes facing the surface street.

^ Now THIS....my friend.....

is a

GOOD IDEA :tup:

God Bless Oak Park for their vision..

I agree that Oak Park Ave would be a much better business district with liner buildings. Plazas on Harlem and Austin could be considered the first step in an incremental capping of the Ike (contingent on stumbling upon a huge pot of money, of course.)

BTW, I follow these things pretty closely, and I haven't seen anything in the press about proposed liner buildings. Do you have a link?

It's posted on the Village's website for the Eisenhower committee.

http://www.oak-park.us/news/Special_Report_IKE.html

The rendering is dated 2012. The great thing about the liner buildings is that the Village could possibly pay for it by itself, with various, relatively small grants. Shouldn't cost more than $30 $15 million.

Thanks!

Just an FYI, maybe most of us are familiar with the Columbus Cap (one of the more recent ones I can think of). Blair Kamin wrote about it in 2011, he quotes $10 million.

The Harlem Interchange option shown above looks the best to me. A simple easy to understand 4-way intersection when driving, and reasonable crosswalks for pedestrians.

More information can be found here, with detailed notes about the innovative design of the cap and the cost breakdown. The article doesn't reveal how much ODOT spent building the substructure, because it was combined with the road overpass in a single job and the costs are hard to separate out. After ODOT finished erecting the bridge, the developer spent $7.8 million to erect the lightweight building atop the bridge.

I think $15-20 million is a fair figure, given inflation, the generally higher cost of construction in Chicago and on the other hand, the efficiencies that can be gained when IDOT rebuilds the overpass in a few years.

^ I had no idea what you meant by "liner buildings" until you posted the link to the Columbus project, and then I remembered the posts about it here a while back. Is it likely that for various reasons this would end up having to wait for Eisenhower construction to complete?

These are a genius idea that should play out all over downtown. If it were done in the West Loop, who would get the rent (who owns the land) - the State, via IDOT?

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

Not to change the subject to a different, long conversation, but would there be enough space around Maywood to widen the Eisenhower, or would the easier solution (including considering construction staging and lane closures) be double-decking it for a mile or so, with inbound and outbound on separate levels? This would also help solve the problem of direct sun in the eyes for early-morning inbound, or afternoon outbound, drivers.

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten any publicity in the local village press. I'm going to see if I can drum up some more info.

I think through Maywood the Ike will be widened in a conventional manner, with abrupt retaining walls replacing the sloped embankments on the side. There will probably be some homes that need to get seized around the exits, although in Oak Park and Forest Park, IDOT has pledged not to widen the "ditch".

I am not a wrongful death attorney so take what I say with a grain of salt. Illinois does not allow for punitive damages in wrongful death lawsuits. Therefore, successful plaintiffs are awarded pecuniary losses only. This includes financial support, etc. but also includes emotional suffering to surviving plaintiffs. Because of this, the best plaintiff in a wrongful death suit is a young parent with a surviving spouse and many dependents. The worst is an old person with no heirs. Since this was an older couple, there is no direct financial support to any surviving dependents and damages will be mostly for emotional suffering. Therefore, UP won't be taken to the cleaners. However, there could be a relativity large emotional damage award. UP will probably settle because they don't want to take the chance or they can go to trial, see what the jury/judge awards and settle off of that.

Without punitive damages, there is no real way to hit huge tens of millions of dollars award. Up until 2007, Illinois did not allow for emotional suffering either. Unfortunately for all of us, our lives are not worth that much. Seemed like a nice couple though.

+1

Thanks, I only have the businessman's overview of the law (one semester in B-school).

Is there any way the Village of Glenview could recover against UP?

There are always political solutions, such as blocking anything else they need government approval to do until they take steps to address things. In the long run, that could cost them far, far more than even a punitive settlement would.

The Pink line train I rode this morning had the color LED destination signs. It was a nice to see over the bland amber ones, and it will be a lot less confusing now that Green lines trains have the new cars too.

This is a no-brainer and I'm surprised they didn't roll them out with this feature already. Glad to see someone with common sense over at CTA.

Guess i missed the news they were doing that, but thank goodness. Two weeks ago, almost got on a pink line train (was trying to go Midway), my mind just assumed orange LED sign = Orange Line CTA.

All new 5000s will be delivered with color LED and all currently-operating 5000s will be retrofitted.

I'm curious about the technology for the LED signage. Does this restrict the color of any future CTA lines? AFAIK the choice of color is determined by legibility to customers, so the capabilities of the sign are important as is legibility on a map. (Not that we're actually considering any new lines...)

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6374/ctaled.jpg

I think they probably work like little TVs or Jumbotrons. So we could have the Iridescent Leopardspot Dropshadow Line if we wanted.

Things are a little better now, but back when I was designing the CTA map there was a surprising lack of consistency about color formulas from publication to publication. I have my doubts about how rigorously they're testing the RGB equivalents.

That sounds frustrating. Fortunately, additional colors are a problem we won't encounter for quite some time, unless the Grey Line goes forward (I nominate Aqua as the color).

I'm not all that bright (no pun intended) when it comes to light theory, but wouldn't a change in RGB intensity produce a simulated shade of gray?

Not to stray too far away from the topic at hand, but I have never been a fan of the color denotation system anyway. After the Cta moved away from destination based line names (Englewood-JP, Ravenswood, Howard, etc.) they should have gone all the way and dropped the various applied colors and developed a totally new, simplified naming system with no ties to previous historic usages.

An example I've thought would have been more successful would have been a play on the system's general reference as the 'L' and listed the lines as simple L# assignments. Red Line becomes L1, Purple L2, Blue L3, Pink L4, Brown L5 and so forth. While this methodical treatment may sound soulless and cold to some, mostly IMO because the colors use nostalgia by referencing the old line naming system, there is plenty of international precedent (Paris, most German systems, most Euro and Asian systems) not to mention NY and streamlines information design applications like maps, wayfinding, service alerts, etc., etc.

Colors could still be used, and lines would always keep their assigned colors, but the reference name would be IMO easier to communicate.

OK, now let me have it!

Meh... Metra's naming system is literally out of the Stone Age. Does anybody actually remember what the Rock Island Railroad was? In comparison, it's hard to get upset about CTA's relatively elegant color system, although if I implemented your proposal, I'd reassign numbers to bus routes 1-10 to avoid confusion.

Pace's naming system is too cold and efficient, though. A three-digit system allows for 1000 routes, which is too mind-boggling to comprehend and forces a reliance on trip planners and computer technology. It seems a lot more legible to name bus routes by a prefix that corresponds to a given suburban region, like NY's MTA uses prefixes for boroughs. N for North Shore, NW for Northwest, F for Fox Valley, W for West, SW for Southwest, S for South, X for regional express routes. Numbers from 1-99. Careful planning would assign one or more bus garages to each region and use the livery of the bus to reinforce regional boundaries.

I think colors work best from a visitors point of view. Visitors seem to think our system is pretty easy to use, made all the easier by not having expresses and such. It is clear from quickly looking on a map where the red line goes or the blue line without having to follow the path in the visitor's mind or convert L1 to a color on a map. But it would be kind of cool to see giant pink L4s around the city pointing the way to the pink line.

One time I was waiting on the platform and a very well dressed man came up and with an accent but very eloquently asked me for directions to Fullerton from Randolph. I told him brown line and he stared blankly at me. After trying a couple of times I pointed at the sign and said this color. He thanked me, sat down and pulled out a book. It was titled American Law for Business Graduates, or something like that, with Arabic underneath and nothing but Arabic inside. That is why he did not understand Kimball but I could not get how someone who spoke English so well did not know what color Brown was. And it is always bizarre when an out-of-towner calls a metra line by its schedule color. "I need to take the green line to Ravania."

I was also standing on the platform this past week to go out to Rush and wanted to make sure that I got on the right train since both the green line and pink have amber lights now. It was truly surprising how long it took my brain to confirm that amber 54th was where I wanted to go. I read 54th, thought to myself do I want 54th or 63rd. Then thought I want Cermak which is 54th/Cermak not Ashland/63rd. Then made sure by reading it again, then got on. This only took maybe a second but it seemed to take much longer then it should and certainly much longer then looking at the color long before the sign becomes readable. I guess I am just getting old.

While we're on the subject, does anyone know why CTA names some suburban stations after streets and others after cities? Rosemont and Forest Park would appear to be the major exceptions, but now both Skokie stations have "Skokie" in the name.

I for one like "named" lines, like London or Tokyo. It sort of gives each line a personality. Maybe it's not as efficient as colors in some way, but then once you have about ten lines you reach a point where you run out of easily distinguishable colors to use.

CTA with its eiht lines is pretty close to reaching that point. So what's left? Black/White are probably off limits because of racial undertones. Of course, there's gray. What else? Aqua? That makes ten. Any others? Lime, Indigo? To me it seems like those would be too hard to tell apart from other colors already in use.

..

I'll throw in one of my own. The CTA should get rid of all official references to the L and just call it the metro and the trademark Metra should be banished for all eternity. It is just too damn confusing.

Case in point, the Olympics. There were two major criticisms of Chicago's bid, no full money guarantee and lackluster transportation. After reading the IOC materials, I am convinced that some hack at the IOC did not understand the difference between Metra and the metro and figured the plan was for 2/3 of visitors to use Metra. I am also surprised that nobody on the Chicago bid committee picked up on this.

If we truly are a global city, just do away with the confusing branded names and go with generic but universal designations.

Ok, now let me have it!

Well I think we could all agree that the stunning lack of integration between the L and Metra is the primary issue, branding is down the list of things quite a bit that would have both systems function as a true regional system, i.e. the oft cited Paris Metro/RER.


But yeah I hate Metra's whole identity. It's not as much the name Metra as it is the dreary graphic identity and their obnoxious incessancy on naming the route after the legacy railroad/operator or on whatever freight RR currently owns the mainline. What other system in the world does this? Like ardecila said, who remembers the RI Lines? Well I don't remember it personally, and I love railroad history personally, but I do agree it makes no sense to continue to refer to the lines buy their decades old defunct previous operators.

And don't get me going on Metra's ancient and embarrassing rolling stock, clueless branding strategies and bizarre resistance to electrification.

Yellow. The Skokie Swift is such a short little dink of a line that it probably doesn't merit a full color like the rest. Minor platform extensions and a rebuilding of Dempster would allow alternate Red Line trains to continue beyond Howard, and Yellow could be re-assigned. (Of course, Skokie might protest at a one-seat ride to Englewood)

It would also make Howard a lot simpler to operate, with Red Line trains always on the center tracks, Purple Line trains always on the outer tracks, and no Yellow Line to muck everything up.

After that, there's (according to Mr. D) aqua, lime, maroon, and magenta. If proper care was taken, the Maroon Line would not cross the Red Line, the Lime Line would not cross the Green Line, etc. At a very minimum, they could never interline on the same tracks.

^^
Well said.

I always thought that the circle line could use white/black and get away with it. The signs would be a white circle on a black background or a black circle on a white background. Kind of like the London underground sign but in white and black. Everyone would call it the circle line but maps/signs would be able to use a black line.

I'm just waiting for the Lime Line so I can go get some Coronas and enjoy some sweet L boozin...

:haha:

Too bad, I was going to use the whole "Smoking, littering and eating are prohibited on CTA vehicles." Doesn't mention boozin' though...

I just think that the idea of using colors to name lines is bland. In my admittedly non-exhaustive research that I did just now in about 30 minutes, it seems the practice was introduced in 1965 in Boston, and since then, one by one our country's heavy rail systems have been gobbled up by this soul sucking vacuum of banality. Here's a history:

Boston, converted - 1965
Washington DC, opened - 1976
Miami, opened - 1984
Los Angeles, opened - 1990 (Thankfully, they have seemingly eschewed this practice for the Expo line)
Chicago, converted - 1993
Baltimore, converted - 2002
Atlanta, converted - 2010

That leaves three metro areas that haven't yet fallen victim to the trend of naming rail lines after colors. All three are complicated by the presence of multiple agencies operating rail transit. There's NYC with the MTA subway and PATH, but there are too many lines and the system is too complicated for it to work anyway. The only two left are SF (BART/MUNI) and Philadelphia (SEPTA/PATCO). It's probably just a lack of coordination between the two agencies that has kept it from happening there.

This says nothing about cities with light rail, most of which follow this practice as well. (Exceptions include VTA, which is complicated by its proximity to BART, and Seattle and Minneapolis, which each have only one line, and may yet adopt the practice when their second line opens.)

Naming lines after their colors on the map is a convenient unification of cartography, planning, and reality, but the colors tell us nothing about destinations, neighborhoods, history - the nature of the places where they go. Tell me, why must Chicago, which is so attached to calling its highways by their names in spite of the fact that they all have perfectly good numbers, also "give in" to this incredibly dull trend?

.......

There are a lot bigger things to worry about.

Because it's simple. Simplicity is the ultimate idea behind navigation. Color coding also goes well beyond numbering and lettering in effectiveness. All someone unfamiliar with the transit system needs to see are the bright colors to help them know where they are and where they can go. Same with folks with disabilities, or foreign language barriers. Plus saying "get on the red or blue" is concise and memorable in giving instructions.

The names of transit lines should not be gussied up with longer names. It shouldn't try to describe or recognize anyone or anything. It matters to no one that it's a dull trend because no one considers it a trend. It's an effective means of navigation.

I'm however not opposed to preserving some historical reminders and the CTA does have some legacy names on signage like "Dearborn Subway" on a granite header above a stair, but its prominence is trumped by modern signage.

I guess it makes sense on some level, but I think simplicity is just one factor; effectiveness should be the measure for a navigation system, not just simplicity. For example, I find Philadelphia's "Broad street line" and "Market-Frankford line" to be much more descriptive and effective than simply a color.

Once you start having to worry about telling the difference between lime and yellow, or purple and magenta, or brown and maroon, especially when looking at a faded 20 year old sign, all that simplicity goes out the window and the whole concept has outlived its usefulness.

And of course, as I mentioned before, it's boring.

I find what Tokyo has done to be particularly useful. On signage, Each line is represented by a single letter surrounded by a color-coded circle. To me, a single letter is certainly not harder to identify than a color. On top of it, the lines have names that are generally useful - "Tozai sen" = East-west line; Shinjuku line goes through (you guessed it) Shinjuku, etc. The colors are definitely useful, and of course they should not be abandoned, but naming lines after colors which have absolutely no relation to the geographical areas they traverse seems like, at the very least, a missed opportunity.

Anyway, I can see I'm alone on this, and I've said my piece, so I'll let it rest.

Too late.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincitie...for-metro.html

Circle line...lol That's a pipe dream if there ever was one.


The naming of highways has loose ties to Chicago and Illinois history (Jane Addams, Adlai Stevenson, Bishop Ford, etc). Either way, it's easier to say the name and know exactly what stretch of road I'm talking about. I-90 isn't nearly as descriptive as Jane Addams, Kennedy, Dan Ryan, or Skyway...which all carry the I-90 designation.

As far as transit coloring. Colors are just simple as hell. Which line? The red colored one. For most tourists, knowing the street names isn't all that relevant, especially in a grid-heavy city like Chicago. "Take the Sheffield Line to DePaul, get off and walk one block east to get to the restaurant"; or "Take the Red Line to Fullerton, get off, walk one block east to get to restaurant". It's the same thing, and for a tourist I doubt it makes much difference.

I could see the issue if there were a gazillion lines like Paris or NYC and having close or duplicate colors. But Chicago will never reach that point, at least not in my lifetime. At the end of the day I don't really care, I just don't see the need for that change.

Okay... "Take the Blue Line to Western then walk 2 blocks north." There are two Westerns on the Blue Line and two Harlems. There are two Ashlands on the Green Line. If Brown and Orange were ever combined, it would have two Kedzies and two Westerns. When you start having long crosstown routes, naming stations after major streets isn't such a good idea.

CTA tried to get around this by naming it "Western-Forest Park", but the station is nowhere near Forest Park and most people don't get the branch names.

I never said the station naming isn't bonkers. We're talking about line naming. Either way, for most tourists it doesn't matter since 99% of their activity is downtown/river north. The CTA definitely has some glaring flaws, and station naming is one of them.