Actually, the cheapest way would to put back the Elston and Clybourn bus routes.

I wouldn't hold my breath for any transit in their "transitway" proposal. It was pretty vague with a lot of pie in the sky images. but part of it was the Cherry Ave bridge, which is too narrow, and the other end would either need a new bridge and streets, or leap onto Halsted. It'll end up being a continuous bike route at best.

Got word demos for the the Belmont Flyover are being delayed. I got this in a text from an engineer on the project, he is being laid off with a few others because of the delay. It has something to do with tenants in buildings not leaving. I do not know specifics but should get them tonight.

^ Ahhh the RLTO, biting its authors in the butt!

Pink Line needs another stop in W Loop vicinity

Agree, this area is quickly becoming the second largest employment area in the city. There should be one placed at Monroe right by the United Center to server the 100+ large events there annually, along with Malcom X College, and the booming office scene.

I could be wrong, but does the Wirtz family owns the parking lots by United Center?

I've always wanted a stop on Madison. It would make getting to the UC feasible for most people without having to use a car. The planned Damen stop on the Green line is fairly close, but enough people will gripe about having to walk 5 blocks that they will continue to drive as long as parking is abundant. The two blocks from the Pink line is the perfect distance.

As the West Loop fills up with development, that sea of parking around the UC will start looking real ripe for the picking.

A Madison Pink Line stop would pair nicely with the new Green Line Stop just North of United Center (Damen? forget where?). The West Loop from Halsted to about Ashland should be midrise and everything around United Center and UIC should be allowed to revert to super dense uses akin to downtown. The area around United Center should be allowed to develop into LA Live type configuration with ample nightlife and hospitality. The stuff South of the freeway should become high density retail like the other near sides of downtown (near south by Roosevelt and Near North by North/Clyborn). The area around IMD should continue to be an outlet for high density uses like the proposed Gateway development that has seen no movement for years.

A user like Amazon could even choose to locate on the far side of the West Loop and have as much land as it wants to develop into 30 story office buildings right next to multiple transit stops. The Blue Line, Pink Line, and Green Line all take people basically straight to the commuter rail stations and the rest of the city. I see this sea of parking and vacant lots as the gateway to reviving the West side (i.e. Garfield park). The West Loop is really booming because it is now in a pincer movement between Pilsen/University Village and Ukrainian Village/Wicker Park. Once the area around United Center is quickly being surrounded too. Someday a subway could connect the Paulina Connector back up to the Blue Line along Ashland just like the good old ways, have a new Subway swing East there and go to Division. Have it connect with Ashland Orange Line and swing back into downtown connecting into the Red Line Subway at Roosevelt where it loops back up to Division Red Line. That would be the ultimate completion of Downtown, these areas are totally vacant right now, huge swaths of NIMBY less land ripe for intense development.

^ It was really a shame that the CTA demolished the old Metropolitan Northwest line between Milwaukee and Lake (as well as the Humboldt Park branch). If those lines survived to the present day, they would have seen an explosion of ridership as those neighborhoods gentrified and developed.

Would have made completing the Circle Line a lot more attainable as well, since most of the new track placement would have been in industrial areas with few NIMBYs and plenty of space for right of ways.

Elston and Clybourn bus routes would still have to crawl through the mighty traffic jams that plague the corridor. Plus, neither one would provide good service to Goose Island. Maybe the Elston bus, but even there, multiple pedestrian bridges would need to be built. Both streets are lined with auto-oriented development, which is unlikely to change anytime soon, and is not conducive to transit. To the extent that the North Branch develops walkable places, it will be in the areas directly along the river, and along the proposed route of the transitway.

This is really not even close to "pie in the sky". It's eminently reasonable, and any other world-class city would probably be planning something even more ambitious. It's literally less than a mile of new roadway, built across vacant or low-intensity land, and two short river bridges, only one of which needs to be operable. The rest of the corridor uses existing streets that are fairly wide, from one property line to the other, that are lightly used.

I'm not convinced this is the best way to serve transit demand in the corridor, but it doesn't seem like a bad proposal on its face. If it's built as a busway instead of a streetcar, then buses can fan out at each end to serve multiple destinations, including linking to CTA and Metra stations in areas where the busway really can't go. Construction can be financed through a TIF, and the operations can be semi-privatized and funded by landlords and businesses in the corridor.

Blue Line ridership is already close to maxed out at peak times. It's worth remembering that these branches closed to simplify service on the Blue Line and turn it into a frequent, 24-hour powerhouse transit line. Branching isn't good for high-ridership, rapid transit lines. Reverse branching, where inbound trains split into two paths to downtown, is even worse.

Imagine if you were trying to catch a train to Logan Square or O'Hare, but half the northbound trains would be useless to you because they'd be heading to Humboldt instead. Or if every inbound train from O'Hare had to wait 90 seconds at North Ave Junction while a Humboldt train crossed. I guess you could run the Humboldt branch as a shuttle to Damen, kinda like the Yellow Line, but remember, it only went west to Lawndale. It was useless for anyone in West Humboldt or Austin, better to just run the North Ave bus more frequently.

What would prevent you from operating the routes as different lines? The Humboldt line could have run from Lawndale/North to Milwaukee, then down Paulina to the Green Line and continued onward on the Douglas branch. The Blue line would continue to operate as it does now. The only sections that would share tracks would have been roughly the mile of Milwaukee between North and roughly Hermitage/Ellen St. Quad tracking that section would allow for more train volume.

I will admit there would be a traffic jam where the tracks split at North & Milwaukee, ala the Belmont junction on the north side main line. That could have been addressed in several ways, such as giving priority to Blue line trains over Humboldt trains, if the money for a fly over was unavailable for instance.

Had the Met extended the Humboldt line to at least Pulaski, it definitely would have been a much more viable line of course.

Not to get too technical, but if you had two separate lines and a 4-track section around Damen, you could run the two lines in parallel with no track crossings required. However, a line that went from Humboldt Park branch to Douglas branch, as you suggest, would probably be a total ridership loser without a connection to downtown.

CTA's planning decisions in the 1950s make sense given the time. Their infrastructure was decaying. The inner city neighborhoods with the best L service were quickly declining, as the buildings in these neighborhoods were now hitting 50-60 years old, and 20 years of Depression and WWII had not allowed for proper maintenance. There was little hope of these neighborhoods being revived, as young families were fleeing the city as fast as their pocketbooks would allow, and once they moved there, they tended to buy a new car and ditch transit.

With those kind of pressures, something had to give... CTA's plan of a streamlined, skeletal rail system with feeder buses was economical and still allowed for decent transit service to all corners of the city. That disciplined plan later allowed for new expansions to the Far Northwest Side and the Far South Side, eventually the Southwest Side too.

Goose Island doesn't really figure in. It is still a PMD It has had its uses expanded, but it's pretty much expected to continue as it has. It also has limited need for transit access. There is no place on Goose Island you can't walk in 15 min. If required you could make the two routes cross over at Division and bring the walk to 7 1/2. But it's moot. All the action will be north of North or east of Halsted.
The transit needs are north from Ogilvie, and N/S from each of the two Clybourns. All of which would be adequately served by a couple of 2 1/2 mile bus routes ride over existing infrastructure.

Other "world class" cities limit their property taxes by limiting the rate and have been able to take advantage increases in property value.
We limit our base levy's dollar value. We cannot take advantage of rising property values unless it rises by tearing down the old and building new in its place (or by playing the TIF game). We said that we will pay for no more services than we had in 1994, and cannot expect any more.
In addition, the CTA's mission is not to move as many people as possible. The CTA's mission is to stay afloat. Riders only pay half the cost of operations. The taxes that pay the other half are not matching funds, they are essentially fixed amount not related to ridership. To pay his own way, each new commuter will have to spend 200 retail dollars a day or sell $750,000 in real estate each year. Adding service expenses to serve passengers who only pay half those costs is a losing proposition. Their path to sustainability is to to shoehorn more riders into the current level of service or the same number of riders into a lower level of service.

Any money to create new bridges and roads to serve transit will have to come from federal sources. Unlikely in the current administration.

That is the definition of pie in the sky

One that stretches between Madison and Monroe would be good. Other than cost, I never really understood why they didn't make ones at both Halsted and Racine instead of just one at Morgan (other than cost, which I'm sure is the primary reason, with the proximity to Clinton being a secondary reason.

If the area becomes dense enough they may want to consider one between Ada and Elizabeth. Yeah, that means some pretty close stations, but still futher apart than most of the Loop stations, and if the Randolph through Fulton corridor continues to become a dense employment center, having a station density closer to that of the Loop could make sense.

What really irritates me the most, though, is the east exit where the stairs take you back west toward the center of the platform instead of allowing you to cross Sangamon on the platform and exit the stairs headed east if you're headed toward Halstead. THAT I really just cannot fathom as a decision. Maybe there's some reason, but it just seems so very stupid from a usability design choice. Sure, it's probably only adding 20 seconds to east-walking passengers but it's still a stupid 20 seconds to have to waste.

Well, that and the fact that the stairs to Sangamon are exit-only. There's plenty of room for a high-barrier turnstile and card reader at the top of the stairs...

Thanks, it looks nice, but $999/year comes to like twenty dollars per week, and that's even more than I spend on whiskey. I know I haven't kept up with SSP dues these past few years, but I would definitely consider a Bronze membership in the Chicago Chapter if I could get some kind of aboveboard shared login. Who's our treasurer these days?

^Well, they have a free trial thing that wasn't too hard to game if you know how to generate new email addresses. Though I haven't tried recently.

11/6/2017
 

Repainting the former Randolph/Wabash stop.

https://i.imgur.com/pQ9VrcWh.jpg

^ Part of me wished that the CTA would paint all of the elevated structures that cool gray color. Seems a bit less 'heavy' than the brown that they use. Or even the yuck yellow on some of the other structures around the city...

^ I like it too but somehow the brown color seems more “Chicago”. It matches the bridges

My dream is to see the CTA paint the structures bright red/blue/yellow/whatever. Add a pop of color during the dreary, bleak winter months. Same with the bridges. I'm admittedly a big baby when it comes to winter but I think Chicago could gain a lot by fighting the image of grey beigness for 5 months a year.

I actually like the white of that primer. If only it was remotely possible to keep it clean and maintained. That would be asking too much.

I'm sure I could find the answer pretty easily if I tried, but on a related note, what was the original Loop 'L' structure's paint color when it was built? Was it the burgundy/maroon color that the Wabash structure is painted for that streetscaping?

^ Some kind of dark green maybe?

The color of the contemporary paintwork is called bordeaux.

The short application form seemed to emphasize business contact info like phone number and title, so I kind of thought there might be some actual biological salesperson who might review their leads. I guess I'll give it a shot once I decide on how to respond to the phone number question (also, some online services have gotten wise to certain disposable email domains and reject those when submitted; hopefully they haven't).

I like the brown, mostly because it matches the bridges. Much better than the beige/orange whatever color on the Lake Street side. Also walked home through River North last night, the L there REALLY - REALLY - needs painting. It looks like it's just flaking apart.

I wish they would paint the Lake Street side and then get to Wells and Van Buren. Why just Wabash? For tourists?

It irks me when people complain about the weather, lol, although I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally. Chicago's definitely not a tropical paradise, but it's far from Siberia. We do get a lot of partly cloudy days, but the sun is only truly hidden for Dec./Jan. Things start to brighten up by February, although at that point spring showers can bring about a partly cloudy forecast once or twice a week.

I guess it annoys me because people seem to be under the impression that it's regularly -50 degrees (without windchill) in Chicago (it never is, even with windchill) and you won't see the sun from September-May. I have coworkers who aren't from here that started wearing those $1,000 Canadian Goose jackets the second week of October...totally unnecessary, lol.

Yes, I'm a coward and I can't deny it. But temperature aside, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree about the brightness. It's cold, grey, and dark pretty much November-March. Getting creative and bold with color could make Chciago more of a destination year round. You say yourself that people have a certain impression of Chicago--we need to start doing things that generate the positive PR the city deserves.

^I know what you're saying about using bright primary colors on certain infrastructures, I agree, but I don't think it should be the L structure itself. Too much of a good thing if you will.

Speaking of things in bright bold colors, Daley's West Loop bridges over the Kennedy are really going to hell.

For some reason I want to say olive green, but maybe just because many of NY's el structures are painted that way.

I know Quincy was supposed to have historically accurate paint colors, and red oxide is a traditional color for bridges and metalwork.

Red oxide was, and still is a traditional color for metalwork. Ever wondered why?
You might find this interesting....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II,IV)_oxide

It's hard to know what the original color was, since (obviously) the only photos of the L's early days were shot in black and white. Postcards were false color (not necessarily accurate). Then are some early color photos from the 40s, but the L structures were already 50 years old by that point and must have been repainted several times.

Almost every source shows one of three colors, though:
-dusty red/red oxide
-charcoal gray
-olive green

What's not on this list is the tan color that CTA painted structures in the mid-late 20th century to present a "modernized" appearnace. Likely the L, and the Loop itself, was always a mishmash of different colors, it was initially a group of several companies before Yerkes united them all.

For new structures it seems like CTA prefers a metallized coating (zinc/aluminum alloy, applied through special techniques in the shop) over paint. Kinda looks like a satiny light gray. IDOT has used the same coating for the Circle Interchange steel. It's a more expensive option but provides a much longer lifespan, which comes in handy when you can't afford disruptions caused by repainting.

When Quincy was restored in the 1980s, they did paint analysis, scraping down to the next-to-last coating, that resulted in the dark red. But now we're pretty sure that was a second primer coat, as a few years later Bruce Moffat turned up a newspaper article from opening day saying the stations were pearl gray. I'm still trying to learn whether the structure was the same color.

In the early 1980s, the Loop was repainted in the ocher-buff (from white, IIRC). In the mid-1990s, Mayor Daley and Sara Bode of the State Street Council supposedly personally chose the bordeaux used to redo the Wabash section.

The bordeaux is just fine. However, the tan just looks grimy almost immediately. Why is this even a choice?

Very interesting Mr. Downtown...

So shocked, that Metra is instituting frequent fare hikes and service cuts not that many years after Madigan started packing the metra payroll with Madigan's patronage army. Payroll is up 32 percent in four years with increased head count according to Tribune.

Just wait til pension cost from the added fat starts sucking the system down. Good bye off hour service.

^ If anyone out there hasn’t yet figured out that Madigan is Illinois’ biggest menace, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

.

The guys repacking bearings at the Rocket House and Bensenville are all buddies of Madigan? Call me skeptical.

Metra has had to hire additional maintenance staff (the head count is only up 14 percent from 2012) because much of the rolling stock is 50 years old. Some is 60 years old.

I am really excited about this. Kenosha to Racine for $2.50 cash, and Kenosha to Milwaukee for $4.50! Combine that with a Metra weekend pass, and you can get from Chicago to Milwaukee for $19 roundtrip.

New commuter bus service takes Racine residents to Kenosha Metra
http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/...-kenosha-metra

Schedule & Route map: http://web.coachusa.com/CoachUsaAsse...d%20Racine.pdf

^ Hmmm... sounds like driving is both cheaper and faster.

And why not just use the Amtrak Hiawatha?

Lake Forest / Hiawatha stop
 

Speaking of the Hiawatha..I didn't know that a stop a Lake Forest was being studied.'

^ Not a bad idea, especially since it would provide better airport access to Mitchell for north suburbanites - driving to the airport doesn't work for everyone. Unfortunately, the study focuses too much on parking capacity and not enough on regional transit connections or a walkable station environment. Lake Forest has neither, the station area is typical suburbia but with a a really nice manicure. Zero bus connections.

Driving doesn't work for everyone. It's not faster during rush hour, and it's not cheaper if you don't have ample parking at your destination.

Setting driving aside, this is still cheaper than Amtrak and offers some advantages as well, including access to downtown Racine. Metra is $9.75 from Kenosha to Chicago + $2.50 for the bus from Racine is only 12.50 total. Amtrak is twice that price at $24-26 from Sturtevant to Chicago, plus you've gotta get to Sturtevant.

Also, going this route opens up all the destinations on the North Shore, including Great Lakes and Northwestern, which aren't accessible from the Amtrak line without going through the Loop first. Carthage College is on the route too.

^ Access to downtown Racine? :haha:

What, so that you can get drunk, eat chicken wings, and bum Vicodins off the locals? Sounds like a huge advantage

it doesn't look like the weekend schedules line up at all.

the saturday morning metra train that takes you to kenosha leaves downtown chicago at 10:35 am and gets into kenosha at 12:30pm. the next northbound bus to downtown milwaukee doesn't leave kenosha metra station until 2:22pm and gets to milwaukee at 3:52pm. total elapsed time: nearly 5.5 hours!!!

alternatively, there's a saturday hiawatha train that leaves downtown chicago at 8:25am and gets into downtown milwaukee at 9:54am. total elapsed time: 1.5 hours.

so unless you want to waste your entire saturday just getting to milwaukee, it makes a million times more sense to pony up the extra cash and just take amtrak.

if you're on a tight budget, go greyhound/megabus.

I know you lived there, IMO it has a pretty nice art museum and some decent restaurants. Also Johnson Wax archi-tourism (they're running buses from Chicago now for the biennial, but the tours are given every weekend).

I don't know why you prefer an uber-suburban, park and ride operation over a transit service that actually connects walkable, urban places. Obviously I would prefer the original KRM rail proposal, especially if it was run jointly with Metra as a local-train lakefront counterpart to Hiawatha. But a decent bus service is the next best thing...

I don't understand why somebody wouldn't just take Megabus from Chicago to Milwaukee. It is about half the price, takes only 20 minutes longer, has easier onboarding/offboarding and is probably cleaner. (I say this with no stake or interest in Megabus or its operations.)

Why wouldn't you just drive?

because traffic.

megabus's schedule may say that it only takes 20 minutes longer than amtrak, but if the kennedy is a parking lot (which it often is), that 20 minutes longer can easily become an hour or more longer.

also, the train is FAR more comfortable than a bus.

but yes, if you're on a tight budget, greyhound/megabus is the way to go.

I used the Hiawatha to travel between Chicago & Milwaukee this past September. It worked out great. From downtown to downtown in 90 minutes with few (if any) slow downs and a smooth & spacious experience. I wish the L connected to the line on the north side rather than taking it the entire route to downtown Chicago (I was staying with a friend on the north side), but otherwise I liked the Hiawatha.