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)

ardecila Mar 29, 2012 4:12 AM

Loops are crappy unless they're bidirectional. I do like the Carroll St trench, though. It seemed like the city was on the verge of doing something with it, but that apparently crashed and burned before anybody even heard what was going on.

ardecila Mar 29, 2012 4:46 AM

Also, why not hold the damn meeting in McCormick West, which has no train lines beneath it?

markh9 Mar 29, 2012 11:42 AM

Morgan Station
 
A unique perspective of the new Morgan Station as captured by Nathan Weber for the New York Times. (This article specifically)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...GO-2-popup.jpg

OhioGuy Mar 29, 2012 12:13 PM

The new Oakton station on the Yellow Line should be opening this spring.

March 2012 – Oakton Station Progress

Quote:

The station finishes are progressing nicely. Guardrails, handrails and door hardware are installed and adjustments are being made. Exterior finishes at the customer assistance kiosks are complete and the interior flooring, ceiling, cabinets and countertops are nearly finished. The kiosk communication equipment installation also has begun. The CTA fare control equipment will be installed soon.

The station accessories and signage are being installed and should be completed soon. Electrical and communication equipment installation is ongoing within the North and South Station Houses, including the light fixtures, cameras, video monitors and speakers.

The station communication system was successfully integrated with the existing CTA system and the train signal system testing and integration will take place soon.
And here's a direct link to the progress report shown in the screen capture at the above link: http://www.egovlink.com/public_docum...newsletter.pdf

Nowhereman1280 Mar 29, 2012 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 5644913)
I don't think SOAR really has the authority to add earmarks to the next federal transportation bill.

Yes because we live in a direct Democracy where community groups influence law by directly voting on legislation...

It's not as if we have representatives who are capable of "adding earmarks to the next federal transportation bill" who listen directly to the more vocal elements of their community and try to bring home the bacon.

Don't be an asshat DT.

aic4ever Mar 29, 2012 2:24 PM

You guys are nuts. Nobody's going to spur a train line off into Streeterville, heavy, light, or otherwise. It's easy walking distance to multiple red line stops, and the northeast corner loop stops already.

VivaLFuego Mar 29, 2012 2:25 PM

It's borderline. There's a lot of service in the area that could theoretically be consolidated into a single high capacity service like the ill-fated 1960s distributor subway. The fact that the capacity already mostly exists makes it that much harder to inspire new construction (this gets back to one of the long-running bones of contention with the New Starts program formulas favoring light rails from nowhere to nowhere in transit deserts rather than investments to improve quality of service in transit-rich areas with transit-dependent land use)

Once Wacker drive is done the CTA 120-series buses can return to Lower Wacker for a pretty quick jaunt from Metra over that way via Columbus/Fairbanks. From the north you have all the 140-series express routes... from the north/south you have the Red Line connecting to the #66 Chicago bus which runs every 2-3 minutes peak and generally every 5-8 minutes off-peak. From the west, you again have the #66 and the #65. From the loop and south loop, you have the #3, which runs every 5-10 minutes most of the day.

Rizzo Mar 29, 2012 3:12 PM

That's what I was thinking VivaLFuego, the neighborhood will soon be maxed out, and people don't seem to be complaining about getting to work.

I suggested Union to Navy Pier light rail that would serve mostly as a tourist amenity, but also benefit Streeterville residents and would provide near proximity to Northwestern

It would probably require alot of private funding. I would propose no more than 3 miles of LRT that would basically hit all the popular downtown areas.

Union Station / Loop (with close proximity to Sears)
- Route along Canal St
Ogilivie
- Route along Canal St
Kinzie Street Bridge
- Route over Kinzie RR Bridge
Merchandise Mart (span Wells and Lasalle
- Route on Carroll St
State Street (span Dearborn and State
- Route beneath Wabash
- Route beneath Illinois
Magnificent Mile
- Route beneath Illinois
Columbus
- Route on Illinois
Navy Pier (it would loop back around on Grand and LSD, back to Illinois)

8 stations. Slightly less than 3 miles

Notice I'm trying to be unobtrusive as possible by routing beneath many busy streets. Canal and Illinois can certainly afford to give up space. I'm guessing it would cost around $220-$260 million which includes rehabilitation of the Kinzie St. Bridge.





-

ardecila Mar 29, 2012 3:13 PM

You can't see it in the official newsletter, but the Oakton station includes a really neat railing on the ramp up to the south station house. The designers used perforated metal and varied the hole sizes so the word "Oakton" is visible.

ardecila Mar 29, 2012 3:20 PM

Sounds pretty good, although it makes more sense from my perspective to stay on Lower North Water and shoot straight over to Columbus/Illinois with a stop beneath Pioneer Plaza.

emathias Mar 29, 2012 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aic4ever (Post 5645849)
You guys are nuts. Nobody's going to spur a train line off into Streeterville, heavy, light, or otherwise. It's easy walking distance to multiple red line stops, and the northeast corner loop stops already.

There are only two Red Line stops anywhere near Streeterville, which is not really what "multiple" would imply. And most of Streeterville is not really an easy walk from them. Internationally, only locations within 3/8ths of a mile of a station are considered to be well-integrated into a service area. Anything east of St. Clair is over 3/8ths of a mile from a subway stop.

You have the two most-used Metra stations in the West Loop, and you have a strong commercial, retail and residential district in Streeterville and Michigan Avenue. Yes, buses do link the two, but they're still not very well connected and proportionally few people coming into Ogilvy or Union are willing to connect to Streeterville or the East Loop or the Michigan Ave area. A subway link would greatly increase accessibility between the West Loop train stations and the Streeterville/Michigan Ave cooridors.

Additionally, a subway as proposed in 1968 would put UIC, most of the South Loop campuses, and the Streeterville/Watertower campuses of the UofC, Northwestern and Loyola all along the same line. It'd be excellent for circulating students between all the different areas catering to them.

Sears Tower to Northwestern's Galter Pavilion is nearly 2 miles walking - a good 35 minutes walking. Taking a bus is 21 minutes. Taking the Red Line is 21 minutes but involves nearly 3/4 of a mile in walking. A subway under Monroe to Streeterville would cut that time in half and include about 2 blocks of walking.

Taken together, you have commuters keeping it busy during rush hour, business people keeping it busy during the day, suburban visitors keeping it busy during the work day and weekends, students keeping it busy during the evening and weekends, and West Loop and Streeterville residents providing additional ridership throughout the day.

The areas covered by the 1968 plan were the areas projected to have strong growth. It fell apart for a lot of reasons, but the places that have grown the most over the past 50 years are the areas served by a roughtly UIC to Streeterville line. The need is still there, there's just limited will because of doubters and people who'd rather spend money in low-density, distant parts of the city where ridership will be a fraction of what a new downtown subway would provide.

Put transit where people will use it a lot, not just where residents cry for political mollification.

Nowhereman1280 Mar 29, 2012 3:50 PM

^^^ Disagree, transit should go where it will spur new growth, not where it might rack up decent ridership numbers from old growth. There are half a dozen places I'd rather see the city put a new subway. The circle line would be far more useful and probably get more ridership while spurring gobs of new development for example.

You are forgetting something in your formula: whether it's actually worth using transit. Most people in Streeterville work in Illinois Center, Northwestern, or the Loop all of which are a maximum of a 30 min walk from home. Now tell me, if I want to get from Streeterville to the Sears Tower, does it really make sense for me to walk to the Subway (5 minutes), wait for a train (5 to 10 minutes), take the train (probably 15 or 20 minutes since you are going out of the way to the north or south) and then walk to the Sears Tower (5 to 10 minutes)? You are talking 30 to 40 minutes on the train which is probably about what it would take you just to walk there in the first place.

Most people in Streerville spend 90% of their life downtown and therefore don't use mass transit (except maybe buses) because they just walk everywhere even if it's 2 miles. Everyone I've ever known who lives in that neighborhood has that same lifestyle even if they live in Lake Point Tower which is as far away from the Subway as you can get.

The Red Line is frankly irrelevant in any discussion about Streeterville because it doesn't even register in the minds of the residents of that area.

sammyg Mar 29, 2012 5:07 PM

Wouldn't enhanced Water Taxi service be just as fast as a new light rail service between Union Station and Streeterville? If the light rail is on the Carrol Street easement, that's only a block from a new water taxi stop at Fairbanks or McClurg.

emathias Mar 29, 2012 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5645948)
^^^ Disagree, transit should go where it will spur new growth,
...

First and foremost, transit should be provided where people are. Speculation is all well and dandy when all existing needs are capable of being met or when there is rapid, predictable growth in an area. But why on earth would we be building things to draw people into new areas when there are existing unmet needs and there is not rampant growth?

The 1968 subway proposal linked areas of the city that were just starting to turn around at the time, and have, since then, experienced strong growth. So even if we took your philosophy to heart, implementing that plan would simply be building where growth will be, but about 50 years late.

The reason the Red Line doesn't factor much into Streeterville is because people in Streeterville *drive* to places outside of Streeterville. The same is true in Kingsbury Park, for example. These are people in transit-oriented areas that have relatively limited transit options so they walk locally and drive to leave the neighborhood. Contrast that to people who live close to rail lines - they use the rail to get to work, but also for leisure activities in the evenings and weekends.

I'm not against building more than just the 1968 plan, but I think it's just stupid to not provide excellent transit to people who already live in areas that are already built to a heavy-rail-friendly density. Why ignore the people who are doing what is best for urbanity simply because they did it before new people you think (might) appear if we build them a subway? That's not only unfair to the early adopters, it has no foundation in reason or logic. Yes, you should ALWAYS prioritize lines that will yield the highest ridership, whether it's already an area that's partly served or not. Not doing so is an abandonment of responsibility to the citizens who pay for it.

emathias Mar 29, 2012 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammyg (Post 5646059)
Wouldn't enhanced Water Taxi service be just as fast as a new light rail service between Union Station and Streeterville? If the light rail is on the Carrol Street easement, that's only a block from a new water taxi stop at Fairbanks or McClurg.

No. Have you actually ridden a water taxi for any purpose other than leisure? Not comparable.

Nowhereman1280 Mar 29, 2012 5:23 PM

So you are saying building the circulator would be 50 years too late which is why we should build it? That makes no sense. We should build a circulator connecting areas that are NOW experiencing rapid growth like North/Clyborn, Wicker Park, West Loop, South Loop, etc. so we are constructing it just in time for new development, not half a century in arrears.

Build something now that serves developing areas with open lots (old cabrini, the west loop near United Center, the wasteland around IMD, the huge swaths of vacant land in the South Loop along the river) in order to spur high density development in these frontiers.

Instead of concentrating on an area that will be built out with 500' highrises one way or another, concentrate on attracting development to the areas immediately surrounding downtown in order to help reconnect all the neighborhoods that have been severed from downtown by urban decay.

Nothing makes more sense to me than a subway running under North Avenue to Damen and then turning south to the IMD and then turning East along Roosevelt to UIC and then terminating at the Red line or continuing to the Museum campus and turning south along the Metra tracks to McCormick place (and allowing possible future expansions to the South).

the urban politician Mar 29, 2012 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5646081)
So you are saying building the circulator would be 50 years too late which is why we should build it? That makes no sense. We should build a circulator connecting areas that are NOW experiencing rapid growth like North/Clyborn, Wicker Park, West Loop, South Loop, etc. so we are constructing it just in time for new development, not half a century in arrears.

Build something now that serves developing areas with open lots (old cabrini, the west loop near United Center, the wasteland around IMD, the huge swaths of vacant land in the South Loop along the river) in order to spur high density development in these frontiers.

Instead of concentrating on an area that will be built out with 500' highrises one way or another, concentrate on attracting development to the areas immediately surrounding downtown in order to help reconnect all the neighborhoods that have been severed from downtown by urban decay.

Nothing makes more sense to me than a subway running under North Avenue to Damen and then turning south to the IMD and then turning East along Roosevelt to UIC and then terminating at the Red line or continuing to the Museum campus and turning south along the Metra tracks to McCormick place (and allowing possible future expansions to the South).

^ Gotta disagree with you here.

The last thing Chicago needs is more infrastructure that is underutilized. There are so many areas of the city where train stops serve few customers, or are surrounded by vacant land, that it's pathetic.

I would argue that your line of thinking is not only what is fundamentally wrong with the CTA, but it is helping bankrupt the city and state.

Nowhereman1280 Mar 29, 2012 7:23 PM

^^^ But it wouldn't be under utilized. It would basically allow people to make trips that are impractical now. For example, ever try to get to anywhere along the near west side from the north or northwest? It ain't happening. Ever try to get from the North Side to the NW side? Not fun. The segment between North and Clyborn and Damen alone would be packed constantly. That's not even considering events at the United Center (which is currently inaccessible by transit from just about everywhere). Then there is providing actual service to the Museum Campus and opening up new communiting possibilities to the IMD from the N and NW... It would also open up completely different line possibilities. You could set it up so that you could alternate Red and Blue Line trains down opposite sides of downtown which would make commuting to places outside of the West Loop Practical from the growing NW side. Right now I can't go anywhere except the middle of the loop from my house on the train; no Michigan Ave, no Lincoln Park, no North and clyborn, No West Loop (except the south side of it which I can get to from UIC Halsted), such a line would actually make it possible for me to take trains to visit friends in LP or to go to a job along Michigan Ave or meet someone near the Hancock for dinner. I just drive right now...

Eventually a rail line will be built in Chicago that does something other than go to downtown and we will all be shocked at the amount of demand there is for trips that don't go downtown... Chicago is pretty much the only city with a transit system of this size in the world that doesn't have a train line allowing circulation outside of the CBD...

emathias Mar 29, 2012 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5646270)
^^^ But it wouldn't be under utilized. It would basically allow people to make trips that are impractical now. For example, ever try to get to anywhere along the near west side from the north or northwest? It ain't happening. Ever try to get from the North Side to the NW side? Not fun. The segment between North and Clyborn and Damen alone would be packed constantly. That's not even considering events at the United Center (which is currently inaccessible by transit from just about everywhere).

So built a station at Madison on the Pink Line. There - I just saved the City from building a $2 billion subway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5646270)
Then there is providing actual service to the Museum Campus and opening up new communiting possibilities to the IMD from the N and NW... It would also open up completely different line possibilities. You could set it up so that you could alternate Red and Blue Line trains down opposite sides of downtown

Roosevelt Station for Red/Green/Orange line is the same distance from the Field Museum as the Field Museum is from Adler Planetarium. I happen to think that doubling trains on the Pink Line and running half of them east along the 15th Street viaduct, then north along the Metra Electric ROW would be a good long-term plan, but mostly because I think it could be done relatively inexpensively. AND that it would only really make sense (given the piss-poor ridership on the Pink Line currently) if done in conjunction with the 1968 plan for a subway from the West Loop to Streeterville, which actually also branched south to McCormick Place. Tying new peripheral lines into a heavily used core enhancement will result in far more riders than simply donig peripheral enhancements. The core-centric nature of Chicago isn't going to change even with additional peripheral lines - nor, it can be argued, should it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5646270)
which would make commuting to places outside of the West Loop Practical from the growing NW side. Right now I can't go anywhere except the middle of the loop from my house on the train; no Michigan Ave,

If you don't have a subway in Streeterville, how are rail enhancements getting you to Michigan Ave anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5646270)
no Lincoln Park, no North and clyborn, No West Loop (except the south side of it which I can get to from UIC Halsted), such a line would actually make it possible for me to take trains to visit friends in LP or to go to a job along Michigan Ave or meet someone near the Hancock for dinner. I just drive right now...

There will be a station at Morgan in May. Transfer at Clark/Lake and now you have the north half of the West Loop covered, too.

You drive to dinner at the Hancock? The mere fact that you illustrate that it's practical for you to drive from where you live to where your friends are and yet want a subway line connecting the two spots illustrates your misplaced priorities. It's not practical to drive between the West Loop and Streeterville. That's where a subway is appropriate. Putting subways in places well-served by cars ahead of places where cars aren't practical is ridiculous.

I don't disagree that other lines would be "nice to have," you and I only really disagree on prioritization. I think places that are, by design, transit-capitve, deserve higher priority than places that are not, by design, transit-captive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 (Post 5646270)
Eventually a rail line will be built in Chicago that does something other than go to downtown and we will all be shocked at the amount of demand there is for trips that don't go downtown... Chicago is pretty much the only city with a transit system of this size in the world that doesn't have a train line allowing circulation outside of the CBD...

You realize that the line you seem to most want - the Circle Line - is essentially a line that services the Central Area, right? It may not be primarily about the Loop proper, but you're not talking about connecting Beverly and Edison Park, you're talking about another primarily central area line - you are just insisting that your central-area line, serving areas with employment densities of about 1/10th of the Loop and Michigan Ave's, anda population density of about half the Near North Side, should be prioritized ahead of a much more dense area - and I just don't see why that should come first. Plus, wouldn't the Circle Line make a lot more sense if, instead of routing into the Red Line subway at North/Clyborn, it ran to Clark, then under Clark to Chestnut to Streeterville to integrate as part of the 1968 planned subway? You could have transfers at North/Clyborn and Clark/Division and maybe a new station serving the North/Clark area. That'd be a lot more win than just the Circle Line brings by itself.

Using your logic, if we DON'T build it, and in 40 more years that area is built up and desperately could use a subway, we should then ignore the area you're advocating for now and, instead, build a subway along Western Ave or wherever the new western edge of intensive new development and gentrification is. We can't ignore the areas that got ignored originally just because they've been ignored so long already.

Nowhereman1280 Mar 29, 2012 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 5646364)
So built a station at Madison on the Pink Line. There - I just saved the City from building a $2 billion subway.

Never said my routing was the best routing, you could bring it in to Division and turning south along Paulina connector to save money, but a larger radius would be more useful IMO, you could always add a station at Madison as well and really open up that side of town.


Quote:

If you don't have a subway in Streeterville, how are rail enhancements getting you to Michigan Ave anyway?
Oh gee I dunno, maybe via the two different subway stops that are only two short blocks from Michigan Ave? Streeterville is almost all residential to the East, the only part that has high traffic uses like retail and office is Michigan Ave and it is already served by rail. As I said before, you build a line in Streeterville and it will be competing with walking in terms of speed, completely useless.



Quote:

There will be a station at Morgan in May. Transfer at Clark/Lake and now you have the north half of the West Loop covered, too.
So I guess you think its practical for me to transfer at Jackson if I want to go to the Hancock Building as well....

Quote:

You drive to dinner at the Hancock? The mere fact that you illustrate that it's practical for you to drive from where you live to where your friends are and yet want a subway line connecting the two spots illustrates your misplaced priorities. It's not practical to drive between the West Loop and Streeterville. That's where a subway is appropriate. Putting subways in places well-served by cars ahead of places where cars aren't practical is ridiculous.
I don't even understand what you are ranting about here. I drive to the Hancock because it's NOT well served by cars OR transit. I get stuck in the same traffic on Chicago whether I'm in a bus or a car and, given the additional pain of transferring and waiting for the train, It's much faster just to drive and avoid that wasted time. A subway would allow me to transfer at Damen and be whisked under the clusterfuck of North Ave and avoid Chicago Ave altogether.


Quote:

You realize that the line you seem to most want - the Circle Line - is essentially a line that services the Central Area, right? It may not be primarily about the Loop proper, but you're not talking about connecting Beverly and Edison Park, you're talking about another primarily central area line - you are just insisting that your central-area line, serving areas with employment densities of about 1/10th of the Loop and Michigan Ave's, anda population density of about half the Near North Side, should be prioritized ahead of a much more dense area - and I just don't see why that should come first.
Uhhh except not, it serves the entire city by allowing people to AVOID the central area. Instead of going all the way to Jackson and back out to get to Lincoln Park or transferring to a bus, I could simply transfer at North and be over there in 5 minutes instead of 20. Same goes on the West side. How does one get to the West loop if they are in Lincoln Park? The don't. You aren't going to transfer at Lake and walk to Clark/Lake. The idea is to open up more than just the CBD (note that I never said CENTRAL AREA once and said CBD which is vastly different in Chicago than the central area) to development and to the rest of the city.

What you are talking about would be a marginal convenience at best for the residents of Streeterville, what I'm talking about would be a game changer for how Chicago functions as a city. You tell me which is worth $2 billion...


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 AM.

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