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)

nomarandlee Jan 7, 2018 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 8038737)
Question for the group.
For a friend going from Palatine to Logan Square by train, is it better to transfer to the blue line at Jefferson Park or Irving Park? I realize Irving is closer, but which transfer is easiest?
She took a $13 Uber to Ogilvie today, trying to spare her that going back.
Thanks

Definitely, Jefferson Park transfer is easier (and relatively warmer).

Jim in Chicago Jan 19, 2018 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago (Post 8029212)
I'm very curious to see it when it's FINALLY done. They're really going to squeeze a lot of lanes into that area. There are 16 lanes of traffic planned for between Adams and Jackson.

There are roughly 30 lanes of traffic that will be contained inside the Harrison, Van Buren, Halsted, Des Plaines block of roads.

I'm beginning to think that it will never actually be finished. It will be like the Golden Gate Bridge painting, when they reach the end of the project the first part they did will be worn out again. The ramp from the NB Ryan to the Congress has been closed for so long I barely remember when it was open.

ardecila Jan 20, 2018 9:58 PM

Yeah, it is really dragging on. IMO they should have been more aggressive with the closures. Close Congress entirely east of the Circle and rebuild it all at once, with a fast timeline they could do that portion in 3-4 months.

Anybody taking that section of Congress is likely either A) heading to the Loop, in which case they can switch to transit, or B) heading to the North Side or South Side via Columbus/LSD, in which case they can take one of many alternate routes.

Baronvonellis Jan 25, 2018 3:06 AM

Why does the brown line go super slow between armitage and merchandise mart? The CTA slow zone map doesn't show it being a slow zone. But it must go about 5mph through that area.

Tcmetro Jan 25, 2018 11:28 PM

I know that the tracks were fixed in the area a little over a year ago, but I believe there is an ongoing power project that may have to do with the slowness.

There are also a number of curves where speed has to be reduced around there.

Even with the curves and the power project, it does feel pretty small on the straight segments of track.

IrishIllini Jan 26, 2018 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis (Post 8059758)
Why does the brown line go super slow between armitage and merchandise mart? The CTA slow zone map doesn't show it being a slow zone. But it must go about 5mph through that area.

As another poster said, lots of curves and the Loop is very congested. Brown and Purple Line trains have to wait for Orange, Pink, and Green Line trains to clear the NW junction before entering/exiting the loop. I've seen trains stalled over Division and just before Chicago for over a minute waiting for signal clearance because the train before can't leave the station because there are two trains in front waiting to get into the Loop.

Mr Downtown Jan 26, 2018 3:26 PM

The pointless exercise that is "Red Line Extension planning" continues, with CTA having finally chosen to run along the western edge of the UPRR, skirting Roseland, and then for more than a mile in-between the sewage treatment plant and the sludge drying beds to wind up near 130th and the Bishop Ford Freeway.

Of course, not two thousand people live within a quarter-mile walk of all the stops combined.

https://i.imgur.com/g5YQQOK.jpg

emathias Jan 26, 2018 3:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8061958)
...
Of course, not two thousand people live within a quarter-mile walk of all the stops combined.
...

Awesome. :yuck:

I wish the Feds would actually decide to build real transit in American cities. Then they could actually define requirements that would prevent wasting so much money on projects that exist only as political "look what I did for you" projects. Something like this, with (I'm taking your word on this) less than 2,000 people within walking distance of all the new stops combined, seems like a huge waste of money that could go toward the needed downtown circulator. Even knowing that part of the reason the CTA is doing this is to build a larger yard so that they can hold and run more trains on the Red Line once the Clark Flyover is finished, I still feel like this is mostly money better spent in dense, congested areas where transit usage is high and population and office worker density is high. Like between the West Loop and the Mag Mile corridor and/or the convention center area. I still do not understand why the subway from the West Loop to Mag Mile and McCormick isn't still on the drawing boards. It's easily the most needed and would easily be the most-used line in the city, especially if it ran from the Medical District through the West Loop and Loop to Mag Mile. Then it could eventually be extended north to roughly Diversey or Belmont, and south past McCormick to Michael Reese, tying together a bunch of areas that the City wants to grow that will need rail transit to reach their full potential.

Vlajos Jan 26, 2018 4:03 PM

Well, I do hope that Mr. Downtown is correct that this never happens if the proposed route in fact has only 2,000 people living within walking distance.

Chi-Sky21 Jan 26, 2018 4:04 PM

2 billion for 5 miles above ground with only 4 stations is INSANE. Plus this would not even serve that many people. This money should be spent elsewhere. Pink line expansion and connecting Brown line to Blue come to mind.

ardecila Jan 26, 2018 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8061958)
The pointless exercise that is "Red Line Extension planning" continues, with CTA having finally chosen to run along the western edge of the UPRR, skirting Roseland, and then for more than a mile in-between the sewage treatment plant and the sludge drying beds to wind up near 130th and the Bishop Ford Freeway.

Of course, not two thousand people live within a quarter-mile walk of all the stops combined.

CBS was showing a hybrid alignment where the tracks cross over from the west to the east side of the UPRR at 109th. I assume this is because the 115th St station needs to be on the east side so it can connect to whatever development is built on the large city-owned parcel there. Also, being on the east side reduces the height of the structure that's needed to cross over the Metra Electric, it would only need to be two "levels" up instead of three.

As for population, 3400 CHA residents live in Altgeld Gardens with limited transit access, most of these units are within 1/2 mile of the station location except for the far southwest corner. With Chicago's development patterns in the outer neighborhoods, especially postwar ones, you're never gonna get large populations within 1/4 mi of station locations. Does that mean Harlem or Cumberland shouldn't exist?

I'm not saying this is a great plan, I'd prefer a new plan that improved Metra Electric service and connected it better to the CTA network. Altgeld could be served by an infill station at 130th (and, y'know, actual sidewalks on 130th so folks can walk there). However, if the Red Line plans are canceled, I worry that South Side communities will "check out" of the transit planning process, which would be a shame since any good transit plan should proceed with community support. The Red Line Extension has been promised since the 1960s (albeit in the median of the Bishop Ford) so community members feel that they need to have this.

Too bad CTA rejected an actual Metra Electric alignment for the Red Line back in 2007. The Metra Electric is the locus of density for these areas for historical reasons, so it seems like that would have the best shot at decent ridership. Plus it would allow for a direct station at Chicago State, the Pullman NHP, and other struggling commercial strips that Metra is loathe to support, and direct transfers from CTA to Metra and South Shore at Kensington.

LaSalle.St.Station Jan 26, 2018 11:31 PM

I think dedicated express service to the airports would be a better project to fund and have a greater economic impact then a red line extension.

left of center Jan 26, 2018 11:36 PM

I didn't even think the CTA was pursuing the Red Line extension anymore. Why even bother with the huge upgrade to the 95th St station then? Wasn't the reason for the added bus lanes to increase capacity of commuters taking the bus to 95th from the far South Side?

I say take that 2 billion and invest it either on the Circle Line, the Clinton St. subway, or the Loop circulator/Monroe St subway. So many needed projects that clearly outweigh this one in importance and need. Alas, thats not the way federal funds work.

Mr Downtown Jan 27, 2018 3:13 PM

There's a difference between continuing the planning for a project (which creates contracts for consultants) and actually building a project (which requires big money). Daley, in particular, was a master of keeping the "transit planning" plates spinning for years without ever actually breaking ground on anything.

ardecila Jan 27, 2018 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8063212)
There's a difference between continuing the planning for a project (which creates contracts for consultants) and actually building a project (which requires big money). Daley, in particular, was a master of keeping the "transit planning" plates spinning for years without ever actually breaking ground on anything.

And yet all this Kabuki theater has yet to do anything to address Chicago’s transportation problems... the only new capacity we’ve gotten since 1993 when the Orange Line opened is longer platforms on a few lines and three infill stations (one of which isn’t even in Chicago).

It’s true that the system should be in good repair before we build new expansions, but the RPM project is already slated to rebuild the last, most crumbling part of the L system. CTA should be planning for what’s next after that, so we can start building the political support and lining up the funding. (Airport Express, if built by a private concessionaire, doesn’t count.)

the urban politician Jan 27, 2018 7:04 PM

^ Weve already done the planning. But nothing moves forward.

East west connecting West Loop to Navy Pier and Clinton Subway are badly needed. We keep planning to do it.

Now just start drawing some alignments, have the meetings, apply for funds. Get er done

Mr Downtown Jan 28, 2018 12:50 AM

Wait, why do we need new transit extensions? Our population is not growing. We have enough transit infrastructure to serve a city of 5 million. It's just that we've chosen to write off more than half the stations as irrelevant to the discussion.

If developers want to turn areas not served by transit into high-density residential or office areas, the public shouldn't subsidize that.

OrdoSeclorum Jan 28, 2018 3:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8061958)
The pointless exercise that is "Red Line Extension planning" continues.
https://i.imgur.com/g5YQQOK.jpg

I'm not too jazzed about the idea of a Red Line extension. And I'm not a transit planner. But doesn't increased capacity on the south side also increase the number of trains that can run on the north side of the Red Line?

the urban politician Jan 28, 2018 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 8063719)
Wait, why do we need new transit extensions? Our population is not growing. We have enough transit infrastructure to serve a city of 5 million. It's just that we've chosen to write off more than half the stations as irrelevant to the discussion.

If developers want to turn areas not served by transit into high-density residential or office areas, the public shouldn't subsidize that.

This is incorrect. Population growth and wealth growth is taking place by leaps and bounds around the central area of the city, whose transit is still rigidly set up with a wheel-and-spoke system.

There needs to be better transit options that get people around the central area. In addition, there needs to be an easier way for north-siders to get to the West Loop.

Finally, the tax revenue being created by these high density developments not located near transit are creating a windfall for the region. Nobody is gonna buy your argument that they are somehow a drain on our public dollars.

If you want to talk about public subsidies, let’s talk about Dearborn Park II. That shithole is well serviced by transit yet is way too low in density, and don’t get me started on the selfish street layout that allows almost no through streets. We are subsidizing that neighborhood, and get only more congestion in return. Shame on Dearborn Park II. I’d like you to explain your way out of that.

Mr Downtown Jan 28, 2018 6:59 PM

I won't defend the street layout. But in the absence of any sort of city planning, developers build what they think they can sell. When it was time to try developing Dearborn Park II, they didn't think they could sell any highrise or midrise units, and so they cancelled those projects—in one case, after the foundations had been poured. It's pretty hard to imagine even the most powerful American city planning department telling them they had to leave the land vacant until there was a market for highrises there.

When Sterling Bay and other players develop office space in the West Loop or around Goose Island rather than in areas already well served by transit, they're no different than a suburban homebuilder putting subdivisions in Kendall County and demanding a new freeway to serve them. At least there's a chance the drivers on that freeway will eventually pay for it in gas taxes. Transit infrastructure is never paid for by its users.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:19 AM.

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