Canal Street has a seam down the middle... the east half is built on a viaduct over Union Station's Track 1 and 2, while the west half is on terra firma.

If the viaduct needs to be rebuilt after over a century of weathering, then maybe the "terra firma" west half can be dug out at the same time to provide a pedway going north to Ogilvie and south to the Blue Line. There's already a narrow tunnel there that used to connect Union Station to the old Metropolitan L station, and now connects to the bus station and parking garage.

Certainly would make more sense than digging out under Clinton St which is entirely on terra firma, and would shorten the walking distances.

http://i67.tinypic.com/2cpaxs8.jpg

Extending the covered pedestrian walkway south to Taylor and north to Lake would be fairly simple and would augment its value.

how delete double posting?

Hang on, if you're going to go so far as to excavate, wouldn't you want to use that new space to run more tracks through Union Station?

Also, excavating a pedway 3 blocks to Clinton Station is nice, but I wonder how much usage it would get. Probably little enough that it would attract a lot of garbage, graffiti, and probably people camping out there, with the attendant cleaning and safety issues. Plus, I would hazard a guess that Clinton Station is in bad shape and frighteningly empty sometimes. Hopefully a redeveloped Post Office would have enough critical mass to change that as well as to bring about a big refurbishment of the subway station.

Barring that though, I would hope for some other civic project to eventually extend the Loop pedway west/south from Clark/Lake, where it could benefit commuters daily, and interface with some major buildings to boot, and approach the Ogilvie end of the commuter stations. Not sure what to do with the river crossing though, or whether that's ever been considered.

There's an old streetcar tunnel that could be used to connect Union Station to 311 South Wacker, but it would need some expensive work. There was some talk about doing this back in the 1990s. Then there's the question of whether it would be used. It's one thing for people to walk 800 feet on a sidewalk, next to shops and cars. But an 800-foot-long hallway with no windows is not very interesting, and it feels like a mile.

Speedy bus links, snow clearance, and lively streetscapes are a much better use of public money.

^ It's hard not to want to make the most of that old tunnel, especially with 311 S Wacker still having that land next to it undeveloped for now. You could even fantasize about something then connecting into a Franklin St subway...

Anyway for the wettest, windiest, snowiest, or coldest days, it would be nice to improve the ped experience crossing the river to the stations. Windbreaks or canopies could be glass, like the Loop Link stations. Or some kind of user friendliness improvement to the sidewalks. On the bridges or key intersections would it be just too decadent to have heated sidewalks? It would save on labor to plow the sidewalks. A couple past experiences make me think these could sand down the sharpest edges off Chicago winters.

All you need is one utterly crap day suffered by some decisionmaker to trigger a company moving out of Chicago, or an out of town company deciding not to hire a local firm.

Here's my random question of the month. How much does it cost and where does the money come from to strip and repaint the el supports underneath the tracks? They already did wabash that awesome maroon that matches the bridges, but lake, wells and van buren still looks horrendous at some parts. Is it still an ongoing project for the next 20 years or are they just waiting for the proper funding/tax money? I just figured the loop tracks would be a priority with all the tourism traffic they get. But still much needed throughout the entire Chicago area.

This question belongs on the Transit developments thread (which IMO should receive a Chicago tag so it shows up in the Chicago Projects & Construction forum - Mods?).

Anyway, I completely agree with you. Wabash looks awesome. If the entire "L" throughout Chicago were stripped, and freshly painted this color, then complaints about the aesthetics of the system would pretty much vanish. Lighter colors like tans, creams, whites, and silvers that they seem to use in many other places sound like a good idea since they reflect more light, but on the downside, grime and rust really shows up and makes the elevated structures look dilapidated.

They should also endeavor to remove rust and repaint it more often, but if they paint it maroon like this then whatever rust does happen, will hardly show up at all. If they're concerned about it feeling dark and dangerous under the L, then upgrade the lighting.

Random fact of the month- I noticed they painted Wabash just before the IOC toured the city around 2009, when we were showcasing for the 2016 Summer Olympics. They intentionally kept the committee away from Lake, Wells and VB.

For reference, the underground walkway between terminals at O'Hare is 850 feet, so it isn't impossible to make that sort of tunnel comfortable.

I'd generally agree that making the street level as pleasant and efficient as possible is a better use of funds in the short to medium term. But, should the Pedway ever expand to the point that a tunnel under the river would be part of a coherent integrated system stretching all the way up past Millennium Station, I could see the point of such a tunnel.

That was as part of the Wabash streetscaping program. I don't think the buses were specifically routed so IOC members would never see the other sides of the Loop.

Unless part of a streetscape project like Wabash, I think painting falls under general maintenance of the structure, so it comes out of the CTA budget. They tend to be more concerned about salt-damaged footings and fatigued corner braces than about making a good impression on visitors. Repainting the Loop L is not a minor weekend job, as draping is required for the sandblasting as well as the painting.

I've always wondered about this.
I've watched them paint the Blue line a couple of times, but if you go across the river, the Brown line looks like they haven't painted it since VJ Day.

^^^Are you crazy? That "noise" is home sweet home. I keep my windows open at night to fall asleep, those tracks are better than one of those ocean sound machines. I love it.
But hey, to each their own.

I live a block off the red line in Lakeview and I agree. Those supports are what makes the Chicago L the L.

ive lived behind train lines for most of my time in Chicago. while you do get used to it after a while, i dont think theres any reason to romanticize noise pollution and any solution to ameliorate it is a positive. all sorts of long term health issues have been linked to it as well
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4067361361613X

the brown line is pure hell, esp in the summer when windows are open. i was right at the entrance to the tunnel for the red line as well, so i would get trains every 30 seconds. the earthshattering "bang bang!" of the first brown line run of the morning at 4AM would wake me up without fail every time. also was completely impossible to even have a conversation outside. the steel supports are extremely loud. i only did 1 year there but it was enough.

i now live along the red line further north (concrete embankments) and the sound issue is vastly improved, though windows open in the summer is still not great. but without question the concrete is more livable than steel.

to those speaking about noise machines, i use one and love it, but the reason it works is because it provides a constant mask and creates a new baseline. sounds that start and stop, or have peaks and valleys (as a train passing would, or even music for that matter) dont really achieve the same effect and bring your brain back to alertness.

i think theres a bit of stockholm syndrome with anyone who would say that a quieter train line wouldn't be a net positive. it should be quite obvious why any public policy decision should be favoring quieter environmental noise rather than louder.

Really? Can you show me proof that this is real? Because this reeks of BS.

Couldn't be to bad if you moved from one spot close to the L to another right by it.

affordability and walking distance to the train trump other factors to me as i dont own a car and have a budget. so yes, being close to it is important to me for practical reasons. that dosent mean i fetishize the sound or have the notion that its the way things have to be just because its the way theyve always been. everything is a tradeoff, but that dosent mean we shouldnt be working to address quality of life issues at the same time.

and as i said, concrete is WAY quieter than steel. its simply a fact ill take the lesser of two evils every time

Incidentally the Mayor Daley II administration called this color "bordeaux". Maybe its origins were earlier, but they definitely had a specific name for it. I agree Wells/Franklin especially really is looking derelict given how much nightlife and residential has spread all across River North.


Proof?? How about any human being who has visited other world metropolises with modern heavy rail. Chicago's subway noise is totally stone age. The elevated is only slightly less bad, at least on certain sections outside downtown where they run at high speed across a giant metal viaduct. It's part of Chicago's charm if you have already fallen in love with the city, experience it only occasionally, or have chosen to live next to it. For the outsider, say from Asia, it can be as ridiculous as still having horse turds all over the streets. It's just that visitors rarely find themselves underneath the high-speed sections (say, Bucktown) so the comments aren't as prominent as they otherwise would be.

If there were to be something entirely enclosed, it would most likely be a skybridge rather than a new tunnel. Not only would excavating a tunnel be a massive expense, along with ductwork, life safety, and other requirements, but a tunnel would require users to descend many, many floors down from Upper Wacker. A skybridge could actually even be at grade (if it were alongside an existing bridge, or mid-block) or raised slightly above Upper Wacker grade, though it would have to be built as a bascule or something. It would (if executed smartly) also have great aesthetic and sightseeing value, and would be less inviting to loiterers. If aesthetically and functionally desirable, it could even be skewed against the street grid, which would help keep it visually distinguished from all the stately road bridges.

Lol at the complaints about the L noise, of all the things that turn people off to Chicago, that's WAYYYYYY down the list.

I for one love the L, the more rickety the section, the better. I love the roaring monster it is on the NW side. I live over a mile from the nearest above grade section of it in Logan (I'm between Belmont and Logan, so it's a subway by me) and I can still hear the commotion when I'm sitting in my yard. It's classic Chicago: totally unconcerned with niceties, it get's you where you need to go don't it? Ok, so stop complaining and live with it.

Nonsense. Friends of mine that come to Chicago love the L and don't mind the noise. Those old steel sections are perhaps as iconic as the Hancock or Sears. In my experience it's one of the first things people think of when they think of Chicago.

Almost any time you see b-roll of the city there is at least a shot or two of the L squeezed in. There are even commercials fully based under the tracks just to make them feel "Chicago" - complete with train noise.

https://youtu.be/GOi557H6ux8

That being said, some areas really need a coat of paint. Wabash-style bordeaux or a good steely gray would be nice. Toss some good uplighting on the supports and you'd be doing it justice.

All you need to know about how iconic the L is in Chicago:

• Video Link


Can confirm this was the most frustrating level in the entire game. The L eliminated many a lead for me as a child. Also can confirm that this video demonstrates proper Chicago driving techniques.

Lord not Crusin USA.

I live at 6 Corners and I can still hear the roar of the Blue Line going over the Kennedy. Now that's loud. That sound and that steely, oily smell that comes from most L stops makes things interesting.

The L is awesome and anybody who says otherwise needs to pack their bags, tuck their puny nuts into their thighs, and relocate to Orlando where they can play with Mickey Mouse

:rolleyes:

im sure theres someone out there who thinks its a definition of manhood to live 3 blocks down from a coal fired power plant too.

i just literally laughed out loud!

couldn't have put it better.

You know someone is a true Chicagoan when they know to pause their conversation as the L goes by and then continue once it's past like nothing happened.

^ Phone calls at my apartment can be lengthy when a train is passing every couple of minutes.

I own two properties that have the L running through the backyard.

Whenever I and my contractor have spoken there is always the obligatory pause when the train rumbles by. But we only need to do that when we are outdoors. Indoors it's not bad at all and I'm not sure why Via Chicago is being such a crybaby

ok mr libertyville

I think there's disconnect here because "visitors" conjures up different images for different people. For visitors from Nashville, San Diego, Charlotte, etc., the el is probably nothing but cool. But some of us think of visitors from major Asian or other foreign cities, and if you've spent any time in, say, Asian cities in the past decade or two, you're going to come to a different conclusion. The more one romanticizes the aging blue collar low tech, the more distance you place in between the city and the cohort of the new century's leading world cities. As locals we love the el, in part because it's one of the couple of most unique defining characteristics of the city, including being a massive exclamation point that the city is not some post-airconditioning, automobile era young metro like LA or Dallas or Atlanta (or Jakarta). We wear the noise and steel like a badge. But it does remain persistently low tech, and if you're a 25 year old Singaporean female MBA or programmer deciding what city's train system you'll be commuting on every day, the low tech will not likely be attractive.

^^^ I've actually had that conversation when my Chinese friend (from Beijing) came to visit. He currently lives in New York so he's no stranger to grungy American transit systems, but even he was astounded by the L tracks running down the middle of my (otherwise quiet) residential block.

While the track structure is mostly low-tech, the cars and stations themselves are often pretty contemporary with transit technology. This year you'll be able to pay for rides with your phone. There are train arrival times available in all stations. The newest trains have lighted maps showing where the train is in the system. You can use your phone to get arrival times for buses and many of the busiest bus stops have bus arrival signage updated in real time. These are all tech I've seen in Asia and Europe. We used to be behind, but currently I think Chicago's transit tech is as current as almost any other city. Is there some huge transit tech I'm not aware of that all major Asian cities have that Chicago doesn't?

Rickety elevated trains exist in abundance in New York and in Philadelphia too.

But go figure it's Chicago forumers complaining about how it diminishes us, makes us seem so backward and parochial :rolleyes:

Yeah, about the only thing the CTA needs to modernize in its existing system is its rail cars (particularly for the blue line), but that's coming anyway. A couple of the subway stations downtown could use a facelift, but they're much nicer in general than 10-15 years ago. The tech is also dramatically better (access to boarding times, apps, etc.).

The L tracks are Chicago's Eiffel Tower, and there's no sound more quintessentially urban than their grinding (perhaps a cacophony of cabs honking?). We should be looking at new ways to activate them, whether that be through projects like the Wabash Lights or the group trying to create a public space beneath the Wilson tracks.

Or maybe just painting them a better color and painting them more often.

I don't think anything drastic (tearing down the L, or replacing them with different types of structures) should be done but if there's something along the lines of more frequent maintenance of vehicles, or using different bogies for future vehicle orders, or using different materials for ties and/or plates, that would significantly reduce the noise, then I'm all for it.

I lived in Hiroshima, Japan for a year during college. They have a lot of streetcars, and also a lot of rivers - and therefore a lot of bridges. A streetcar trundled over a bridge right outside my apartment about every 5 minutes or so. For the first six months that I was there the sound was extremely loud. If you were on the bridge at same time as a streetcar, you could literally feel the bridge rumble. It was quite unnerving. As for the sound, I'd say the sound was pretty comparable to the L, perhaps a bit quieter than being right under a passing train. Then, they did something (not sure what) to the bridge, and for the second six months I was there, the streetcars weren't any louder on the bridge than they were on solid ground.

Um, if you're a "25 year old Singaporean female MBA or programmer", you're most likely driving a BMW or Audi to UofC or Northwestern, and NOT taking the L...because almost anyone I know that has come to a top-tier university for graduate studies from a place like that has the money to not have to 'bother' with public transportation. The 'Anecdotal evidence game' can be played by anyone, just sayin'..

I'm pretty sure you misunderstand what me means by "MBA or programmer." He means a working professional, not a student. Even students who drove to class may convert to public transit for commuting to jobs if they work in the central Loop.

I would say that the riveted steel structure of the L is iconic, historic, and objectively cool in much the same way as the Eiffel tower. Said hypothetical student from Singapore, doesn't expect or want Chicago to look like Singapore.

It is good for CTA to prioritize structural integrity if funding for maintenance is limited, but if they had resources to pay more attention to aesthetics, it would make a big difference in the overall impression of the system. The sections that are painted light colors really do just look grungy. With a bit more attention to upkeep and cleanliness of structures and stations, the L could maintain its distinctive character while simultaneously being a world-class transit system.

Of course it's BS. Not that it's proof, but my anecdotes include tons of visitors (friends or friends of friends) from Europe and Asia that I've taken around Chicago. All of them saw at least the train going around in the Loop and was right near it for the noise. I can't remember one person complaining. All of them thought it was pretty cool. Even my rich ex girlfriend from Malaysia and her rich friends from Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia took the train around everywhere in Chicago when they lived in Chicago even though they didn't necessarily have to.

To be fair, they are upgrading a good number of stations.

They need to make the L work better, first and foremost. It's too damn slow and the trains don't run frequently enough.

I have no doubt in my mind there is an engineering solution to the extreme noise. Something like a steel/rubber/composite sandwich under the trackway, engineered dampening ties and doing everything possible to isolate vibrations from the steel structure.


As far as the color goes, I get why light colors are chosen. Its probably the same reason many people are timid of darker colors in there own homes, that is the incorrect belief that it will darken and "depress" the space, and that is probably the reasoning especially in the Loop, along with hiding salt spray. I don't think a darker structure paint color would significantly change the feeling of darkness that is a reality under the L. I think colors like this would look great:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...f767ac3b56.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...7c45438ad9.jpg

Your finest hour has been often, but maybe not this hour; first, you needn't be so fixated on wealthy Singapore; the comment is generic to people coming from even modest Asian backgrounds, and they're not all going to have cars, and they're not all attending the top 2 schools here. Second, on a forum that is so rabidly anti car and pro transit, I don't know why you would use a driving scenario as a default case when ordinarily we're demanding everybody, even visitors, use transit. Third, as emathias pointed out, I was referring to commuting to work downtown, not students still in a campus coccoon. Fourth, there was no anecdote, there is only the standards of safety and comfort and cleanliness that people in modern Asian cities are used to on their train systems (related comment below).
Visitors are polite. Visitors tend to find many things novel and fun when they first encounter them -- especially if they're focused on the scenery for the first couple times. Visitors aren't going to complain to the person taking them around, especially if a friend. Visitors usually aren't considering staying long term to work. Finally, visitors who have already made it to Chicago have already self-selected themselves to some degree.


Earsplitting noise is one massive factor in reducing safety and perception of safety, and more so for a foreign visitor. It creates many situations where you can't call for help, even to the person next to you, and you can't explain a situation to an attendant, if you can get the attention of an attendant -- especially if in broken English. To say nothing of being stymied from making a call on a cellphone, whether that's for help or advice or just to confirm the location for an interview. The very notion that you can't reliably take a call from a client or make a call to your boss, without having to time it based on being in between stations or in between trains, is a step down from professional life in a city with a modern rail system. Keep in mind this isn't just during commuting - in most giant cities, businesspeople can be on the train several times during the day, to and from client meetings.

You're assuming people in those cities aren't complaining. Many in the outer boroughs might be wearing the noise, or visual uniqueness, like a badge, as we do, but don't assume everybody would say no to a quieter system. Also, in, say, Philadelphia, is there as much density near the elevated for it to be an issue with many people. In any event in poor, outer neighborhoods they'll be preoccupied with bigger issues.

Conversely, in Manhattan, can you imagine an earsplitting elevated running through modern Wall Street or today's Upper East Side. Or if it did, whether the powers that be would just leave it that way forever. A new train line just opened up along Second Avenue this month. Its budget as a subway was stratospheric, and it would have been just a fraction of that if elevated. They did not make it elevated.