The new downtown Skokie yellow line station at Oakton opened Monday morning. The Patch has a good collection of photos from opening day.

Take A Tour Of Skokie's Newest CTA Stop

The online CTA map has also been updated to reflect the new Oakton yellow line station, as well as the new Morgan green/pink line station opening soon.

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...tatrainmap.png

^^^ Fantastic, it's refreshing to see new stations popping up on the map after years of stagnation. I don't think there has been a single addition to the CTA system since I moved here? This would be the first.

Here's to seeing a few more stations pop up in the next 5 years and maybe an extension or two. I'll be thrilled the day I see the map updated with a new line (probably at least 20 years off).

:banana:

if you put a stop at asbury (planned) and another at crawford (dream), then the yellow line will start to resemble an actual rail transit line.

According to the CTA press release, Oakton is the first new "L" station in 18 years. I assume this goes back to the opening of the Orange line?

^^^ I'd imagine. All they've done for years is close CTA stations, not add them. Finally the momentum has been reversed. I dream of a day where we see ridership numbers that justify a dozen new infill stations on the South and Southwest sides.

After the Cermak Green in 2013 Ive got to imagine the next addition would be Madison Pink... after that I dont really see much in the immediate future.

Morgan should open fairly soon. Seems close to done

Asbury on the Yellow is also in the works, and there's a huge stretch of the Green line between Ashland and California that could use a stop.

Ah yes, I completely spaced on Asbury.

As for the stretch between Ashland and California on the Lake Street branch, I just dont see a need for it. The most worthy area might be Leavitt, but I cant see an infill station in this area not being connected to a bus route, which points towards Western or Damen. Western is very close to California and has nothing around it, while Damen is very close to Ashland and also has very little around it. Its a tough spot, but maybe in another decade there might be a clear choice based on redevelopment patterns.

Division on the Brown.

After seeing the new map and envisioning the next round of infill stations to be added [Cermak, Madison, Asbury, Division] my biggest question is; when should we expect a redesign of the L system map? The 'at scale' geographical map seems to be nearing its useful limits imo.

hopefully never. i love the "at scale" geographic map of the el system and it seems nowhere near its limits to me.

Unfortunately, different departments at CTA have different map designs. In 1996, I designed the diagrammatic map, which has no real trouble with additional stations for now. Here's a version I use for other clients that has downtown integrated rather than as a separate inset:

http://i45.tinypic.com/16899jd.png

However, others in CTA feel it's important for riders to know more exactly where the lines and stations are, so they use the one with the arterial street grid, which shows every jog and curve in the lines. Then there are the folks who make the signs for above the doors in the trains, who have their own ideas about how things should look.

Chicago is so relentlessly orthogonal that it's very hard to make a London-style diagrammatic map with distorted distances. We have an extreme number of downtown stations, and also expect all the Westerns and Ciceros to sort of line up.

I'd like some additional infill stations on the Near South Side (besides Cermak Green) as it continues to grow over the next few decades. I'd love to see an Orange Line stop that's actually walkable, and it seems like Chinatown (Princeton?) or the South Loop (18th and Clark) could benefit from more rail transit access. A 26th Street stop on the Green Line might make sense too as that area gentrifies/densifies.

As an aside, I really think the South Side Green Line is one of the most underutilized assets Chicago has. Goes right through the neighborhoods with lots of close, walkable stops. Could be a major catalyst to development.

Thanks, Mr. D! I've wanted to see a map without the annoying inset for years, and this is very well done. The way the Purple Line is truncated with an arrow is pretty clever. Plus, you resisted the temptation to put "Harold Washington Library - State/Van Buren". :haha:

There are a few instances of map bloat, unfortunately, but they're probably not your fault. Is it necessary to indicate accessible stations with a wheelchair icon that impairs legibility of the text, or is there a more efficient way to do it (I could see using a different station icon, for example). Park and ride icons are a similar issue, although they tend to be in outlying areas of the map where there is less congestion, so they could simply be set apart from the text.

Also, is it necessary to include branch names, especially for lines that terminate at the Loop? It makes sense for the Blue Line, which has two Westerns and two Harlems, and maybe the Green Line with its two Ashlands, but no other line has redundant stations.

Also, you haven't purged the Washington Red Line stop. Or is that on purpose to indicate that you still can cross transfer underground (but outside the turnstiles) via Block 37?

Oakton
 

I don't recall seeing post-opening pics of the Oakton station yet, so here are a few I took tonight - sorry just camera phone pics (all photos by me).

If any of you venture out there, I can recommend Libertad for food, a nice "Latin fusion" (their description, not mine) place about a 10 minute walk west of the station. Nicer than I expected with great service.

Looking south to the exit from the platform
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...46945089_n.jpg

Downtown Skokie, about a 7-8 minute walk from the station
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...34257704_n.jpg

Almost gothic from certain angles
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...15100218_n.jpg

While I enjoyed my trip more than I expected I would, the siting is still not quite ideal in my book
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...45658362_n.jpg

That's a holdover from the transition to the color names. None of us thought "Ravenswood" would disappear from popular usage as quickly as it did.

CTA certainly doesn't make it easy on the mapmaker when it yields to nonsense like "Harold Washington Library Center/State & Van Buren." Or insists on calling Oakton "Oakton-Skokie."

The Washington transfer is my mistake. I no longer have the CTA map contract, so I only update and double-check the unitary map when I need it for a hotel or similar client. I added the new Skokie and Morgan stations but forgot to check the others.

Unrelated point, but there's one additional change to the CTA el map that's imminent, though not rail related:
That sexy giant new marina at 35th Street can be added to the coastline. It'll be a new point of pride for the city and a major physical feature in greater downtown's geography.

And Mr Downtown, your map's shoreline is boring. :P
It does fade elegantly into the background, but can't something more contextual be done? Hat tip to Navy Pier?

CTA ridership keeps growing at a nice pace.

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...rts/2012-3.pdf

Systemwide Average Daily Weekday Ridership for the 'L' (station boardings)
These numbers are all station boardings - people coming through the turnstiles. The past few years, CTA press releases include cross-platform transfers, but earlier numbers are only turnstile counts. The current CTA reports include both, so the number below are just turnstile numbers. That results in a slightly less dramatic uptick, but a more accurate measure of improvement.

Annual 2000: 465,136
Annual 2001: 455,635 <-- Douglas Branch work starts
Annual 2002: 459,494
Annual 2003: 446,700
Annual 2004: 428,850 <-- Douglas Branch work compled
Annual 2005: 470,968
Annual 2006: 478,414 <-- Pink Line inaugurated and Brown Line work starts
Annual 2007: 456,087
Annual 2008: 478,429 <-- First round of slow zone work completed
Annual 2009: 480,188 <-- Brown Line work completed
Annual 2010: 553,964 <-- Second round of slow zone work completed
Annual 2011: 579,921
March 2011: 571,897
March 2012: 599,601

A little on BRT:

http://gridchicago.com/2012/brt-to-a...=Google+Reader

Well if this isn't a shining example of everything that's wrong with the rules about minority-owned firm contract awards, I don't know what is:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...-a-train-wreck


Bobby Rush is such a bloody joke.

If you strip out the transfers the growth rates are basically the same.

Three options for buses traversing the Loop were discussed at last night's Central BRT presentation. Option 2 is probably the most likely at this point in the study.

http://i48.tinypic.com/34s46es.jpg

The bike lane on Madison would disappear in favor of a couplet on Randolph WB and Washington EB.

The layover/boarding facility at Union Station probably can't be used by Megabus, Coach USA Van Galder, or the private office building shuttles, since it would be built with FTA money. The wishful thinking is that if CTA cross-Loop service is better, many of those private shuttles would go away, but I think that misunderstands their very nature. They're not in place because CTA service is poor or missing, they're put in place to make a particular office building more attractive than the competition. So I fear they're only going to grow in number as a way to attract suburban train riders to office space east of Clark or north of the river.

Love it. Even as mostly a non-driver, I almost prefer the balanced option. Partly because I think it improves things for transit riders without causing a lot of delay to drivers.

On the other hand, in a lot of ways the third one seems like the best idea because it has a nice balance to it, plus if the plan is a roaring success it would certainly lend itself to consolidating on an actual rail plan better.

Bad news
 

And we all wonder why people continue to leave the South Side in droves.

Why is this everything that is wrong with minority-owned contract awards? Seems like everything worked exactly how it was supposed to. Everything that is wrong with a few blowhard politicians making a scene, yeah that is true but the winner met federal guidelines. This seems like three guys who want to cause a scene ahead of November more than anything else.

This is making a mountain out of a mole hill, right. What can three congressmen do if Metra awards the contract at their June meeting. Plus, any federal extension will come from the DOT and not Congress, so its not like they can mess with that or am I missing something.

^ I can rant on and on about this one, but whatever.

I'm sure they will break some deal behind a smoke-filled room, as is often the case in Chicago. Either way, this project is crucial.

I understand a lot of the problems with DBE but this case does not have a lot of hallmarks of DBE abuses, or do you know something I don't. The bidder met federal requirements, Metra says they cannot legally rebid the contracts. What can Bobby Rush do except make a scene.

I understood who can use the Union State Transfer Center differently.

While it is being built with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) money (and local match money), I don't think the CDOT presenters meant to imply that precludes non-governmental vehicles from using the facility. They said that CTA's needs must be met first. Then CDOT and CTA can have discussions about other companies using the facility.

Yeah, this is just more posturing. Metra's made incredible good-faith efforts to bring black businesses onto the project, so if participation is low at this point, its either because such businesses cannot deliver work at a reasonable price or because such businesses simply do not exist on a large scale.

The three Congressmen probably know this, so the opposition is all about kicking sand in Metra's face. Considering the general disdain Metra has for serving inner-city neighborhoods, it's somewhat understandable that South Side politicians would resent a project designed to make Metra trains barrel even faster through their districts without stopping.

When it comes to contracts, though, I think the power of the budget vastly overrides any lingering racism. If DBEs want in on the business, they should aim to be the low bidder.

Why is option 3 more expensive than option 2? It just is a different reroute.

As Chicago Forges Ahead With BRT, Congress Holds Up Key Rail Project


May 4, 2012

By Ben Goldman

Read More: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/04...-rail-project/

I like it too, but the Loop Inset bugs me and the text for near North and near West stations is going to get awfully crowded whenever the Division Brown and Madison Pink come along.

^^ Usually the argument for New Starts funding is that capacity is being increased through new stations, longer platforms, fresh track/structure that allows faster service, etc.

On the Red Line, the implementation of true express service will greatly improve capacity and definitely improve travel times. Both the new Sheridan curve and the Clark flyover will also improve capacity.

I'd guess there's a bit more infrastructure involved. Forcing non-bus vehicles to turn at the end of the block, installing bus-only signs, etc. Not sure if that adds up to $4-5MM though...

I'm curious about removing parking spots. Option 2 seems to show no parking on Madison or Washington, where there currently are some metered parking spots (shown in Option 1). I wonder if the cost includes a reimbursement to Chicago Parking Meters.

The city doesn't have to reimburse if they create an equivalent number of spaces nearby (on side streets, for example).

The rendering is misleading, though. The boarding platforms take up a full lane, but they only occur every two blocks. The intervening blocks will probably have parking in that space.

^^^ I'd be surprised that the city has room to find additional parking on "side streets" in the Loop. Especially if they're planning on adding a N/S protected bike lane at some point.

Maybe you're right about the rendering being deceptive, though, and CDOT won't have to do much. My only fear then is bus bunching in the supposed BRT lanes. As was mentioned earlier, staggered stops are likely a key input for faster service.

However, I'm hopeful that this goes through and is extended to Michigan too. That could significantly improve bus flow and simultaneously improve pedestrian safety on the premier shopping street in Chicago.

1. Is fare collection going to happen on the boarding islands? If not, how unusual is that for BRT?

2. In Option 2, why does Washington get island boarding, but Madison gets curb-extension boarding? Can the latter be made to eat up less space overall?

3. In Option 3, where do people get on/off a bus that's in the middle lane?

4. Would it make sense to release all restrictions on Loop BRT lanes after, say, 8pm, and return them either to parkers or drivers?

5. A correction to my post a little while ago about the cta maps; the new marina is at 31st Street, not 35th. Blair Kamin has a glowing writeup of it published today.

I doubt CTA will switch to a POP (honor) system, but there might be TVMs on the islands to reduce/eliminate cash fares and get everyone to use a farecard.

Not sure... probably has to do with the bike strategy.

Boarding platforms are staggered across the intersection. The car/truck lane exists on opposite sides of the roadway on opposite blocks, which physically prevents through traffic while allowing for platforms on both sides of the busway.

I have a question:

If we are basically building some boarding islands, painting (maybe?) some lanes, and (I hope) introducing signal priority, why does this project cost millions and millions of dollars?

Heck, I'm rehabbing a building right now and the concrete floor slab is only a couple thousand bucks.

So many millions?

I'm really not trying to be a smart ass, but I guess I just don't understand the infrastructure involved with this project to justify the price. If anybody could explain I would appreciate it.

I was doing some research on another topic tonight and ran across this track diagram for the Loop circa 1913 - It's pretty wild how different the routing on it was. Much of it had trains traveling the same direction on both the inner and outer tracks. I wonder how that affected throughput.

This is just a random thought, and realise that historically it has been presented as a proposal before but I just think that the L Loop should be subwayed...wabash and wells streets in my opinion would bothe benefit tremendously if they were not in constant shadow...thoughts?

I was walking in the Loop yesterday and this just popped in my head

But, but, but the 'L' is our Eiffel Tower!

Any illusions I had about the specialness of the Chicago 'L' went out the window when I saw the Els in New York, which are almost exactly the same.

I'm in favor of keeping the Loop but transitioning more traffic into new and existing subways. If they ever finish the Block 37 subway, they could build an incline at Lake/Desplaines and send the Green Line underground. This would allow for a new underground Clinton station and no movable river bridge.

The proposed Clinton St Subway would eventually take the Red Line, so the State St Subway is open for the new 24-hour Purple Line.

That would leave only Brown, Orange, and Pink on the Loop, and Brown/Orange might be combined someday. With the reduced number of trains, the Loop should function smoothly.

Apparently not, according to GridChicago. I'm pretty disappointed in this, as I understand this to be a major component of speeding up bus travel (as anyone boarding a bus in the Loop during rush hour can attest). Like you, I assumed the islands would serve this purpose - maybe the CTA doesn't think it can properly police the boarding areas?


I've heard that this makes driver education more difficult, since it's not always clear that these are bus-only lanes. Frankly, there should be more than enough room for private vehicles in the Loop after 8pm even with the bus lanes taken away. Parking is the bigger question, and perhaps that's where some of the cost of this project is going.

As a frequent rider of the 125 bus, I think the buses identified to use these lanes tend to have people who are frequent riders and use Chicago Cards and board quite quickly. I've never felt like boarding the 125 at Madison and Canal was slow or would have been significantly improved by pre-payment. If anything, pre-payment would be worse for anyone trying to avoid wasting waiting time - you can't really run for a bus if you have to pre-pay.

I think pre-payment makes sense if you're operating the line as if it were a rapid-transit line. But that's not what this is - these are still very much bus lines, they're just getting improved access to the route.

They need to be sure they provide adequate standing space. Arguably the spaces near the corners that terminate the parking lane (but buffer the bike lane) should be for people getting into cabs. They may want to lengthen that a bit. Otherwise all you're really seeing is one through lane or you risk taxis blocking the bike or bus lanes.

And are they really going to throw paint down over asphalt? I just can't see that lasting long. They should reconstruct the streets with brick pavers or something that has permanent color features. Plus they'll outlast concrete and asphalt.