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)

Beta_Magellan Mar 1, 2013 7:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6033590)
I know it's not sexy, but if we came into a few billion dollars, it needs to go towards rebuilding the north Red/Purple Line and renovating downtown stations.

I dispute this being “not sexy.” Have we already forgotten the Wilson renovation renderings? What we’ll probably see is essentially a slow-motion new rail line constructed north of Addison, which is a lot of stuff to salivate over even if it is just modernization.

Quote:

As I mentioned a few pages back, decent transfer facilities at Jackson/Van Buren and State/Lake would be huge, even better than the one at Roosevelt.
I actually think this would be pretty marginal—although you’d be sheltered from the weather, distances would be about the same and constructing a shallow mezzanine to allow people to transfer without going through faregates could get expensive. I think the window for doing this has already passed—it was considered during the mid-nineties but ultimately not done, either due to lack of funds or local opposition (can’t remember, or find a cite, for which).

Emathias and Justin Chicago’s ideas—or ones very similar to them—were suggested in the 1980 transit expansion plan. I could possibly see it gaining traction as a means of relieving pressure on Tower 18, but unless you add another a bunch of new trains it would likely involve either sacrificing frequency along the local stations and near north side elevated or getting rid of them altogether (if the CTA ever judges Tower 18 completely unmanageable I think a grade-separated Clark Junction plus diversions to a Larrabee-Clinton Street line—likely terminating at Union or Harrison—more probable).

Justin_Chicago Mar 1, 2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6033965)
^Kimball to Washington/Wabash is only 37 minutes. How fast do you think it should be?

My comment included walking to/from the station and platform waiting time, but station to station is the appropriate metric. My co-workers have about a 0.5-1.0 mile walk to Kimball, so they are the worst case scenarios. 37 minutes is the google transit quoted time, which is accurate at perfect conditions, but the Brown line is constantly plagued with slow zones. The real commute time is arguably closer to 45 minutes based on my personal trips to Lincoln Square. A transit rider from the Kimball Brown line station should enjoy the same commute time as the Montrose (Blue) and Thorndale (Red) stops. I wish the city could eliminate the curves and extend the line to West Rogers Park. Bending around downtown buildings is exciting for tourists, but when I want to enjoy a nice cold one after work at the Half Acre tap room in Lincoln Square, efficiency is key.

k1052 Mar 1, 2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago (Post 6034168)
A transit rider from the Kimball Brown line station should enjoy the same commute time as the Montrose (Blue) and Thorndale (Red) stops. .

There are significantly more stops on both the Brown (almost twice) and Red Lines for that journey. This could not be accomplished without wasting many billions of dollars and throwing out all the work done in the Brown Line expansion. Not a good use of resources.

Justin_Chicago Mar 1, 2013 12:40 PM

^ I agree. I rather see the focus of future expansion on connecting Hyde Park and the south Lakefront.

Staying (almost) on topic, I plan on taking the Pink Line more frequently once the Lagunitas Brewery tap room opens up. It will be interesting to see the ridership statistics two years from now.

emathias Mar 1, 2013 2:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6033965)
^Kimball to Washington/Wabash is only 37 minutes. How fast do you think it should be?

At least 20mph average, so at 10 track miles, 30 minutes.

Vlajos Mar 1, 2013 2:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago (Post 6033802)
I have a few co-workers that live in Albany Park and their commute to our office building in the East Loop is over an hour. That is absurd. The Brown line should run in a diagonal. I wish the city had funds to bury the elevated line underground.

Emathias and I share the same vision. I hope the recent Hyde Park development results in a CTA line connecting the neighborhood. The Metra Electric is my second least favorite transit line after the Brown line.

BRT is a fiscally responsible idea, but a light rail proposal would be a waste of money in my opinion because it is a glorified bus. I live in a city to avoid owning a car. I expect "rapid" transit and all of my experiences with light rail (Portland, Dallas, Minneapolis etc.) was the contrary.

How is that possible? Unless they have to walk 30 minutes to get to Kimball.

Justin_Chicago Mar 1, 2013 3:57 PM

10-15 minute walk to the station (living 0.5-1.0 mile away). 5-7 minutes to wait for the train to leave the platform. 40-45 minute train ride. 5-7 minute walk to the office building from the platform.

The math works when you take into consideration all of the variables.

What really hurts them is when they leave the office past 10pm during month-end close (Accountants). Train frequency is not on their side.

One of them is moving to the West Loop. I expect Green Line ridership to explode in the next 5 years.

emathias Mar 1, 2013 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos (Post 6034311)
How is that possible? Unless they have to walk 30 minutes to get to Kimball.

If you lived at Kimball and Foster and worked in the AON building, Google maps puts a Brown Line commute at 1 hour 8 minutes. It actually suggests that taking the Kimball bus to Belmont Blue Line station would result in a faster commute by 13 minutes in that scenario. The Brown Line is painfully slow, particularly when it's at ground level. it wasn't on my original list, but putting a subway under Lawrence between the Red Line and the Blue Line and running the Brown Line into it would result in much faster Brown Line times from Kimball as well as connect the North Lakefront to O'Hare and the jobs center around Cumberland. 5 miles of subway with 6 new subway stations (Ravenswood, Western, Francisco, Kimball, Pulaski, Elston, plus transfer stations at Jefferson Park and Wilson) would probably cost about $2.5 billion. Pretty spendy and in order to justify that, there would have to be a push for considerable new construction in Uptown and in Jefferson Park and in Cumberland, as well as around the new subway stations in between. It would probably make a Kimball-State/Lake trip if connected to the existing Red Line a 30 minute trip. If you combined it with a lakefront subway, my guess is that to Randolph in the East Loop it would be more like 25 minutes, depending on the number of stations, etc. Coupled with TOD, it could double the ridership of the "L" in a decade after full build-out and continue healthy increases after that. Altogether, we could be talking about ridership increases system-wide that pushed "L" ridership to 800 million annual rides. Bus ridership would take a hit, but if better rail induced more overall transit riders my guess is that overall bus ridership wouldn't actually fall in direct proportion, if at all, except on specific, directly-competitive routes.

ardecila Mar 1, 2013 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 6034072)
I dispute this being “not sexy.” Have we already forgotten the Wilson renovation renderings? What we’ll probably see is essentially a slow-motion new rail line constructed north of Addison, which is a lot of stuff to salivate over even if it is just modernization.

Point taken. If Morgan is anything to go off of, the upcoming crop of renovated/infill stations will be sexy indeed.

K 22 Mar 1, 2013 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6034408)
Point taken. If Morgan is anything to go off of, the upcoming crop of renovated/infill stations will be sexy indeed.

I take it the future Cermak stop on the Green Line is going to be "Morgan-esque" too, right?

LouisVanDerWright Mar 1, 2013 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K 22 (Post 6034646)
I take it the future Cermak stop on the Green Line is going to be "Morgan-esque" too, right?

Might be even better. Here's a rendering:

http://chicago.curbed.com/uploads/10...rmakgreen.jpeg
From Curbed Chicago...

ardecila Mar 2, 2013 2:59 AM

Yeah, I'm expecting to see a more final rendering out of CTA pretty soon. The timeframe for construction is ambitious, so Ross Barney should have most of the details hammered out by now.

Honestly, I think the Cermak design is wanting. Elevated stations really need full windbreaks in Chicago's climate. The ends of the Cermak platform stick out past the tube with virtually no protection. CDOT has the budget for a fully-enclosed tube, but not for 8-car-long windbreaks?

the urban politician Mar 2, 2013 1:39 PM

Pardon me for following mass transit projects in Chicago a bit less than other things (a topic which is difficult for one to not be abreast about since there is relatively little going on other than endless planning), but I have a question about the Randolph St elevated station in the Loop.

Was this going to be consolidated with another station in the future? I'm trying to understand why this particular station, on a highly visible corridor between State St and Millennium Park, looks so shitty? It seems like common sense that this station should be made to look modern and attractive post haste.

emathias Mar 2, 2013 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6035549)
Pardon me for following mass transit projects in Chicago a bit less than other things (a topic which is difficult for one to not be abreast about since there is relatively little going on other than endless planning), but I have a question about the Randolph St elevated station in the Loop.

Was this going to be consolidated with another station in the future? I'm trying to understand why this particular station, on a highly visible corridor between State St and Millennium Park, looks so shitty? It seems like common sense that this station should be made to look modern and attractive post haste.

Yes it will be consolidated with Madison into a Washington station. Current designs call for it to be constructed so that it won't block the Gehry bandshell view corridor.

EDIT: Some reports mentioned an April, 2013 start date for that station but I haven't seen any updated information about it since last spring or summer. Anyone know whether that's still possible, or what the new start date is?

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im...endering01.jpg
Chicago-L.org

ardecila Mar 2, 2013 8:07 PM

Depends where the money's coming from. If it's Federal, then we might get sequestered.

denizen467 Mar 2, 2013 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 6035598)
Current designs call for it to be constructed so that it won't block the Gehry bandshell view corridor.

THANK GOD. That had been worrying me from the start. It just looks cool all the way from Wacker or at least from Wells, and to an out of towner I think much of the Loop kind of looks like generic urban canyons. This one view corridor is a bit special with this landmark at the end of it, even though it's fairly small until you get nearer to Millennium Park. At a minimum, with Daley Plaza being on Washington, it's nice to have a view connection between the two. Plus, Washington is an eastbound street, so people on buses and bikes and vehicles can see it as they grow closer. It would have been a total waste to throw all that away for no good reason (I'm assuming there was nothing controversial about station siting here).

denizen467 Mar 3, 2013 12:53 PM

So the Wells St bridge reconstruction now goes hardcore for a week. The photos I've seen of the floated-in bridge segments seem almost identical to the old bridge. After 90 years, wouldn't the bridge's design, or the thickness of the structural members, have evolved? I'm sure there's something I'm missing here -- is the existing bridge really that old?

the urban politician Mar 3, 2013 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 6036406)
So the Wells St bridge reconstruction now goes hardcore for a week. The photos I've seen of the floated-in bridge segments seem almost identical to the old bridge. After 90 years, wouldn't the bridge's design, or the thickness of the structural members, have evolved? I'm sure there's something I'm missing here -- is the existing bridge really that old?

^ The shark's design has changed little in hundreds of millions of years, it just got replicated over and over again (ie giving birth to offspring). Why mess with perfection? ;)

Mr Downtown Mar 3, 2013 3:48 PM

I suspect it's a balance between need-to-replace and days out of service. They could have designed a bridge with smaller, sleeker welded box girders or some other design, but it would have required the truncation of the Brown Line for months instead of days. By fabricating an exact replacement, it can just be bolted on in a matter of days, without disturbing the trunnions or counterweights.

Of course, the last time this was done, in 1922, it only took 48 hours. But they had built the new bridge above and around the old swing bridge, and just needed to cut a portion of the old one away to drop the new one into the closed position, lay the track on top, and reopen it to L trains.

This picture is actually of the Lake Street bridge, done the same way a few years before:

http://i.imgur.com/wmCWG4h.jpg

emathias Mar 3, 2013 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 6036406)
So the Wells St bridge reconstruction now goes hardcore for a week. The photos I've seen of the floated-in bridge segments seem almost identical to the old bridge. After 90 years, wouldn't the bridge's design, or the thickness of the structural members, have evolved? I'm sure there's something I'm missing here -- is the existing bridge really that old?

It's moveable, made of metal that's exposed to the elements, has carried just about every possible form of land transportation every single day of its existence, and yet lasted 90 years even with what might be called inconsistent maintenance. I think that's called an engineering success, so the risks involved with changing the design seem a lot higher than simply re-using the same design.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:44 AM.

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