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)

honte Nov 10, 2008 2:53 PM

^ There are some people who do support the cause, like Driehaus, but not enough by far.

The City put out a lame request that any other municipality needing a bridge come get the Division Street bridges, but this has been ineffective. Besides, I'd like to see them creatively reused here in Chicago, rather than carted off to someplace more respectful.

orulz Nov 10, 2008 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 3902268)
^ I agree, although it will be amusing and amazing to see this done.

I wish similar adaptive reuse could be found for the historic Division Street Bascule bridges (for autos), currently slated for demo.

How far north does the city plan on keeping the movable bridges? The replacement of old bascules with new fixed spans seems to be creeping further and further south, which is a terrible shame, not really because it limits taller ships, but more because these bridges are just cool relics of a bygone era.

the urban politician Nov 10, 2008 3:59 PM

California and other places are aggressively expanding rail/transit improvements, while Illinois' State Govt is gridlocked.

This is so beyond irritating.

VivaLFuego Nov 10, 2008 4:54 PM

^ In fairness, last year Illinois did approve hundreds of millions in annual new funding for public transit throughout Chicagoland. Of course we still desperately need a capital plan, but it's worth pointing out that in the end this region did step up it's investment to keep service (no thanks to Blago, of course).

Mr Downtown Nov 10, 2008 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 3902668)
How far north does the city plan on keeping the movable bridges?

Division Street is no longer required to open. Federal Register May 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 91) Page 31727-31730.

As for resetting bridges at higher elevations, this has now been done for both Cermak Road and Kinzie Street, both within the last decade. Both were essentially disassembled and then put back together. Cermak Road was widened and so reworked that it's hard to call it the original 1906 bridge.

I wonder how much the North Branch water level can vary? It seems like the water level could be allowed to drop a couple of feet one winter day, a couple of barges with cribbing could be nudged under the C&NW bridge span (in the down position), then the locks opened until the water level rose a couple feet above normal. Then the span would be supported by shore cribbing until the trunnion could be reset at the new level. These are the sorts of things you start thinking about after reading turn-of-the-century engineering journals. Similar things were done all over Chicago as the waterways were widened and improved.

honte Nov 10, 2008 7:52 PM

^ It's a great idea, this.

ardecila Nov 11, 2008 4:47 AM

Unfortunately, such a sledgehammer-and-fly solution is bound to have some undesirable effects on the ecosystem of the river... I hate to be a downer, though, and I really envy the creative thinking of those old engineers.

I'm sure, if the bridge is ever refurbished, it will simply be thoroughly documented, cut up, and put back together, with new pilings drilled. For all of our sakes, I really hope the foundation contractors are careful - especially in this area... :haha:

As far as the Division Street bridges go - is it possible that they could be re-used at Taylor and Polk Streets, where the city specifically needs new bridges? I brought this idea up awhile ago, although I'm not sure anybody commented on it. I assume the bridges no longer work at Division because they are 2-lane. 2-lane bridges, however, are exactly what's needed at the bridge sites in the South Loop.

honte Nov 11, 2008 5:33 AM

^ I can't see the city spending money on two-lane bridges... I'm sure they'd rather put in wider bridges and just have a large shoulder for the time being. Also I think those spans are going to need to be elevated to allow for the grade change at Canal?

The idea I had for Division Street was a simple one - use one bridge for eastbound, one for westbound. There is lots of vacant land around Halsted and Division near the river if Division needs to be widened somewhat to allow this.

VivaLFuego Nov 11, 2008 5:42 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if a 4-lane viaduct with operable bridge already existed crossing the river near Division/Halsted destined for general points westward, including the expressway? Too bad prior generations never built one (replete with breathtaking art deco reliefs) for us. Why, had there been such a piece of infrastructure providing capacity from Near North/Old Town to the west and the expressway, it might not have been deemed necessary to bulldoze 50% of a commercial district to widen North Avenue into 4 lanes. Really a shame there was never such an option contemplated.

Oh, wait.

denizen467 Nov 11, 2008 8:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 3902962)
Both were essentially disassembled and then put back together. Cermak Road was widened and so reworked that it's hard to call it the original 1906 bridge.

So for Cermak it was almost like just building a new bridge using the old one's parts? Still, if that's what it takes to save those Goose Island bridges, especially if lengthening/widening etc. is needed so they can be used in another location, it's ok with me.

OhioGuy Nov 11, 2008 2:04 PM

Anyone know if all four tracks will be open at Fullerton by Thanksgiving? It looks quite close to being finished.

honte Nov 11, 2008 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 3904561)
So for Cermak it was almost like just building a new bridge using the old one's parts? Still, if that's what it takes to save those Goose Island bridges, especially if lengthening/widening etc. is needed so they can be used in another location, it's ok with me.

Well, that's what really irks me about the Division bridges. The city advertises to outsiders, "Hey, come take these perfectly reusable bridges away piece-by-piece and make us look green," but they can't figure out a way just to reuse them here?

VivaLFuego Nov 11, 2008 4:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy (Post 3904703)
Anyone know if all four tracks will be open at Fullerton by Thanksgiving? It looks quite close to being finished.

Not sure about the exact date at Fullerton, but full 4-track operation in the whole corridor (full service levels, and probably moving Purple back to the inner loop) is scheduled to resume right around the new year.

ChicagoChicago Nov 11, 2008 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3904899)
Not sure about the exact date at Fullerton, but full 4-track operation in the whole corridor (full service levels, and probably moving Purple back to the inner loop) is scheduled to resume right around the new year.

Purple back to the inner loop??? Would it skip Wellington and Diversey then? Would it just bypass Armitage?

woodrow Nov 11, 2008 4:49 PM

^^ No. Usually, the Purple Line runs the same tracks as the Brown Line from Belmont to the Loop, then runs inner track. WIth all the various track projects, they had it run outer loop like Brown Line. I hope it will return to inner track. I will ask my super high-up CTA friend this weekend.

ChicagoChicago Nov 11, 2008 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodrow (Post 3904967)
^^ No. Usually, the Purple Line runs the same tracks as the Brown Line from Belmont to the Loop, then runs inner track. WIth all the various track projects, they had it run outer loop like Brown Line. I hope it will return to inner track. I will ask my super high-up CTA friend this weekend.

Ok. Inner LOOP. I was thinking inner TRACK on the 4 track red/brown. Interesting, I've only been riding the purple since 2006, so I've never seen it run inside.

OhioGuy Nov 11, 2008 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 3904899)
Not sure about the exact date at Fullerton, but full 4-track operation in the whole corridor (full service levels, and probably moving Purple back to the inner loop) is scheduled to resume right around the new year.

It's certainly exciting to be nearing the return of 4 track operation. Looking at both Belmont & Fullerton, it definitely looks as though Fullerton is quite a bit further along than Belmont. So that's what has me wondering if that station might possibly open by the end of the month with Belmont by the end of next month. Or at the very least I'm assuming Fullerton will open at some point ahead of Belmont.

ShawnP. Nov 11, 2008 6:07 PM

Chicago to get high speed network
 
I just read that Chicago could be the hub of a high speed rail network. It would only take 3 hours to get to St. Louis. This beats the fluctuating gas prices and agony of traffic congestion. http://eastgatevillage.wordpress.com...speed-network/

MayorOfChicago Nov 11, 2008 6:11 PM

I know a lot of people who would be very happy if they returned the Purple Line to the inner track.

The west loop workers would get their direct access to north bound trains back, and Clark/Lake and Merch Mart wouldn't have the huge crush of people from the west loop wandering up because they don't want to sit on the brown line all the way around the loop.

ChicagoChicago Nov 11, 2008 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago (Post 3905147)
I know a lot of people who would be very happy if they returned the Purple Line to the inner track.

The west loop workers would get their direct access to north bound trains back, and Clark/Lake and Merch Mart wouldn't have the huge crush of people from the west loop wandering up because they don't want to sit on the brown line all the way around the loop.

I'm one of those wanderers... We're like cattle. Anybody ever noticed the stairs at Merch Mart have been worn down from all the traffic? It's kind of funny, but that may be the most used stairwell in Chicago.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.