I actually think the center platforms like that are fine. They're not avant guard or anything, but the smaller tile avoids the pre-school look of the larger tiles, and the stainless steel and granite are contemporary enough to at least look modern institutional and not really tacky.

They could have done that wave thing beneath the arches as well. Instead of the waves flowing parallel to the tracks, they could have just done them perpendicular and done that slot light between wave segments.

I don't mind the tile barrel vaults though. They hide the grime and they do brighten up the station.

No matter what materials or how much lighting you use, you're never going to get Chicago's subways to achieve ultimate great design. The lack of visual connection between mezzanine and platform, low ceilings, and columns everywhere will allow certain problems to perpetuate. Crime, vandalism, crowding, increased cost of labor for security and maintenance, etc.

Same here. I would greatly prefer a planar flying carpet style canopy than this wave garbage.

I actually don't mind the mosaic barrel vaults either. I have no problem with historical designs if they are done right. Using real mosaic tiles is a traditional building style and the extra expense of the small tiles is worth it. It's the cartoonish crap a la Chicago Red Line that I hate.

I dunno, the glass can stay pretty clean if it's got enough slope that the grime can be washed away by the weather. There might be a little shit building up on top of the waves, but I'm sure it will be fine.

If they are going to cover the tracks with anything it should be glass so the passengers can admire the beautiful architecture while they wait.

We finally get a new station, they're spending $50,000,000 on it (Cermak), and they're putting it less than 1,000 feet away from another train station!!! The Chinatown Red Line is literally a block away! You could run from station to station in less than 1.5 minutes!

What's the purpose? There are plenty of other things I'd spend $50 million on...

I kinda wish that instead of spending $50 million on one new station they'd spend $100 million and put a jog in the Green Line east over Cermak to Indiana, the south to what Google Maps calls "Service Dr" and/or 24th Place. The lots affected by both turns at Cermak are either vacant or used for parking, so you could put in fast curves, and on the south end of the run there appears to be space for fast turns, too.

Doing that you could provide *direct* access to McCormick, while still having good service for the surrounding area. It'd be about 3/4 of a mile of new track, and one station and since it would be new track, there wouldn't be train interference. I'd think they could do that all for not much more than $100 million since the Douglas rebuild was 5 miles of track and 8 stations for about $480 million within the past 10 years, all done while maintaining active service most of the time. Twice as much money compared to just a new station, but a lot more functionality. Seems like a good deal to me.

I was looking at the CTA's open data sets today.

1993 was the worst year in many decades for ridership on the CTA's 'L'. It bottomed out as a result of population loss and continuous service slashing. Since then, however, there's been a strong upward trend in 'L' ridership and if December's numbers come in where I think they will, then ridership for 2011 will have been nearly 63% higher than in 1993. 1993 was also the year the Orange Line opened for service (the most recent totally new line here in Chicago, the one that goes to Midway Airport), but it is only responsible for about 20% of that growth.

Oddly (well, not so oddly if you know the history, but odd just looking at the numbers), 'L' ridership trends aren't mirrored in bus ridership trends, so the overall worst year for CTA bus+'L' ridership, 1997 was the worst. Since then total ridership has risen 20%, although 95% of that gain was with the 'L' and only about 5% of it was gains in bus ridership. Until bus ridership starts growing again, it will be a while before we get back to the 703 million riders the CTA peaked at in 1979. Of course if gas prices spike again over the next few years (without destroying the economy) it would certainly support the same conditions that pushed 1979 to such historic highs. Certainly, getting to the low-to-mid 600 millions that were typical in the early-to-mid 1970s could happen again.

^ I doubt we'll see this until Chicago's city population begins to rise again. Likely much growth in mass transit ridership must have been occuring on Metra over the past few decades. Plus, with the growth of suburban job centers, a lot of mass transit ridership has been replaced with auto trips to office parks.

All of the numbers I quoted were CTA-only.

'L' ridership is now probably close to the highest it's ever been since WWII. Bus ridership is holding steady. We really don't need the city at large to gain population, we just need people to repopulate the parts of the city near 'L' stations that have lost a lot of population. Some of the places hit bottom and are starting to regain population. Also, it's important to remember that the majority of ridership is and always has been adults, and that the adult population of Chicago today is higher than it was in 1950.

I think you might be surprised what the addition of relatively few miles of new track coupled with a few new stations and a city focused on actually encouraging dense development near low-use 'L' stations.

Overall, the Chicago 'L' has the 3rd-highest ridership of any metro-style system in the U.S., but that number drops to 5th if you include Canada. And on a riders per mile basis, we're not even in the top 10 measured by riders per mile.

Right now the average station has a few over 4,200 riders per weekday and yet 87/141 (61.7%) of the stations have fewer riders than that. 45 stations have fewer than half that.

Is it possible to dramatically increase ridership at stations by investing in both the stations themselves and the area around them?

Absolutely yes. The population of the City as a whole has really very little to do with ridership - the structure of the population, both demographically and geographically is far more significant, and the getting people to consider it a safe option is perhaps the most important part.

Can the City and the CTA together improve ridership with some investment and development guidelines? Absolutely yes. The Pink Line/Douglas Branch doubled its ridership between 2001 and 2011 with the renovation, even as most of the neighborhoods it serves lost population and were very hard-hit by the recession which reduced work commuters. The Blue Line O'Hare branch increased ridership by 22% with no population growth and very little direct involvement by the city except for working to improve crime statistics in the areas served by it (the City didn't intend that the crime reduction improve ridership, but that has been a side effect because it encouraged the continued expansion of the gentrification of Wicker Park and Bucktown areas). The Brown Line ridership rose over 27% between 2001 and 2011. I think the population in that area has been fairly stable, but even if it did rise some I *know* it hasn't risen by 27%. Even in Evanston you can see what does and doesn't work. The Purple Line ridership in Evanston has slightly increased - about 5% or so, but most of the stations have lost ridership. The ones that have gained are the ones like Dempster and Davis that have seen new TOD built near them.

On the other hand, the Orange Line has risen less than 1% - it's essentially flat over the past ten years. Why? Because nearly no TOD has occurred around it. I'm not familiar enough with those wards to know who the Aldermen are or why development hasn't been better encouraged there, but I can't remember the last time I heard about any major projects along that corridor. There are a number of places where major residential or commercial development could take place, and there are a few places where new stations would enhance the usefulness of the line and thereby encourage more ridership - but until those happen, it's likely to stay stagnant. If we accept your cop-out that general population has to increase to increase ridership, then there will be no incentive to actually take the steps that actually do work and have worked elsewhere in Chicago to increase ridership.

The South Branch of the Green Line is another good example. The area around it essentially bottomed out in the late 1990s, early 2000s, and in the Bronzeville areas you started getting some gentrification. And what do we see? We see strong ridership growth in every station from 35th through Garfield except for 51st, which lost about 3%. The east and west branches south of there have lost ridership, however they didn't see any investment until the end of the decade. There has started to be some investment along both recently, and if the CPD continue to get crime under control in those areas I expect to see ridership numbers come up in those areas in the next ten years. Englewood in particular could see some really strong growth if crime there comes down. It's just over 20 minutes to the Loop on the Green Line from there, it has nice parks and good expressway access, and many bungalows and 2-flats or inexpensive development sites within walking distance of the two stations. If it started to turn around, the CTA could re-open the Racine stop, too. Granted, it has a ways to go, but look how far Wicker Park came in 20 years. Even in ten years, Division/Damen/Western stops on the O'Hare branch increased ridership by nearly 45% just from gentrification and really very little brand new development. Total populaiton within walking distance of those stations was about stable. It increased in some blocks, decreased in others for what balances out to a slight increase - but nowhere near a 45% increase in population.

So while, yes, increased population growth for Chicago would probably help increase the CTA's numbers faster, there are plenty of things that don't require overall population growth in order to spur ridership increases. It really is mostly as simple as getting residents to feel like it's a safe, clean alternative and making sure that new, dense development is encouraged near the existing stations.

^ Thanks for explaining that, emathias. Very informative post

Yes, the subway runs under Clybourn and Division. But a station at Clybourn & Division would only be about 1200 feet from the one at LaSalle & Division.

Study points to Asbury for possible Yellow Line station
By Jonathan Bullington TribLocal reporter
Today at 12:33 p.m.

A study group has identified Asbury Avenue just north of Howard Street as the best location for a new CTA Yellow Line station in Evanston.

Evanston officials presented the findings of a feasibility study during a public meeting Tuesday night at the city’s Levy Senior Center. And while they think an Asbury station makes the most sense, officials reminded residents that much needs to be done before it is built.

“The goal coming out of the feasibility study is not so much to eliminate other sites,” said city engineer Paul Schneider. “It’s what’s the site we feel most comfortable presenting that could be funded.”

Officials estimate that an Asbury Avenue station could cost about $23 million to build, and $900,000 annually to operate. Acquiring federal dollars, which Schneider said could potentially cover about 70 to 80 percent of the building cost, would require “a bit of a sales job” to convince the feds of the station’s merits and growth potential.

full article: http://triblocal.com/evanston/2012/0...-line-station/

Thanks. I forgot about the new entrance at Lasalle. However I am not sure of the technical jargon...maybe catchment area or whatever...but a stop at clybourn / division may be able to pull from some of that development nearer the river than an entrance at Lasalle which i think would still pull from mostly the gold coast etc.

anyhow it was us a thought.....do you know has there been any discussion of a brown line stop verus a redline stop

Great!!! I have been arguing for this for years; I think ridge could use on too though; the pop density in the area is generally ~ 15,000 / sq mile near western and near ridge is north of 20,000 / sq mile even 30, 000 sq mile

Unlikely. Not enough population in that area to justify another red line station. Technically that location (Clyborn and Division) has lost a ton of population from decades of project clearing. The new development is incapable or replacing these losses, just because any development isn't all that big and lacks density.

It's in the better interests of the entire Northside to shorten the length of time it takes to get from downtown to the Northern neighborhoods. An additional stop would be inconvenient and serves no benefit to any departing passengers, just the population immediately near the stop

It also wouldn't be a prudent use of funds. Building a subway station is expensive, but just think of how many stations you could repair / cleanup / renovate with those funds. So there would be tremendous public opposition.

A brown line stop is much more practical. It fills in a long gap between Chicago and Sedgwick, and is closer to a destination location (Division St Bars and Rush Street). I'd certainly board a brown line train at Division rather transfer at Fullerton, even if it means additional time at Armitage, Wellington, etc

For that matter, the entire Green Line is within blocks, in either direction, of the Red and the Blue Line(s). Recall when the Green was closed for two years, and there were demolition whispers?--results were community outcry.

From a planning standpoint, I had always thought the funding to rebuild an obsolete transit line could have been put to better use. (Then again, I still think EL, in general is an antiquated concept, so who am I?)

Outside the box thinking is not gonna happen in this era.

Thank god they didn't get the line demolished. It is an invaluable asset towards rebuilding the South and West sides of this city. You can argue that having the Blue and Red nearby is repetitious, but a neighborhood line is much more attractive than mass transit relegated to the middle of a godforsaken freeway that has greatly diminished potential for catchment density due to being swallowed by roadways.

Also... hasn't this city learned by now that once you demolish a mass transit line that it never comes back? Why remove value infrastructure that cannot ever be replicated for its inflation corrected cost?

I agree. Although I wish the Red Line ran over Canal and/or Normal or along those rail yards instead of the middle of a highway.

It's too bad the South Side has depopulated so much, there are a few places that adding rail service would be intersting if the densities could support it. That rail ROW just south of 49th St, the ROW between Western and Damen, the ROW along 75th just to name a few.

Hopefully they consider this when planning the Western BRT.

The current 49 bus has to be split into south, main, and north portions because going the whole distance would require the drivers to work a shift longer than the union permits. With BRT, the three lines can be stitched together again since the run times are much shorter.

What I'm getting at is, a rider could board the Western BRT at Asbury and ride it to the Medical Center. It might even be faster than going by rail, which currently requires three trains.

Agreed. I feel that the experiment of running a subway line down a expressway median has proved itself to be a measurable failure by now. But, we're stuck with what we got and efforts should be made to best utilize it. Whether that means looking to develop high density nodes surrounding stations or simply improving bus connections it is something that should be researched as a blank slate when concerning the Dan Ryan.

There are quite a few available options in the south side, but working them into a system could provide troublesome when you are dealing with such a patchwork or ROW. I have recently pondered the merits of a Westward extension of the Green line, how beneficial it would be to push it either two miles to Kedzie accessing the Chicago Lawn area, or just going for broke and extending it to the Midway terminus of the Orange Line.

The Chicago/West Lawn neighborhoods are dense, established neighborhoods that require fairly lousy commutes on the CTA to get downtown. Providing an option to either connect to the Orange and head downtown or a single ride on the Green for a transit poor area would be hugely beneficial in my eyes.

Back to the mention of the depopulated South side... with all of the University of Chicago's holdings in Washington Park it could be interesting to see how that area transitions when the school decides to start any sort of build out. The area around the Garfield station could densify quite rapidly.