I can think of so many places where LSD could use a ped bridge it'd be faster to just bury the damn thing than to list them all.

It'd be better for everyone involved if they'd just rebuild to Dorchester and upzone everything along 63rd Street.

Sorry....but that ship has departed long ago!!

In this day and time, there is no way that the "L" should be going east on 63rd St. to any Dorchester, Jackson Park, or whatever???

I bet you don't know the "why" and the "because" why the "L" came down in the first place.... and it wasn't because of some preachers!!!!


Here is a YouTube I did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF32djQtR_E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVgKkb1n7IY

Honestly, the vacancy is so high you could extend the L using the alley north of 63rd. Either that, or condemn a row of lots to the immediate north or south.

That way you still have L service (on a quiet modern concrete viaduct) and it doesn't blight the street.

Of course, the only reason to do a project like that in the face of historical opposition from the community is if you're trying to encourage transfers between CTA and Metra, which is antithetical to the way both agencies operate.

You must don't live here.

Did you read what I posted.

What are you driving at?

A complex mix of racist housing policies, white violence, and black riots in response doomed the East 63rd St shopping district in the 60s and 70s. The crack epidemic in the 80s made it worse. In the 90s, Arthur Brazier pushed for CTA to tear down the L, thinking it would revive the neighborhood. It backfired and only sped up the decline. Now there are 2 blocks of heavily subsidized housing, Brazier's church with massive parking lots, and a ton of vacant land. What part am I missing?

I am try to agree that the 63rd St. is not needed now.... transit needs are different now. JUMP is faster than Green line.

Secondly, it wasn't the two preachers that got the "L" down.....it was the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. If we can agree in that, we can talk so more. Other wise?????

Ending the Violence -- 10,000 New Jobs......
 

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...ent-1422155356

I am going to be addressing CTA's next Board meeting at 10am this Wednesday June 11th., I really wish you could attend and hear what I have to say, because I am REALLY going to hold their feet to the fire about this!

Mr. Mike.....Is this your statment? It would create 10,000 New Permanent Jobs in the poor Black Communities on Chicago's South and Southeast Sides. It would put a new CTA "L" station 4 blocks from where teacher Betty Howard was killed, and 3 blocks from the E. 79th St Laundromat where 6 people were shot; without ANY New Major Construction (it's already there, it's running each and every day): http://www.chicagobusiness.com... http://gridchicago.com/2012/co...

I lived in Chatham for over 40 yrs until 2006, so I know all of it's problems, and what would be one of the BEST possible solutions to them.

The BIG problem is that CTA and Metra (actually Mayor Emanuel all by himself) cannot, will not, and "na-na-na-na-na - you-can't-make-me" WORK TOGETHER.

Heck, I can't even get any Black People to support me!

I am going to be addressing CTA's next Board meeting at 10am on next Wednesday June 11th., I really wish you could attend and hear what I have to say, because I am REALLY going to hold their feet to the fire about this -- I might just end up getting myself arrested.

PLEASE contact me Mr. Glover (or anyone else seeking information) at: grayline15@yahoo.com



You have doing this since 1996.....almost 20 years???? Of course, I have given you my reasons over and over, why, you've met failure so far....1. No one wants to ride Metra Electric and pay two fares. And 2., no one thinks there are 10,000 available by riding Metra Electric.

Don't get youself locked up. It ain't worth it.....be cool.

Two fares? I'm a little confused on what you mean by that. If the line is converted to a CTA line, wouldn't you only need to pay pay with one fare?

Confused????

Has the CTA offered converted fare???? 18 years this plan has been on the table.

This is a dream of one man.....Mike. 18 years.

Well that response still didn't answer my question so I'm not going to ponder into this any further.

So your issue is just that it's politically unfeasible? Or you have other problems with the Gray Line plan?

If it's the latter, put them forward. If it's the former, that seems to point to a failure of the citizens of Chicago to push for this (which could potentially be overcome if Mike had some help...).

It is the latter! Plan is unfeasible!

There is no FAILURE!

What is to don't see?

a few years ago I had done some research on transit expansion and interviewed a retired CTA planner:

Authority is shying away from addressing the issues: The Gray Line proposal is about turf battles (CTA/METRA), and the proposer [Michael Payne] is not a professional planner. Electric line is there but is not regarded as an official plan. Fare integration projects have been tested. 60 yrs or so ago, that S.Shore Electric line was the rapid transit to Hyde Park and South Side but the service became infrequent. -H.Hirsch, CTA Planner, Retired

whenever there is recognition, it is referred to as gold line or some other iteration cause it's primarily the fact that a community organizer (outsider) is behind the proposal that it is not taken seriously, which is a shame.

Well, the "outsider" has kind of soiled his own bed, by lurching from rationales based in cost-effectiveness of transportation service to wild arguments about racial justice and fantasies that a mere increase in transit service will inexorably result in economic development. Any time it's suggested that he's overstated the benefits or (vastly) underestimated the costs, he changes the subject and points to the Block 37 superstation investment or plays the race card. There's a reason he's no longer taken seriously.

But I will say that Harry Hirsch is a tool of the first order, who was perfectly content to preside over the CTA's death spiral of the 1980s, his big career accomplishment being cutting some more service hours out of each pick.

informative. and i do appreciate the depth of knowledge you bring to the table.

mr. payne is quite direct and capable of defending this, but i always supported the grey line.

if he has dealt the race card, there's a full deck to go around in this city.

Thanks for this. That actually makes the proposal much more interesting to me. What I'm hearing is, the Gray (Gold) Line has no chance because of the person supporting it (and politics).

What I haven't heard is that it's a less cost-effective way to bring transit to the south lakefront/far South Side. Intuitively, using existing infrastructure should be significantly less expensive than building a brand new extension, and this line does go through much denser neighborhoods. Makes me think it makes more sense than a Red Line extension (politics aside).

Obviously we're missing data, but does anyone think that absent politics/turf wars that the Red Line extension is preferable to the Gray (Gold) Line?

Possibly. The Red Line offers a one-seat ride to many important destinations, including the entire North Side. Metra Electric dead ends at Randolph Street and intersects with exactly zero CTA lines, so the network effects are pretty minimal.

The Grey/Gold Line is a good plan for stimulating the growth of the South Lakefront, which should be a desirable planning goal in itself, but it's not a great plan in terms of connecting South Siders to jobs and social/educational opportunities.

by whom? people on the far south side, or posters on this board?

again, grey line is not official. and not to take away from payne's effort, but those who would be most affected have not been given this option, or even have info.

No, it's unlikely because—despite its instinctive appeal—it's just not that great an idea.

The RTA's 2012 South Lakefront Corridor Study found only modest benefits and high costs for the "Gold Line:"

"If it were assumed that capacity expansion at Millennium Station and along the main line was not needed, the capital cost per new rider would be over $13 and the overall cost per new rider (including operating costs) would be over $35. . .. The operating cost of the Gold Line service plan would be substantial at approximately $60 million annually. The average operating cost per rider would be $12.90. Current operating costs per rider are about $8 per rider.. . given the relatively low cost-effectiveness of the project, obtaining the necessary Federal New Starts funding would be very difficult. TOD impacts are not expected to be large since there already is existing rail service in the corridor."

http://www.rtams.org/reportLibrary/2282.pdf

Thank you for posting that - the numbers are interesting.

I think it's kind of small-minded that they're so dismissive of TOD benefits, however, as well as the lack of foward-thinking. There is a lot that could be done with the line going forward, both relatively inexpensive things that build on new TOD investments (additional stations in the currently under-developed mid-south area come to mind), medium-expensive things that improve services and safety (such as cut-and-covering the street-running portions in the South Shore), and grander, more expensive things that improve the entire region (such as running it under Monroe to the West Loop and then north as part of an electrified UP-N line with additional TOD and stations where the UP-N line runs). Some of that is quite expensive, but would add value and open up parts of the city currently well-built, but capable of handling additional density with better service for both the south lakefront and the north side off the lakefront.

As a short-term plan, it seems way to expensive and of limited use, but as a long-term plan it would add enormous value to the Loop, the West Loop, the mid south lakefront, South Shore, Goose Island, west Lakeview, Ravenswood, west Rogers Park and the north shore suburbs. Name another infrastructure project that would benefit such a wide range of areas, at any cost? This is where regional planning would be very beneficial, because they could fund the planning and design of such an endpoint, and then break it into digestible pieces to be built as funds become available. You could probably even do all that for the cost of Boston's Big Dig in today's dollars, with a truly regional impact bigger than the Big Dig.

Should be far less than the Big Dig... the West Loop Metra tunnel was estimated at less than $1 billion. Everything else (electrification, flyovers, infill stations) would probably be about $1-2 billion.

At some point, though, it becomes a solution looking for a problem, like buying a horse because you found a horseshoe.

I don't know that we can just assume inexhaustible demand for in-city residential, in all geographic sectors, and while downtown transit service helps spur redevelopment, it clearly isn't the only factor. Fast frequent service on the Green Line hasn't made much difference to the areas around its stations. In fact, those neighborhoods lost nearly 100,000 people between 2000 and 2010.

Rahm's getting ready to sign some checks for construction of Wilson and 95th red line stations.

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ne-station.php

This one has a bit of a Heathrow feel to it (95th terminal):

http://chicago.curbed.com/uploads/Sc...17.53%20PM.png

None of us can predict with 100% certainty the growth of the city, but we can push it in certain directions through public investment. There's no reason the sector model will always dictate Chicago's growth.

The South Lakefront was once a highly desirable area before the Great Migration and its subsequent (racism-driven) transformation into the Black Belt. I don't see any law of nature saying it can't become desirable again given certain transit investments and improvements like the Obama library.

That's sort of what's spurring my questioning. I need to look more into the analysis that Mr. D posted to understand the approach, but if it's a choice between a Red Line extension and the Gold Line, it seems like the Gold Line could be a winner. In that case, you're comparing the cost of upgrades to an even larger one (not simply the cost of running the ME as is).

I also don't think the one-seat trip is as big a deal as others do. The biggest employment center is the Loop, and the Gold Line would take people there. Getting to the Red Line would require a ~three block walk on the Pedway, but if the connection were improved (signage and whatnot), it doesn't seem like a major impediment.

The biggest upside of the Gold Line (vs. a Red Line extension) is that it runs through neighborhoods that still are densely populated (e.g., Hyde Park, South Shore) and others that could be incredibly attractive in the coming decades (e.g., Douglas). The potential there just seems too strong to ignore.

But increasingly it's not the East Loop, where Metra Electric goes. New office jobs are in the West Loop, tech in River North and Fulton Market, healthcare in Streeterville or IMD. Railfans assume that workers are just dying to trade their one-seat or two-seat bus ride for a three-seat ride so long as the middle seat is in a train. I'm not so sure that's the main priority for the AA or nurse who just wants to know when she'll get to the bus stop nearest her South Shore apartment.

At current density I don't see how a Gold/Grey line project is justifiable at this time. In the interim it is probably more worthwhile to use more BRT from the south side since that presents a fewer obstacles with a lot less cost. If trends change then the rail proposals can be revisited. In that spirit the St. Charles Air Line ROW should be preserved since such a service will most definitely need access to the west loop to be attractive.

There are a number of reasons that the areas along the Green Line lost so much population, but first we should recognize that the areas directly abutting the Lake are very different from the areas directly adjacent to the Green Line both in appeal and convenience.

Much of the population lost along the Green Line was the demolition of existing public housing, with the much slower rebuilding of new housing. Some of it, in some relevant areas, was also the first seeds of gentrification, when low-income-high-children households are replaced with mid-income-low-or-no-children households. To the extent that the population decline was related to the loss of public housing and gentrification, both are positive indicators for mid-to-long-term population growth (or re-growth) in the area.

a short lake street extension, either the el or blue line subway, would connect existing CTA rails directly into s. shore station.

How exactly would that work? Have a grade crossing in the State Street Subway?

perhaps, with proper crossing signals

Not to derail (pun is a complete coincidence) the southeast side discussion, but I have a question. Metra's Union Pacific North Line looks as though the addition of the 3rd set of tracks between Bryn Mawr and Addison is nearing completion - viaducts, retaining walls, and landscaping seem done, although laying of actual ties and rails, and modification of signaling, may still be going on.

Does anyone know what this year's work entails, and whether the teardown and replacement of one of the existing set of tracks will begin this year? It was hard to find any recent news on UP.com. I wonder whether they tear down the eastern set, or the now-middle set, of tracks as the next phase. Either way it looks like it will be more complicated than just bolting on the extra tracks on the western edge of the line.

I don't think that would be practical, and would limit the utility of providing rides from the southeast to the West Loop and from the north (or even northwest) to the East Loop or McCormick area.

They're starting Addison to Webster next year...not to be completed until 2019 I think. They are phasing the work to maintain two track service at all times, the failure to do so was the cause of the meltdowns on the line during 2011 when they started. AFAIK no permanent third track is being left at this time but the project was restructured so that it would be possible in the future.

Wouldn't it be more practical to (someday) connect the ME to the south side El or State St subway somewhere in the South Loop (maybe via the St. Charles airline)?

Uh..no since the systems are not at all compatible. Not to mention the Loop tracks are already rather congested at rush.

Connecting Union Station directly to the air line by rebuilding the bridge over the yard to access the station throat tracks seems like the best long term option.

Well, this would be assuming that there was enough growth/gentrification in South Shore to make it worthwhile to pay for infrastructure/rolling stock which would be compatible with CTA. Maybe a 20-30 year project.

I have to disagree with you (not argumentative).

what I am suggesting could be a shuttle service going east, for just those few blocks, connecting with either the lake street el (if above), or if the subway, to/from the lake transfer station-- a straight shot down lake str to IL Center, thus Randolph station. (have to add that I am not suggesting combining the two systems; just and CTA station for transfer @ IL Cntr)

not sure when you say "limit the utility" but anything of this nature would enhance connections from the southeast to the west loop and all that you stated above, which would be a great improvement to anything there is now.

I think you could do a transfer station at 16th/Wabash between Metra and CTA. Same difference, really.

CTA looked at a Green 16th St station (they say, before settling on Cermak); said it would be a nightmare due to adjacent buildings on all sides and complex track interlocking patterns from State St portal tracks and 18th St flyover tracks. If you look at the trackage, it IS a mess. So, simplification + real estate acquisition will kill probably kill this for a long long time to come

You'd pretty much just need electrification along the air line and into the station. Not the hugest of deals. One seat rides to the west loop would probably make the MED/SS territory more attractive for additional development.

A shuttle using existing tracks would greatly complicate operations.

Shuttles in general are inconvenient compared to regular service (this is partly my own opinion based on having used them in places).

A grade-separated one would be very expensive with only one, localized use.

Not sure there is enough room around the elevated there to accomplish that and with jobs continuing their shift to the west loop direct service would probably be more valuable long term.

It's not that bad... cheaper than a new subway station for example.

But that doesn't address what work they will do starting this year on the Addison - Bryn Mawr segment. They'd better get started on the next set of tracks since they only have 5 years remaining in their schedule.

I assume they are also rebuilding the Fullerton and Clybourn viaducts? Those are pretty sizeable and Fullerton especially would be a welcome improvement.

Will there be any work done to the bridge over the North Branch?


Edit: see next post

Partially addressing some of my questions above is this Metra press release, though it may be a couple years old and things may have changed since.

http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/a...UPNbridge.html

Clark/Division, New Mezzanine

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3705/...b19e8324_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3685/...bc3c79d0_b.jpg

src

For the gold line would having it go under Monroe street, like under the 1968 plan, make it more sensible? Especially if the Green/Orange line got connected to it just south of the loop.