SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

VivaLFuego Nov 15, 2007 4:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attrill (Post 3167767)
This is pretty infuriating:

Do yourselves a favor and don't read the comments following the story. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points.

ardecila Nov 15, 2007 5:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3166762)
I'm sure that CN would be happy to cooperate with Barrington's construction of a grade separation to prevent traffic congestion from trains.

Actually, I'm getting involved with the anti-CN coalition purely to introduce some logic into this process (my main idea is splitting the cost of improvements between municipalities and CN.)

The freight tracks in Chicago were all grade-separated 80-100 years ago to remove the trains from the busy streets below. Today, grade-separation is usually a matter of moving the crossing roads onto over or underpasses. Road overpasses create unsightly views and underpasses have drainage issues. They're both relatively inexpensive solutions, though.

Has anybody done any cost-benefit studies of grade-separation by modifying the rail tracks? I think a open-cut arrangement like the one in Winnetka is desirable. At several points in Barrington, the land drops off and the railroad becomes higher than grade level, so it wouldn't involve as much excavation as it seems. This is of course extremely unrealistic, but it's what I'd like to see happen in a perfect world. Sound-barrier technology also exists that is reasonably-priced, and could be implemented relatively quickly.

So far, the Barrington coalition's strategy is purely aimed at stalling CN and putting off the approval of the EJ&E purchase by requiring CN to perform an Environmental Impact Statement. All this will do is postpone the increase in rail traffic, and the problems with road traffic will be even worse as more development happens in the surrounding area.

Rather than creating bad blood with CN by angrily delaying them at every turn, why not work cooperatively with them on mitigation projects?

aaron38 Nov 15, 2007 5:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 3168536)
Has anybody done any cost-benefit studies of grade-separation by modifying the rail tracks?

Palatine did some studies on putting Palatine Rd under the UP NW line in 2004 I believe. At evening rush it can back up a lot when the Metra trains are 5 minutes apart. Arlington Heights might have done something similar for Arlington Heights road.

The results of the Palatine survey were that it wasn't worth the cost and effort, but I don't remember how far off the numbers were.
I'll see if I can dig up the study.

Chicago Shawn Nov 15, 2007 6:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3168431)
Do yourselves a favor and don't read the comments following the story. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points.

I thought this comment was pretty good..


I suggest these so-called leaders have their meeting in an el train endlessly circling the loop until they have a solution. There will be no bathroom breaks. (Isn't that what some riders use the little one seat booth at the end of the cars for?)
No food or beverages. Every time the el goes round the loop once each "leader" will pay $2 out of his own pocket.

I also suggest voter vote these idiots out of office. And if no one is running against use your vote for a right in protest cause the uncontested candidates will win no matter what you do.

Posted by: MACK | Nov 14, 2007 2:46:22 PM

ardecila Nov 16, 2007 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 3168587)
Palatine did some studies on putting Palatine Rd under the UP NW line in 2004 I believe. At evening rush it can back up a lot when the Metra trains are 5 minutes apart. Arlington Heights might have done something similar for Arlington Heights road.

The results of the Palatine survey were that it wasn't worth the cost and effort, but I don't remember how far off the numbers were.
I'll see if I can dig up the study.

Thanks. I don't think high costs will be a very big deterrent to many people when weighed against the spectre of... gasp... moderately-heavy traffic! Remember, we're Barrington - we're used to wasteful spending. :haha:

Cary recently (within the last 20 years) built a nice underpass on Cary-Algonquin Road, which is nowhere near as highly-traveled as Northwest Highway, Palatine Road, Arlington Heights Road, Lake-Cook Road, or Highway 59.

Franklin Park also has built a new underpass on Grand Avenue as part of CREATE.

The chances of Barrington building an underpass at Hwy 14/Northwest Hwy are very good, considering the road's tremendous volume of traffic. The other grade crossings, probably not.

Chicago Shawn Nov 17, 2007 5:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 3170294)
Thanks. I don't think high costs will be a very big deterrent to many people when weighed against the spectre of... gasp... moderately-heavy traffic! Remember, we're Barrington - we're used to wasteful spending. :haha:

Cary recently (within the last 20 years) built a nice underpass on Cary-Algonquin Road, which is nowhere near as highly-traveled as Northwest Highway, Palatine Road, Arlington Heights Road, Lake-Cook Road, or Highway 59.

Franklin Park also has built a new underpass on Grand Avenue as part of CREATE.

The chances of Barrington building an underpass at Hwy 14/Northwest Hwy are very good, considering the road's tremendous volume of traffic. The other grade crossings, probably not.

I remember when Cary-Algonquin road used to have an overpass over Northwest Highway and then had a grade crossing at the top of the embankmet. I thought the underpass came about because of the need to replace the crumbeling two lane bridge, moreso than because of traffic volume.

Grand Avenue was desperately needed because the trains at that location are passing between yards and often stop across the roadway if there is a backlog or delay in switching.

OhioGuy Nov 19, 2007 5:35 PM

Did I hear correctly on the radio yesterday morning that the tax increase proposed by some to fund the CTA that the governor is against would only mean Chicagoans paying an extra 25 cents for every $100 spent, and residents in the 6 county region would only be paying an extra 50 cents for every $100 spent? That's what someone was saying that was in support of the tax increase as opposed to raising fares which would obviously hit riders much harder than the measely 25 cent tax increase on $100 spent.

Attrill Nov 19, 2007 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy (Post 3177249)
Did I hear correctly on the radio yesterday morning that the tax increase proposed by some to fund the CTA that the governor is against would only mean Chicagoans paying an extra 25 cents for every $100 spent, and residents in the 6 county region would only be paying an extra 50 cents for every $100 spent? That's what someone was saying that was in support of the tax increase as opposed to raising fares which would obviously hit riders much harder than the measely 25 cent tax increase on $100 spent.

Sounds about right - it's a quarter of a percent increase in the RTA tax. That would be the bill Julie Hamos introduced. It is pretty much dead because Blago wants casinos instead and refuses to allow any tax increases. I think there is also a Republican proposal to raise the gas tax and give some of the money to the RTA and the remainder would be used for roads projects downstate. But again, Blago refuses to even consider it.

ardecila Nov 20, 2007 4:47 AM

Blago calls out Madigan for not bringing the sales tax plan to a vote in the Senate, but then pledges to veto that same tax plan should the Senate pass it.

IL government is full of shit.

I think the gas-tax plan would have some momentum if not for the governor's attitude. As it stands, I don't think any plan for transit-funding can secure a veto-proof majority, so the governor can basically dictate his terms and the 51-65% of legislators have to comply if they want to get anything passed at all.

the urban politician Nov 20, 2007 5:00 AM

I don't get it. Blago doesn't want to burden poor people with a sales tax, but at the same time it is the poor people who rely the most on transit.

So if he drops the ball on transit, he still ends up burdening them. Makes no sense

Alliance Nov 20, 2007 5:17 AM

I kind of liked the idea of redirecting the gas-tax in the 6 CHicagoland counties to go to the CTA.

k1052 Nov 20, 2007 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3178735)
I don't get it. Blago doesn't want to burden poor people with a sales tax, but at the same time it is the poor people who rely the most on transit.

So if he drops the ball on transit, he still ends up burdening them. Makes no sense

He's acting like a little child because the legislature shot down (hard) the gross receipts tax he was pushing earlier this year to fund his health care initiatives.

Marcu Nov 20, 2007 6:03 PM

^ Yes. They not only shot it down but embarassed him in the process (deservingly too since the GRT was one of the worst ideas to come out of Springfield in recent memory). Maybe Blago can get some "testicular verility" (his words not mine) and show some leadership on this issue.

UChicagoDomer Nov 20, 2007 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eventually...Chicago (Post 3142127)
^^^nice post

The only thing i would add is this.

Discontinuing service anywhere seems to be a bad idea. How moronic was the destruction of the green line in woodlawn? The area is seeing some redevelopment and you know what they need now? Yep, more transit. It seems better to operate a line at a loss for awhile and hope for redevelopment than to get rid of it and lose it forever. It so hard to build new lines, lets hold onto what we have like grim death.


This discussion is from 2 weeks ago, but I have since learned information that caused me to change my original response to this post (my original response: local Woodlawn groups worried about crime fought to tear the el down and now the area is "vibrant" with 200K and 300K condos):

basically, the Woodlawn groups (who were church based in a crime ridden area) should have learned from the experiences of another church-based group in a crime-ridden area, New Bethel Life, in West Garfield Park, that, instead of fighting for the Lake St. Green Line El to be dismantled, instead built around it: an arts center, a community center at Lake St. & Pulaski (i.e. right next to the El), senior housing, residential housing that they are now trying to sell at affordable rates and market price, retail development etc. etc. Instead of seeking to get rid of the El, they actually fought for more El stations. I don't know the crime rates in West Garfield Park currently, but they can't be any worse than the areas south of 63rd st. So, basically, (and in contrast to what I argued before) the myopic hostility to transit lines in Woodlawn was extremely short-sighted, leaving those areas with oddly situated housing on what should be a retail thoroughfare, and no little to no public transportation, in contrast to West Garfield Park, which has sought out TOD options and retail development.

anyway, apologies for beating a dead horse. i just wanted to clarify my stance.

honte Nov 21, 2007 3:32 AM

^ Glad you came around on that issue. I suppose we'd expect nothing less from the U. of C. ;)

In general, I never support reduction in urban infrastructure.

BVictor1 Nov 24, 2007 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy (Post 3163488)
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27100

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita


Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

---------



Good old commerce clause.


More nonsense.....

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/barringt...507-s1.article
Barrington leaders speak out against Canadian National's plans

November 15, 2007
By TONY A. SOLANO
Staff Writer

Barrington trustees spoke adamantly at Monday's meeting about the negative impact the purchase of the EJ & E Railroad by the Canadian National Railway could bring to the area.

Barrington trustees spoke adamantly at Monday's meeting about the negative impact the purchase of the EJ & E Railroad by the Canadian National Railway could bring to the area.

Chicago2020 Nov 24, 2007 11:20 PM

Did I read that right "abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop."

That would be nice :banana: :yes: :banana:

ardecila Nov 25, 2007 7:52 AM

More sheer idiocy from my neighbors... my god. Absolutely NOBODY is talking solutions, only griping about the problems and campaigning against the increase in trains - as if they have any power to stop it.

Seriously, all we can do is plan around the increase in traffic, and make our town better and safer in the process.

ardecila Nov 26, 2007 4:44 AM

I was working with this idea over the weekend, and I'm posting it in response to a comment in the Boom Rundown thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 3188471)
I was thinking about this. Chicago needs something like an east-west subway line running under Chicago Avenue, from the lake all the way west, with some kind of spur that turns south to the train stations. That could really turn the area north of the river into a real, mixed-use "Midtown" type district. Or even better, running east along Chicago Avenue until a couple of blocks before the lake, and then turning south through Streeterville, Lakeshore East, and down the south lakefront to Hyde Park, which I think would spur massive development between McCormick Place and Hyde Park.

I've thought about it too.

The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5...ontlinelb3.jpg

AnotherPunter Nov 26, 2007 2:31 PM

[QUOTE]The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)[QUOTE]

This should be on the agenda. But instead we'll be talking about propping up the existing El system for the foreseeable future... As someone who lives on the north side but works in hyde park though, I can say I'd ride this every day and happily so.

Obviously, it would be great for the olympics too. Maybe once Obama become prez he'll help shepherd through some federal funds for this kind of project.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.