^
If that was what they based their decision on and were consistent then it would be one thing but the routes chosen and the message delivered is just wonky. CTA concedes that they did not truncate 11 because of ridership but because it paralleled the Brown Line.

link

And the new version of 11 and the new route south of Fullerton play that out. If it was about ridership, then surely 11 shouldn't go all the way to Howard. Are people taking the 11 out to the Lincoln motels or Home Depot where they have to walk through large parking lots? No. In the end they are only cutting out less than 3.5 miles of the route but it is 3.5 miles of a decent and growing commercial district. Sure it helps operationally and if that were the main reason they CTA should have explained it better. In the end, 11 is being truncated because it runs parallel to the Brown line even though routes that run parallel to other L lines are being kept. Routes with less ridership are being kept. The plan calls for inconsistent changes and if CTA cannot effectively communicate why the inconsistencies exist, then they will face a public backlash.

On a completely separate note, there was a ground breaking ceremony for the Ravenswood Metra stop. (Which will have bus service on Lawrence but no longer on Wilson if CTAs plan is implemented). I will see if I can get over there to see the new temp. platform north of Lawrence and once they start doing actual construction work to get some pics but it is getting harder to do it with the sun going down earlier. Coverage at Center Square Journal, Metra Breaks Ground For New Lawrence Ave Station. Highlights from the article: Edit:Sorry about the tense. I realize that none of these changes have been approved.

Chicago unveils 1st pedestrian safety plan


September 6, 2012

By Bridget Doyle

Read More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2929678.story




http://www.trbimg.com/img-5048339d/t...120906-001/600

The Trib is reporting that construction on Clark/Division is imminent. Work should run until mid-2015.

I'm hoping the street entrances they use are something modern, in line with the modern design of the new mezzanine. If CTA's committed to using a prototype, the ones created for Clark/Lake are pretty cool and seem to fit with the "wave" motif in the Clark/Division design.

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im...ke.wells01.jpg

I always really liked the Wells-Lake canopy (designed by Teng & Assoc.), but modernism didn't fare well under Daley's watch. Now I fear the die is cast (somewhat literally) for a standardized Victorian Revival canopy, as we've seen on Dearborn, at State & Polk, and in the last year at Congress & LaSalle and at Grand & State.

Monday's Tribune story confirms it.

The plan can be found here for download: http://chicagopedestrianplan.org/pedestrian-plan/

Among the interesting tidbits [and there are some interesting ones (changes to six point intersections, changes to highway overpasses, road diets)] is a small little blurb that can be found on page 69:

Chicago ready to buy land near Union Station for bus rapid transit center


September 12, 2012

By FRAN SPIELMAN

Read More: http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...it-center.html




http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/site...YPE=image/jpeg

Open Streets, closed coffers: City Hall takes a pass on Chicago’s ciclovia.


September 11, 2012

By John Greenfield

Read More: http://gridchicago.com/2012/open-str...rid+Chicago%29




http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8442/...36c5fd77ae.jpg




http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8307/...a05dc0c311.jpg




http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8460/...eb7e3ae3b8.jpg




http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8305/...daec24a80c.jpg

Is the author (and are the organizers) aware of what "ciclovia" means? What they're talking about and what a ciclovia are seems like radically different things.

CTA board OKs decrowding plan Tribune story here.

Are they replacing the Catenary along the South Shore & Metra Electric lines...?

It does say cast-iron.

Fortunately, the (open) staircases used at Grand are fairly simple and acceptable. The ornate stuff they installed at LaSalle is cartoonish, oversized and totally inappropriate for Clark/Division with its tiny sidewalks, so I hope we don't get that. Do all the subway entrances need to be covered?

No, but tell me what it's like walking down the stairs after a January or February snowstorm and tell me what you think about covers then. :/

Sucks if you're in a rush, but grab the handrails and you should be fine.

It's also possible to include heating elements beneath the stair treads, and obviously there's a trench drain at the bottom.

Which would be cheaper to do, heaters on each stair or a simple roof over the entrance? I think the roof would be cheaper, not only immediately but also over a long time.

In terms of first cost? It's probably a wash. Each of those fancy entrances with roof costs several hundred thousand dollars (link).

I'm not sure about lifecycle costs. Underground heating systems don't have the best reputation, but it depends on what kind of system you use and how the stairs are built.

I'd wager dollars for doughnuts that the entrances will be very similar to the entrances at Grand. I think the garish LaSalle St. entrances had more to do with the Congress Parkway improvement then with providing cta riders with covered access. Huge sweeping cast iron banana leaves fits in better with a lush luxurious pedestrian boulevard envisioned in the Congress Parkway renderings but doesn't fit well in the cramped busy sidewalks of Clark/Division.

Dispute over how to split funds divides RTA board
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...5,0,3371081.s\
tory


By Richard Wronski, Chicago Tribune reporter
September 15, 2012

Advocates for the CTA who were just appointed to the Regional Transportation
Authority board by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel helped thwart efforts Friday to
approve 2013 budget goals, effectively putting the RTA in violation of state
law.

The dispute — over a comparatively minor sum of discretionary funding for the
three transit agencies the RTA oversees — pitted Chicago representatives on the
agency's 16-member board against suburban directors.

Despite two offers of compromise by the suburban officials, the Chicago
representatives, led by former CTA Chairwoman Carole Brown, dug in their heels
and refused to yield.

"I'm uncomfortable with the erosion of funding for the CTA," Brown said.

Joining Brown were two new members of the board, Anthony Anderson and
Christopher Melvin Jr., whose appointments by Emanuel were announced Thursday.

Approval of the budget measure needed a supermajority vote of the board, 12
votes, but fell short 8-6. Two board members were absent.

As a result, the RTA board failed to approve the budget goals, known technically
as marks, intended to provide guidance for the transit agencies as they
formulate their budgets. Friday was the state-mandated deadline for the RTA to
act.

Officials knew of no repercussions the RTA faces by not approving the goals. But
some suburban board members, including Dwight Magalis, of Libertyville,
expressed frustration at not fulfilling the agency's statutory obligation.

RTA Chairman John Gates Jr., who tried to broker a compromise, cast the lone
vote against adjourning Friday's meeting without a resolution.

At issue was the percentage of discretionary funding that the RTA would allocate
to the three transit agencies in 2013.

The RTA staff proposed reducing the CTA's share from 98.3 percent in 2012 to
95.2 percent in 2013. Metra and Pace would split the remaining 4.8 percent.

The difference reflected about $6 million of more than $1.276 billion in the
combined proposed operating budgets of the CTA, Metra and Pace for next year.

But Brown and the other CTA advocates rejected this move, saying the transit
agency was entitled to the "lion's share" of the RTA's discretionary funds.

Meanwhile on Friday, Gates and Joseph Costello, the RTA's executive director,
unveiled a plan to fund equipment and infrastructure improvements on the transit
systems through a $2.5 billion bond program.

Officials hope to bring the proposal before the General Assembly for approval
next year.

rwronski@...


Mike Payne

Civic group calls for end to RTA
 

Remember back in August when George Ranney of Metropolitan Strategies said the RTA (and it's Service Boards CTA, Metra, and Pace) should be dissolved and re-organized?

Well here (Post #9617 below - "Dispute over how to split funds divides RTA board") we have a perfect example of how they are A L L much too DAMN C H I L D I S H to be in control of Billions of Transit dollars, and providing competent and appropriate Transit services to the NE Illinois region ("He got a bigger piece of pie, boo-fracking hoo").

Mike Payne



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ce-civic-group


Civic group calls for end to RTA Transit agency should be merged with regional
planning unit, group says

August 12, 2012|By Richard Wronski, Chicago Tribune reporter


One of Chicago's most influential civic groups is calling for an end to the
Regional Transportation Authority, saying the nearly 40-year-old agency is
broken and should be merged with another.

The effort by Metropolis Strategies is spearheaded by the group's president and CEO, George Ranney, who said the relationship between the RTA and its
subordinates — the CTA, Metra and Pace — is dysfunctional and ripe for a change.


"In Chicago, we've been content to go along with a transportation system that was once a real champion and now is in real danger of becoming derelict," said Ranney, who is widely credited with being the architect of the RTA when it was created in 1974.

Metropolis Strategies said it believes the agency is no longer the best overseer of the nation's third-largest transit system, which provides more than 2 million rides a day.

A better plan, the civic group proposes, would be to create a new entity by
merging the RTA with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, a low-profile organization responsible for land use and transportation planning in
northeastern Illinois.

The move would integrate regional planning and transit oversight, Metropolis
Strategies said. It also would save at least $10 million a year, or about 20
percent of the agencies' combined budgets, by reducing overhead, administrative costs and duplicate functions, the group said.

"It's time to bring some fresh thinking to the transit issue," said Ranney, 72.
"Continuing to ignore the problem as we are now ... is a road to disaster."

RTA Chairman John Gates Jr. disputes Metropolis Strategies' assessment. While describing longtime friend Ranney as thoughtful, Gates defends the RTA
performance and dismisses a merger with CMAP as a "pie-in-the-sky idea."

"I'd love to cure cancer. I'd love to see Middle East peace. But (combining the
agencies) doesn't really work as a practical matter," said Gates, who took over at the RTA in 2010 after a successful business career as co-founder of
CenterPoint Properties Trust.

"Given the scale of what the RTA does, it would swamp what CMAP does, and
probably lessen CMAP's effectiveness," he said.


A scathing critique

Independent experts don't appear to be sure, either. DePaul University
transportation professor Joseph Schwieterman, who has written a book about the history of Chicago's planning efforts, said the RTA proposal raises issues of governmental efficiency, taxing power and political obstacles.

"This landscape is pretty complex," Schwieterman said. "But you could say it's
worthwhile to explore all the options, given our region's problems."


Ranney said his goal is not simply to get rid of the RTA. Rather, he said, the
region needs a new agency that can respond better to the challenge of shrinking transit use in the face of growing population.

Between 1980 and 2010, Metropolis Strategies said, the region's population has grown by 1.2 million, or 17 percent, to 8.3 million. Meanwhile, annual RTA
system ridership has decreased by 20 percent, down 162 million annual rides to 652 million rides.

In 2007, Illinois Auditor General William Holland issued a scathing critique of
the RTA, calling for an overhaul of the agency. The report cited a lack of
leadership and oversight and feuding among the transit agencies, among other
problems.

The Legislature responded in 2008 by enacting a new state law beefing up the
RTA's powers while boosting its funding from sales taxes and Chicago's real
estate property transfer tax.

A serious mismatch remains between what the law directs the RTA to do and its capacity to deliver, said Metropolis Strategies, conceding the agency has played a vital role over the years.

The RTA's Gates said the agency is exercising proper oversight, but acknowledged that integrating the three service boards into a regional system remains a challenge.

"In the DNA of all the service boards, there is a certain amount of mistrust of
the others," he said. "This is something we have to overcome."

At RTA board meetings, directors representing the city and suburbs often split
into factions favoring the CTA, Metra or Pace.

"That's a very good thing," Gates said. "If everybody sat there and sang
'Kumbaya' all the time, they'd probably be wasting a lot of assets and a lot of
time. Now there's a very healthy competition for the scarce resources."


Political hurdles

CMAP is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the
region. It is responsible for approving transportation funds, including money
for the RTA's capital programs.

CMAP's chairman, Gerald Bennett, said the agency's directors discussed the
Metropolis proposal at a board meeting in June but took no action.

"We want to know more details on what would be involved," said Bennett, the
mayor of Palos Hills.

Jeffrey Jump

Apparently this is the new branding for the Jeffrey BRT, which will include new bus liveries and signage. I assume it has the potential to be extended to future BRT lines, like LA has MetroRapid or NY has Select. I can't decide if I like it or not. It's got simplicity working for it, though.

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/brt/jumplogo.png

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...ngshowcase.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8305/8...d6696607_z.jpg
source

There has been quite a lull in the UP construction by my house. Most of the work has moved north of Lawrence and south of Montrose even though some bridges, like Montrose, aren't finished. Here are some photos.

Montrose has not been touched in awhile
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8295/8...7afc2fef_z.jpg
but the other side is ready
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8029/8...f78ef8e5_z.jpg
The north bound temporary platform is under construction. The cranes in the distance are working on Winnemac
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/8...a65d6e58_z.jpg
The retaining wall is coming together south of Montrose.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8303/8...7b756d51_z.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8452/8...739b2093_z.jpg

^ It does give a feeling that things are going slow. But it is supposed to be something like 22 viaducts, and at least 1 (probably 2) lengths of trackage along that entire length, over 7 years - so I guess they have to pace themselves nice and slow (?!?). I am curious why, in the space of the time any Olympic Games awardee city is given to build all of its necessary stadiums and transport systems, we can barely get 4 miles of low-intensity commuter rail refurbished.

a) there's no particular deadline so work can be spread out longer to make it easier to pay for

b) building a new line, while having its own set of issues, can usually have more things done at once because it doesn't have to worry about continued operations of the service

Because in other cities service and economy are the priority factors.

In the Chicago area protecting your "Childish Transit Fiefdom" is FAR AND AWAY the MOST important factor in ANY (Transit) decision: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3371081.story

If there no particular deadline why are they doing it at all? I liked the look of the vintage riveted bridges alot! Plus, there's probably 1000's of railroad bridges around Chicago all the same age why aren't any other ones being replaced? I thought these ones were being replaced for higher truck clearances, but they seem to be the same height as the new ones so why bother. Just give them a new coat of paint.

As I recall Metra's logic was that eventually the maintenance cost of keeping the existing bridges in sound condition would exceed replacement cost in the coming years. They opted to start replacement with a generous time schedule to keep costs down since the existing structures are still serviceable. They are rebuilding old retaining walls/abutments as needed too. The reconstruction will also pave the way for adding a 3rd track back to the line.

Well, initially they were willing to throw away the third track.

Three-track operation could allow for a limited S-bahn type service to Evanston. The UP-N is really the only mainline besides Metra Electric that is lined with dense residential neighborhoods, so it's a natural candidate. It would also act as a second rapid transit line to the North Side.

Most masonry buildings don't have any particular deadline for tuckpointing and deteriorating stone replacement, but if your house needs it, you schedule it and do it. That's what maintenance is.

They had deteriorated to a point where repairs would be expensive. The newer designs are better and will last longer

To be fair, I see they are indeed doing a great deal of work on the retaining wall and rebuilding the earth fill structure between (and beyond) Wilson and Irving Park.

But why the wooden retaining planks? Are they temporary (e.g. forms for concrete pour) or are they treated to never rot, ever?

Has Metra or UP said they would have 3 tracks at the end of this project, or just that the trackbed, including viaducts, would accommodate the laying of a 3rd track if desired?

Also, the thought of 3-track operation is exciting (if presently unlikely), even if it terminated at Peterson (the northern extent of this construction project) or Ravenswood. Under an S-bahn scenario, would electrification be the only practical choice, and if so, would third-rail power be more likely (cheaper buildout and maintenance) or less likely (hazard to workers maintaining the other 2 tracks) than catenary power?

Could be any number of things. Certainly if the wood lagging is used as formwork for a sufficiently-reinforced concrete pour, the wood can be left in the ground indefinitely. I don't know the lifespan of treated wood in underground conditions, but it doesn't matter since the wood will serve no structural role. Alternately, Metra may be using a precast concrete panel between each steel soldier pile.


Not even that much. There will be space for a third track within the ROW, but not the viaducts and probably not even a full trackbed. The future third track will take the place of the current southbound track along the east side of the ROW.

Regional rail/s-bahn doesn't require any kind of electrical power system necessarily. If I were running the system, I'd spring for an FRA waiver to run lightweight DMUs, and construct high platforms. Getting a waiver shouldn't be a problem since the UP-North line sees no freight traffic.

^^^ I’ve seen some midday freight movements at the Elston & LeMoyne yard, but those can likely be rescheduled.

I’d also say that Metra’s heavy staffing is a much bigger obstacle to higher frequency than rolling stock.

I think those freights arrive at Elston/LeMoyne via the UP-NW line. You're right that there is a trickle of freight traffic on the shared segment, though. Seems like a creative/inexpensive combination of track design and scheduling should allow lightweight, high-platform service to coexist with the trickle of freight traffic.

From today's Trib. . .

CTA, Pace will share new fare card, beginning next summer

So...what happened 3-days pass? Is that no longer existed? When it happening? I usually ride on Chicago Transit by last year. I took on Blue Line from ORD to Clark/Lake Station. When they did change it?

There are of course many good reasons to get a waiver and buy lightweight trains, but performance-wise, you're better off with an M8 or Silverliner V than with a noncompliant DMU. Diesel limits your acceleration and speed, and doesn't really belong in a large city with frequent stop spacing.

M8, Silverliner, or any EMU, will not work without electricity, whether from an overhead catenary wire or third rail. The fact remains that most LIRR corridors to the easternmost points don't have electricity available to power EMUs, and LIRR isn't planning to electrified them.
So the question we should be asking is whether DMUs can be faster than diesel power locomotives and coach cars? I believe you'll discover that DMUs are faster.

Its on the low side of the list of things...but its there...

While I agree, I think flexibility is the key to get Metra to accept a regional-type service. S-Bahn service running to Evanston would use rolling stock that is compatible with the entire line up to Kenosha. Plus, Metra's been exploring the use of DMUs for awhile now.

I'm all in favor of electrification but a capital project combining a third track, a set of DMUs, and a set of new platforms is an order of magnitude cheaper than one that includes electrification up to Kenosha. Maybe about $300 million vs. $2-3 billion, using costs from MBTA's Fairmount Line and Caltrain.

^ Wasn't there a proposal for service on a Chicago Belt line which was out west aways say towards Aurora?

Instead of creating an s-bahn style system, why not fix the purple line and run an honest express route. It would serve basically the same purpose and with a route through the subway, probably would take the same amount of time.

I was hoping somebody had an answer to the wooden board question but I guess we will have to wait and see. There are two different types in each section, the lower section is horizontal, a middle vertical section and the upper section is horizontal. So why the difference?

The bridges do provide additional clearance but it is not much. I estimate about 4-6 inches difference between the old bridges and new bridges although I have not climbed up and measured.

The "regional line" isn't intended to get people to/from Evanston quickly. It's intended to bring rapid transit service to those parts of the North Side that aren't close to the L network... Roscoe Village, West Lakeview, West DePaul, etc. You'd add stations at, say, Diversey, Irving Park (->Brown Line), and Peterson/Ridge. The North Side is dense enough to support two rapid transit corridors into downtown, or three if they could ever build one along the lakefront.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...outh-side.html

^^
That I dig. Roscoe Village and south could certainly use a rapid transit connection.

^
CTA is getting perilously close to the point where even after the slow zone work on the red line, there will still be the same amount of slow zones as there were when the project was first announced. That was stated poorly, basically, if you take Sept. 2012 slow zones and subtract the Dan Ryan slow zones, it equals the slow zones that existed in June 2012 when they announced the Dan Ryan project. I am not sure how much the north side slow zone work will accomplish so I did not subtract that. But after all the hand wringing about how bad the slow zones on the Dan Ryan branch are, the Congress branch is almost as bad and slow zones have been popping up on all tracks between Belmont and Fullerton. CTA cannot fix them fast enough.

It seems to me, that city hall and the various agencies are very gung-ho and self congratulatory even though the actual results are not large. For every new protected bike lane, small though that number might be, there is twice as many striped bike lanes made useless by Comed or Peoples tearing up the pavement. It seems like we are just barely treading water. Either that or maybe I am just too pessimistic.

Maintenance should be a constant in a transit agency—you can’t just build or fix something and then let it sit around for twenty years. I’m not sure about the CTA’s regular rail schedule maintenance, but it sometimes seems like they defer until they can get a state/federal grant to fix things, which certainly isn’t the wisest choice—it leads to service deterioration over a long period, followed by a short period of increased disruption once things are fixed (the city’s culture of measure once, repair [and ask for bids] twice doesn’t help, either).

We're burdened by an antiquated system that requires more frequent and expensive maintenance. Tracks and switches still rest on old wood ties and in some parts, century old support structures. It's like maintaining an old car. You can put in new components, but the pieces seems to fail more quickly.

While I agree that maintenance should be constant, a good modernized system requires less attention if it's built to last. In a perfect world, entire sections of the red line subway, and red line North branch would totally be demolished and rebuilt because they're obsolete. There's nothing acceptable about their design and operation here in the 21st century.

We've got a mostly-outdoor system with heavy traffic in a cold climate. It's like, the worst possible combination for maintenance.

The elevated lines are bad, but the expressway-median lines are even worse. They sit in a trench, so they have all the drainage problems of a subway, yet they're exposed to the elements and even an increased percentage of exposure since they're surrounded by an expressway that kicks up salty mist.

Mr. D posted an intriguing landscape proposal for the extra space in the Eisenhower median... presumably the landscaping would improve the environment around tracks and platforms by restricting the salt mist and soaking up the rain. A landscape barrier and swale system could work wonders.

Red Line Shutdown Yahoo Group
 

I have just created a new Yahoo Group "Red Line Shutdown" to acquire and distribute Information, Ideas, and Comments about the Shutdown;
and I will be asking Harvey Kahler to be an additional Moderator for the Group: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/REDLINESHUTDOWN/

Please consider joining the Group, and giving us access to your GREAT STOREHOUSE of knowledge - as you guys know A LOT about Chicago's
Transit situation and Infrastructure.

The Group is still in the process of being set-up, so it may be a while before it is working correctly; any suggestions on how to make it work better?

(And N O - I am N O T going to Delete it)


Thanks - and Welcome,


Mike Payne

Schematic Design, Cermak Green Line Station

http://imageshack.us/a/img254/9994/c...nstation02.jpg

Taking inspiration from Koolhaas and Goldberg's nearby buildings. Reminds me of some of Vancouver's new stations, too.

^ url points to a file named "ctamorganstation02.jpg" - can you please confirm you have not gotten folks like me extremely excited for naught? I realize the streets shown aren't consistent with Morgan, but to be sure...

There appears to be a White Castle in the foreground...

That's definitely Cermak.