I think it would be best to build it as a trollway...
:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

I agree there is development already taking place but expanding highways into this area would only be a boon to the consumption of open land. Certainly if you talk about areas to the east of 83 including vernon hills, libertyville, buffalo grove, mundelein, there is plenty of suburban development. But if you look at other expressways and the distance they influence development, a route 53 extension would be devestating. Those areas that i just listed currently exist because of their proximity to 94. I don't mind so much the pockets of crystal lake, mchenry, cary or fox river grove ... but if we build this extension, at least now, i think it would undermind any sense of open space preservation and probably hurt those villages efforts to develop a downtown as retail developers fill in the unused land with big boxes.

Also, from the larger picture, i think it would be wise to at least wait and see what gas prices are going to do to our growth patterns. I have a gut feeling that even with a 53 extension, outlying places like a fox lake, wauconda, or lake barrington are going to become less desirable due to the excessive driving distances required to live there. I just think there are much better areas to spend highway dollars than building this stretch of road. (like fix the potholes on LSD or my own personal express lane on the kennnedy, or better yet, an underground, express version of sheridan road :yes: )

It's about time some of the south side lines shared in the fun derailments.


CTA Green Line train derails on Chicago's South Side
Injuries reported, but not thought serious
By Dan P. Blake | Tribune reporter

Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: A CTA Green Line train derailed on Chicago's South Side Wednesday morning, injuring about 10 people, but none of the injuries was believed serious, fire officials said.

The derailment, which involved the front two cars on a southbound four-car train, occurred shortly after 10 a.m. at a junction near 59th Street and Prairie Avenue, officials said. The 59th Street junction is where Green Line trains switch to head either to the Ashland/63rd stop or the East 63rd/ Cottage Grove branch of the line.

The derailment occurred on elevated tracks, but the cars did not fall to the street.

Thirty-one people were examined on the scene, said Fire Department spokesman Larry Langford, but only 10 were taken to hospitals. Of those, seven were in good condition and three were in fair condition.

A short distance from the tracks, fire crews set up triage areas where paramedics evaluated passengers. In one of those areas, authorities were seeing at least a dozen passengers.

Those who were in need of medical attention were then being taken to area hospitals.

Service was suspended on the Green Line between the two southern branch line terminuses of the Green Line and the 35th- Bronzeville-IIT stop, according to the CTA. A bus shuttle is in place in both directions.

At the spot of the derailment, the first car of the four-car train appeared headed in one direction with the three other cars in another. The first car landed on southbound tracks while the other three were on the westbound segment

^^^ Lovely. :no:

And comparatively new trackage, too. In most countries, a criminal investigation would be opened into this. It's the kind of serious tone that I'll be missing here.

Judging by the location, it looks like it was probably a signal or switching problem rather than bad track per se... The Tribune footage shows the front car on the southbound tracks and the other cars on the tracks splitting off to the west.

Weren't the signals and switches renovated along with the track...?

Edit:

Authorities Wednesday afternoon blamed the accident on operator error.

The train derailed on the CTA Green Line near 59th Street. One train car continued due south, while another decoupled and veered off to the west. CTA President Ron Huberman said Wednesday morning investigators are looking at the signal system. It was later determined that the operator overrode the safety switch and ran a red light.

From: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/green.l....2.734591.html

I don't know if this is "better" or "worse." The CTA's personnel problems are not less severe than its infrastructural ones, in any case.

That is f'in crazy. Don't we have the technology to prevent this: "the operator overrode the safety switch and ran a red light."

If this kind of behavior by operators is widespread, god help us all.

Taft

Well, the other option is to do something completely automated, like in Vancouver or San Francisco. It's really expensive, and it's not foolproof. I believe it took SF years to work out the kinks in BART.

We have operator overrides because sometimes the signals are wrong... but when the signals are right, the override can cause problems of its own.

It's not clear whether or not you're even aware of this, but you're talking about a minimum of three different things in your paragraph above. You keep using "they" in your posts - if you want to be understood, you really, really need to start being specific. It's very hard for people to understand your points when you aren't specific about the subject or object in your sentences. I know grammar isn't very exciting, but it is a very important part of communication.

So, which subjects do you want to talk about?

1) Peotone, the proposed new airport for the Chicago region, about 40 miles from downtown (O'Hare is about 15 miles from downtown, for comparison). This is a State project, not a city one, and the proposed site is still cornfields. The City of Chicago is against this because it would be the State's airport.

2) Gary's airport, with current work to extend a runway. There are other proposals (not plans) around transit links. Currently that have no passenger air service (and I've not heard of any starting, not in June, currently not ever). There are proposals that are almost plans to add a transit-type link to Gary airport, but I don't know that it's been funded yet. Gary does have support from the City of Chicago going for it, though.

3) O'Hare's expansion project, and all it entails.

4) The advocacy by a high-speed rail advocacy group that O'Hare be outfitted with high-speed rail connections? This is not currently planned, just "suggested" by citizen groups.

Well first of all I just wanted any update info having to do with updates and progress to Gary as the third airport. I have now read a few different places that for the time being the proposal of building the new airport is dead and that they are just going to use Gary/Chicago International airport because it will be alot cheaper and it is closer to the downtown area. And I just read online in a news article that starting in July, Viva Aerobus is trying to get flights from Gary/Chicago to Monterrey, Mexico. I hope the plans for the new terminal get approved and eventually get built. It would be great to have another large airport here in Chicago. The city of Chicago is completely in support of the renovation of Gary/Chicago airport!

Skybus had service out of Gary/Chicago for a very brief time before their bankruptcy. I think there have been a few tentative starts at passenger service but nothing that has stuck.

^Until Midway is totally tapped out on capacity (unlikely to be imminent given current capacity cuts) there will be insufficient demand to support scheduled service out of Gary. That said, they would be wise to have their facilities ready to rock and roll when the time comes that new capacity is needed (I would guess about 15 years out, given that O'hare will have some additional capacity for some LCC flights to absorb after OMP)

I think it will start getting really good air service long before 15 years, but I dont think a new terminal would be finished for maybe 15 years or so...that is unless we get the bid for the 2016 Olympics, then I think they will put a rush on getting the Gary/Chicago International airport up to par with the others and making it another large hub for the city. It would be one if not the closest airport to the Olympic Village so I think that will make a big difference too!

I would suggest not rushing to judgment on the 59th Street derailment based on clueless news reports. What I'm hearing is that the motorman, a 30-year-veteran, called in and got permission to move (a "call-on") through a signal that would not clear. This is done every day at various places on the system. The first car took the switch properly, but the second one didn't, suggesting that the switch may have moved under the train as it was going through.

That would be better, I guess. Though still unsettling that a key piece of equipment could fail in such a way.

The way Huberman was talking, though, it really sounded like operator error. I guess the media could have been taking his comments out of context...

Taft

Chicago Olympics will require transit upgrade
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...0,487667.story

By Philip Hersh | Tribune reporter
May 30, 2008


A senior Chicago 2016 bid committee official said Thursday transportation improvements would be critical to the city's hopes to be chosen Olympic Games host.

According to Doug Arnot, Chicago 2016 venues and games operations director, transportation is a potential weakness, particularly for a bid working with a largely antiquated public transportation system. Among the other strong bids, Tokyo and Madrid have more modern subway systems and more extensive rail networks,

We wouldn't be surprised to see some remarks [in the report] on transportation," Arnot said. "They (IOC members) know there is good infrastructure, but it has a bit of history to it. We expect that is going to be a bit of concern on their part."

Many cities have used the Olympics as a catalyst for improvements in transportation. Salt Lake City found that federal money for highway upgrades suddenly become much more available after it was named 2002 Winter Games host.

..

It seemed really odd that Hilkevitch never mentions the plan to create an off-street bus loading area on that surface parking lot just south of Jackson between Canal and Clinton. I had the impression that was actually being worked on.

Well... wouldn't Amtrak be hesitant to create a loading zone for competitors (Megabus) on their own property? The streets are public right-of-way, so Amtrak can't keep them away so long as the city approves.

Of course, I'm totally supportive of the effort to create a bus loading zone on the parking lot... I saw a conceptual rendering at the "Downtown Airport" website with three lanes (one each for CTA buses, light rail, and intercity buses). I suppose in the absence of light rail, the third lane could be made into a dignified taxi stand, assuming that Amtrak continues to be paranoid about the underground carriageways.

The idea is really good, and it's a far safer way to load buses without snarling traffic. I do agree that Canal needs to be made two-way, so the awkward jersey barriers and contraflow lane can be removed in front of Union Station... :yuck:

One nice thing about putting a bus loading zone there; depending on the cost that the city wants to sink into it (surely a good use of TIF funds), they can build stairs to the underground garage walkway and covered waiting platforms, thus offering a completely dry way to get from train platform to bus/taxi.