Glad to see someone's looking into an alternative to the West Loop Transportation Center--even though this isn't associated with CDOT, Metra or Amtrak in any way, a quick search for Solomon Cordwell Buenz showed that they do have ties to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, so maybe some of these ideas will filter down.

One question I've always had about WLTC is whether through-routing between the BNSF and Union Pacific lines (particularly UP-North) would really be made possible--I often see it discussed as a perk of the WLTC, but I don't think I've ever really seen it explicitly mentioned in any documents, and most of the diagrams either were ambiguous or looked like they were only connecting to the Milwaukee District, probably as a means of getting rid of the grade crossings at Canal and Clinton. If we don't build a new tunnel under Clinton and just get rid of 222 S. Riverside, would there be any easy way of rerouting trains from the UP-North and Northwest lines to Union Station, or would through-routing the BNSF line with the Milwaukee District be our only option?

(I'm assuming that going from a BNSF to UP or Metra-driven train wouldn't be a problem--IIRC, there's an RER line that is half RTAP, half-SNCF, with a driver change in the middle.)

http://i53.tinypic.com/f2tw5j.jpg
Midwest High Speed Rail Association

Midwest HSR Association hired SCB to do a couple of drawings of what Union Station could look like if 222 Riverside were removed. Not a serious drawing in terms of structure, but enough to pass the giggle test. As part of that, they show the Union Station tracks through-routed (with a little curve in the middle, as they don't line up).

As for WLTC, the tie-in to BNSF would be way south of CUS and the tie-in to UP would have to be a couple blocks north of Ogilvie.

Illinois to study 220 mph bullet trains
 

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/n...,7683349.story


Illinois to study 220mph bullet trains

By Jon Hilkevitch

Tribune reporter

4:32 p.m. CDT, June 2, 2011

The University of Illinois will lead a study examining the options to build tracks exclusively for 220 mph bullet trains operating initially between Chicago and Urbana-Champaign and eventually carrying passengers the length of the state in about two hours.

Gov. Pat Quinn announced the $1.25 million state-funded study today at a meeting in Chicago of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association, whose leaders have questioned the benefits of the federal government and numerous states, including Illinois, investing in train service that tops out at 110 mph.


Quinn acknowledged that building a 220 mph network will be costly and likely take up to 50 years. He compared the rail project to the construction of the nation’s interstate highway system, which kicked off in 1956.

Still, Quinn said he expected to see the first bullet trains operating during his lifetime, joking that he planned to live to 102.

“The way to prosper is to have a big vision,’’ Quinn told the rail conference, adding that building a 220 mph passenger rail network will “make Champaign a suburb of Chicago. … We cannot miss the boat here, or miss the train.”

But the obstacles to creating bullet train service are formidable.

Construction would cost tens of billions of dollars, according to earlier studies conducted for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The project also would require the state and private investment partners to acquire huge amounts of land, including by using eminent-domain laws, to build dedicated tracks for 220 mph service that involve no railroad crossings or interference from slower-moving freight and commuter trains.

In addition, the debut of bullet train service could happen only after an exhaustive environmental review, and likely, costly litigation between the state and landowners and other opponents of the project.

The governor said he envisioned the bullet train route would extend from O'Hare International Airport to downtown Chicago, McCormick Place, then on through the south suburbs to near Peotone, which the state has selected as the future site of the Chicago region’s next major airport, and continue on to Kankakee en route to Urbana-Champaign.

From Urbana-Champaign, home to the U. of I.’s main campus, the route would extend to either St. Louis or Indianapolis, or both cities, Quinn said.

The goals of the feasibility study include identifying possible routes, estimating construction and operating costs and evaluating potential ridership, said state Transportation Secretary Gary Hannig.

The study, led by U. of I. railroad engineering professor Christopher Barkan with help from Steve Schlickman, director of the Urban Transportation Center at the U. of I. at Chicago, is expected to be completed in late 2012, officials said.

The $1.25 million study, which will be paid for using funds in the state’s capital improvement program, is being launched after efforts by the state to receive an $8 million federal grant to pay for the bullet train feasibility study were rejected last year by the Federal Railroad Administration, which instead awarded funds to other projects.

Quinn's new study on bullet trains is partially aimed at quelling criticism that Illinois' passenger rail focus so far -- an ongoing multi-billion-dollar project to increase the top speed of Amtrak trains from 79 mph currently to 110 mph on the Chicago-to-St. Louis route -- amounts to relatively minor improvements in travel time.

The current 5 1/2-hour Amtrak trip between Chicago and St. Louis would be trimmed by only 45 minutes with trains traveling 110 mph on part of the route, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The same trip using 220 mph trains would take a shade under two hours, according to a recent study conducted for the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

The larger giggle test, though, is whether it is realistic to expect someone to pay for removing 222 Riverside. Is the idea (which I assume is offered up only by Midwest HSRA / SCB; I am not aware of any other organization at this point that has come forward with this as a realistic idea) that the feds/city/state would pay to buy the building? I guess if there's funding for $ billions in rail infrastructure, buying an aging mid-rise (that doesn't even include its own ground) is actually just a drop in the bucket. Although it probably is worth decidedly north of the Old Post Office's $20 million (or was that $40m?). But you can predict anti-HSR people clamoring that it's wasteful for taxpayer money to be used to destroy a perfectly good office building.

It's the only way to route HSR through Union Station without doing the WLTC (1-2 billion depending who you ask). Buying and tearing down 222 for a hundred mil+ would be a relative bargain.

Sort of... The UP trains could be routed along the spur that serves the Tribune printing plant (it has a wide ROW and no grade crossings, save one at Peoria). The UP-North trains already run on the easternmost tracks, so the interlocking would be fairly simple where the Union-bound trains and Ogilvie-bound trains meet.

The spur already runs as far south as Kinzie, and there seems to be just enough room to add a second track underneath the UP viaduct. You'd need to tear down the Cassidy Tire building, though. (it's a personal favorite of mine) It would also create very busy grade crossings at Grand and Kinzie, if the through-routed Metra trains have decent frequency - although there is enough room at Grand to build an overpass.

There's also a convenient tunnel built through the Residences at Riverbend that can accommodate a fourth track into the north side of Union Station. I believe the tunnel was built to preserve vehicular access to the interlocking tower and the switches along the river, but you could just as easily build a ramp down from Lake to achieve this function.

= grade rail-rail crossing with the Carroll Street transitway ?

I doubt Carroll Street will have rail in my lifetime. I think it works better as a bus transitway.

I was just gonna say that.

The whole area around Kinzie and Clinton will be a real rats-nest of transit lines if any of the plans ever get built.

Okay, but not so much doubt that planners can completely ignore the possibility of Carroll rail as they consider the other rail and road options for the area. Unless you guys mean you are expecting to kick the bucket in the next decade or two. ;)

It's not just that I think it's unlikely, it's that I think even planning to accommodate rail on Carroll would be disruptive to more important rail west of the river. There is no need for rail on Carroll, because it wouldn't make sense to put heavy rail there, and modern buses can provide nearly the capacity of trolleys and also have far greater flexibility on either end of a Carroll Street Transitway. I don't see any advantage, ever, to putting rail on Carroll. Heavy rail would be awkward to integrate on the west side of the river, and light rail has too many disadvantages that, in this scenario, I don't think are outweighed by the capacity advantage over buses.

I'm far from against more rail in central Chicago in general, just not on Carroll Street. The old Central Area subway plan with a subway under Monroe from the West Loop to Streeterville I think is still extremely appropriate, needed and a great idea. Extended that south from Streeterville to McCormick - or even further - would also be valuable in the coming decades. I also support a Clinton Street subway. I just don't think rail on Carroll Street makes sense now, nor is likely to ever make more sense than buses for that specific route.

Agreed. It would be a godsend for the commute I'm currently making (Ogilvie to South Michigan Ave).

I've never really seen the need for all these intense McCormick Place connections, although the Lakefront Transitway already exists - the city would simply need to negotiate for its use and install platforms at certain points. IIRC, Metra's suburban leadership only allowed the Transitway to be built if CTA buses were banned from it. With new management at Metra and a greater push for regional co-operation, it may be possible to renegotiate this agreement.

^^ I understand your thinking that rail on Carroll is not preferred or likely for various reasons, I was only saying there's a certain number of decades beyond which it's not meaningful to say something like that will remain so unlikely. I'm curious, setting aside capital (but not maintenance) costs, isn't there a big advantage to a few capacious rail runs, rather than a ton of BRT buses swarming back and forth, if there is an alignment such as Navy Pier/Streeterville to Ogilvie/Union/West Loop where the goal is to serve concentrated gushers of passengers during limited periods of the day (not just commuting but events like fireworks)? The preceding assumes a scenario where the more-desirable Monroe-Streeterville alignment is not built for some reason (say, capital costs). Incidentally, does the Monroe corridor cross under the river?

^ Ardecila, sorry, I thought you were living out of state (given the description showing up on each post).


Speaking of the river corridor:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...tory?track=rss
Chicago's first protected bicycle lane to be installed on Kinzie Street

By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter
June 5, 2011

Chicago's first protected bicycle lane, separating bike riders from vehicles, will be installed on a short section of Kinzie Street, according to Ald. Brendan Reilly.

... will be tested on Kinzie between Milwaukee Avenue and Wells Street, a half-mile stretch that is used by many cyclists who commute in the central area. ...

Reilly's newsletter said construction of the Kinzie cycle track may begin this week. It said completion is expected by June 17, which is "Bike to Work Day" in Chicago.

^^ Sorry, forgot about changing the location. Job pickings were very slim in NOLA, so I'm up here working until I go back to school in the fall.

I don't think so. Traffic on a West Loop-Mag Mile line wouldn't be nearly as spiky as you're assuming. The line would be busy all day with not only commuters but also many, many suburbanites visiting the city for shopping and entertainment... a traffic flow that is relatively steady each day, although much lower in wintertime (except the holiday shoppers).

Setting the line up as BRT would allow different lines serving different markets to operate on different frequencies. The bus running up Michigan or to Navy Pier could run consistently all day, while the bus running up Fairbanks could run more often during peak periods. On the transitway itself, these buses would combine to provide extremely frequent service... nobody would wait more than 3 minutes for a bus going from Union Station to Pioneer Plaza, but the specialized markets heading onto one of the branches would wait a bit longer.

During fireworks or popular lakefront events, extra service can be added easily, since the CTA has a vast bus fleet that isn't fully-used on the weekends.

The busway scenario comes with a higher operating cost when considered in isolation, due primarily to the need for more drivers. But if the routes serving the busway are just re-routed versions of existing bus routes, then CTA actually has very little added operating cost over what they already pay. By contrast, an LRT would require an entire specialized set of motormen, as well as skilled LRT mechanics and a large yard/shop facility.

This is one thing I have not heard addressed in the Carroll Street discussion... assuming that the open areas around Kinzie/Canal/Clinton will be needed for complex transit connections in the future, there is no space for an LRT yard unless the Merchandise Mart becomes much more generous with their sublevel. By contrast, the BRT buses could be driven to any one of numerous outlying garages, or a new central garage could be built in the industrial area west of the post office.

It's always been a little nebulous, but as I understand it the Monroe line would run from a signalized intersection (underground) at Monroe/Clinton to another underground signalized intersection at Monroe/Nichols Bridge. This would include a river tunnel as well as transfer facilities to Blue and Red at Dearborn and State, respectively.

I've always preferred my idea of re-using the trolley tunnels at Washington and [halfway between] Jackson/Van Buren to accomplish the same goal... hopefully as two separate lines rather than a weird loop configuration.

Really, any alternative will have awkward characteristics. The Red and Blue Line subways were built assuming that the Loop would be torn down, and they were built in an era when all the suburban steam-railroad commuters worked jobs within easy walking/streetcar range of the various rail terminals. Neither of those assumptions held true. As a result, we have what are essentially three competing ideas of what the downtown rail network should look like, superimposed on each other. I love the feel of the Loop, but I think we would have a much more effective network had the Loop been replaced with subway as proposed in 1968.

How about the former C&NW yard that stretches from basically Kinzie & Clinton to Chicago & Halsted? It is hardly used at all anymore. Surely some space could be spared for a light rail yard.

A busway would not necessarily be bad, but is it really optimal for a narrow underground right-of-way with a few curves? First, the exhaust might be problematic. Dealing with this would involve ventilation (which is expensive), trolley buses (Which raises the same question of hiring new mechanics and new maintenance facilities) or some sort of hybrid bus that can run for extended periods on battery power alone (A technology which I do not believe exists, at present.)

Second, buses that are not curb-guided (presumably these would not be) move more slowly in constrained spaces than trains. See example: Boston Silver Line, with top speeds in the tunnel of 10-20mph.

Third, while articulated buses are fairly large, LRVs can be coupled together making for trains over 300 feet long. Though the smaller buses would theoretically yield shorter headways, if there were multiple other lines feeding the busway, it would be difficult to assure that those headways are REGULAR. If the busway is served by four routes, you might get four buses coming within 2 minutes of each other and then a gap of 15 minutes until the next.

BTW, isn't there a plan for a grade separation under the railroad on Clinton Street as a part of this transitway?

Anyway, just like this could be a spine for multiple bus routes, this could also be a spine for future light rail routes.

^^ I don't think exhaust will be a big problem if diesel buses are used on Carroll. Much of Carroll already sees vehicle exhaust, from loading docks and semi trucks to valets parking cars. Ventilation is only a concern where the space is well-sealed from the outside atmosphere, like in a subway, or when the volume of exhaust is tremendous, like along an expressway where congestion occurs (e.g. Hubbards Cave).

The Silver Line in Boston is a useful analogy, but only to a point. The Silver Line's tunnels are very tight, cut-and-cover subway tunnels woven around the Big Dig, the Red Line, and numerous building foundations. Carroll is really just a small street that got partially decked over, with many open grates and expansion joints for air to circulate though.

From an engineering standpoint, it's a fairly easy project... repave Carroll with a uniform surface, stripe it for bus operations, and build vertical access to the streets above at the stations. The challenging part is getting all the landowners along the route (many of which are major, major players) to accept the loss of their alley. That's why they pressured the city to examine using Lower Wacker instead.

Yes. Early plans called for the crossing at Canal to be closed and an underpass to be built at Clinton (probably a low-clearance one, considering the other things that may be built beneath Clinton).

I've now heard that planners have abandoned the idea of a subterranean busway level in the WLTC, making it three levels instead of four: pedestrian concourse, HSR, subway. This would significantly reduce the cost of the project.

Buses would instead run on the surface... I'm not sure if "on the surface" means a bus mall, or simply dedicated lanes. I've always thought a Clinton bus mall might work nicely. The State Street mall was a failure, but only because of poor design, and because of other forces conspiring to push the Loop into decay... I don't think it disproves the entire concept. Of course, you would need to work with the business owners along the street... like allowing after-hours access to trucks for deliveries so that Clinton can remain a busy retail street.

Oh, one last thing... CDOT crews are already out with cones, beginning to restripe Kinzie.

The City That Works can apparently work fast. I didn't think it was possible.

I think a huge question is whether the Monroe line would run underneath Blue/Red or between street level and Blue/Red. Something very deep could be rendered irrelevant, since a commuter spending 5 minutes descending into the earth's bowels and another 5 minutes coming back up, just to save 6 blocks' walking, will result in a huge portion of people blowing off the whole thing. Add the much-higher construction costs for something 5 levels underground compared to a shallow cut-and-cover, and Monroe seems like a complete non-starter if it's deep.

Yet, how does a shallow Monroe line get to the train stations? Because of the river you would still need a deep station under the Canal area.

Also I'm curious about your specific mention of Nichols versus just a mention of the general Columbus/Monroe area - is there something special about that location? At Columbus, Millennium Park is less in the way, and festival-goers would not swarm onto narrow sidewalks and would have direct access to Petrillo or Columbus. Also, after clearing the IC trench, the route could rise closer to street level at Columbus (where Monroe also has returned to grade) for a shallower station.

That also raises the question whether the Monroe Garage should accommodate a north-turning subterranean curve or any portion of station infrastructure. When, by the way, are Morgan Stanley & partners supposed to rebuild the Monroe Garage?

So do you mean that the buses would travel on the surface of Clinton Street, over the existing grade crossing? Or is the grade separation of Clinton and closure of Canal still planned?

Rather than a two-way bus mall on Clinton, a plan that I read about on here (which I thought was the current official plan) makes sense to me:

Carrol Street->
South on Clinton, under Railroad->
East on Jackson->
North on Canal->
Northwest on Milwaukee->
North on Clinton, under Railroad->
Carrol Street

Seems to me that allowing buses to use Carroll Street and putting dedicated lanes for them on Clinton and Canal does not necessarily exclude installing rails and using them as dual purpose bus/streetcar lanes.

Eliminating the busy grade crossings at Canal and Clinton will be a major goal of any West Loop transportation project. The short stub of Milwaukee allows for Canal's northbound traffic to be neatly shifted over to a bidirectional Clinton, where an underpass will inevitably be built at some point. Canal north of Lake will become a dead-end street with the grade crossing closed.

The underpass/closure will be in the Carroll Street project (if that is built) regardless of whether the WLTC is ever built. The Carroll project calls for the BRT buses to run southbound on Clinton and northbound on Canal in dedicated bus lanes on the surface along the curb of each street, then dipping below the Union Station lead tracks before crossing the river on the C&NW bridge.

The WLTC was planned assuming that the Carroll project would be built in the short-term. The WLTC originally included an underground level for the Carroll buses and other rapid services; this level would replace the surface lanes which, by this point in time, would have become overburdened. Now, however, WLTC planners are exploring a more extensive set of surface bus lanes, possibly including the total closure of Clinton to cars.

The 1968 plan was for a shallow subway under Monroe. Presumably it would start a decline after Wells Street in order to make it under Lower Wacker and the River, and then it also has to clear the tracks between the River and Canal, but then could probably become shallow again by the time it hits Clinton. It definitely wouldn't need to be a really deep tunnel by that point. An ideal configuration might actually incorporate a large mezzanine directly *beneath* the Union Station south tracks, including direct access from the platforms.

The biggest problem with that might be "how do you do that while maintaining a working station". But, if you put the station there, not only could you have direct access for Union Station commuters, but you'd also have access for Ogilvey through the Union Station entrance at Madison and Canal next to 10 S Riverside and across the street from 30 N Riverside.

At any rate, it would probably be a nicely-used station if configured that way, and then going west there could be a station between Halsted and Morgan, and then it could turn south through UIC as originally planned, or run it south under Halsted as a deep subway to Bridgeport. South of Bridgeport there are places for yards, so it could work pretty well to shore up that part of the city with transit.

There's more clearance than you think. The former Washington streetcar tunnel started descending immediately after the Franklin intersection, and it was starting from ground level. The bus subway would already be one story down, and it can handle steeper grades than a streetcar tunnel can. I'll see if I can track down a cross-section of the old streetcar tunnel.

The Union Station platforms are very far above the bottom of the river (~30 feet). Building a subway station at that location would be very tricky, and the staircases/elevators would not be short (like the Clinton Blue Line, but deeper). Plus, the tunnel would need to start rising again as soon as it clears the river, but you can't build platforms on an incline.

I suppose. The advantage of a bus subway is that various routes can use it to get across the Loop, but if you're going to extend it all the way to Bridgeport, hell, why not just build light-rail?

What is currently between the Monroe Street subway stations and the street - a mostly empty cavity, or does something massive have to be excavated/rebuilt in order to push the Monroe line through there?

Also, regarding extending the Monroe line at its western end, here's one thing you almost never hear discussed: What is the future of Canal Taylor, or whatever that 3-block-wide strip from Congress to Roosevelt is called? It seems like it would be an ideal area for the Loop to spill into several decades from now, or at least for moderate rent purposes (like Northern Trust now) since the big plots on the east side of the river might be more prestigious. It is close to the big stations; it would be a no-brainer if there was an easy shuttle connecting it to the Loop. The whole area is basically a blank slate - even the bi-level street grid could easily be adopted for the whole thing if needed. If only Illinois's taxes would not scare away corporate relocation planners...

I did say a mezzanine beneath the tracks, which would break up the trip, but your point may still be valid for people traveling from Surface level. A mezzanine beneath the tracks would still be pretty cool, though, and the distance certainly wouldn't be any worse than Moscow's stations.

For Monroe I'm referring to the 1968 proposal, not a bus subway. I am suggesting a heavy-rail subway. Monroe, supposedly, has had ROW preserved, so in theory there should be fewer-than-average utilities, etc, to have to remove to do a shallow cut-and-cover subway through the loop that would (as per schematics from 1968) travel over the Red and Blue lines.

I took a look at the Chicago Central Area Action Plan. It shows the proposed Clinton/Larrabee subway with stations at:
Larrabee/Division
Larrabee/Chicago
Kingsbury/Grand
Clinton/Monroe (there would be a long mezzanine from Madison to Adams)
Clinton/Congress
Clinton/Roosevelt

One station seems to be conspicuously missing, Clinton/Lake. I wonder why? There's a 3/4 mile gap.

I would say that the Blue Line is missing a station there as well. There's a mile between Milwaukee/Grand and Clark/Lake; I'm sure there are plenty of people who ride the Blue Line that wouldn't mind getting off at Clinton/Lake for a shorter walk to offices in the West Loop. Is there a particular reason why there is no station in this area on the blue line? does it have to do with the incomplete, never-used flying junction at Lake Street? Or was that part of town just not built up enough to justify a station when the line was constructed in the 40s/50s? Would it be possible to construct an infill station there today?

That would give both the Green Line and the O'Hare branch of the Blue Line a direct transfer to the Clinton subway.

^^ I'm not sure. I don't think the flying junction would have an effect (the structure is one block further east), but I could be wrong.

I suppose if the Clinton subway was designed properly, it could be linked into the Blue Line using the Lake Street tunnel stubs. Even if they don't run revenue service, a connector between the Red and Blue Lines downtown would be invaluable.

I do know that an infill station on the Blue Line will never happen. Underpinning the existing tunnels to slip another tunnel underneath is hard enough.

I thought it was pretty well known that the city has continually been ensuring there are minimal utilities under Monroe. Does anyone here know for sure (either what the actual situation under the street is, or what the city's policy is, or how rigorously the city has been enforcing that policy)?

CTA unveils bus rapid transit plans


June 8, 2011

By Tracy Swartz

Read More: http://www.redeyechicago.com/news/ct...,1271645.story

Details: http://www.transitchicago.com/jefferybrt/

^ Only 7 minutes?

^What's puzzling to me is that I think of the 14 Jeffery Express as being a bus that people catch near their homes and ride all the way downtown. So the logic of having widely spaced stops for this line escapes me. This is not a line that connects crosstown destinations or rail lines, nor one that people ride for errands a couple of miles away. The time saved by fewer stops will be lost in having to walk further to and from a stop, and most people along the line already know what time they have to catch the bus to be at work on time.

I have to wonder if this is a case like when CDOT decided to put segregated bike lanes on Stony Island south of 67th(!) Why? Well, because the pavement width already existed and no businesses would complain about lack of street parking.

^ That is going to be an issue with local/express service anywhere.

Obviously, people who live near express stops will be at an advantage. But then, isn't that just the reality of mass transit? In Manhattan I would get on the 1 train at 110th but couldn't catch an express train until 95th, but if the express train wasn't there I would simply ride the local all the way to Times Square because it was still faster than getting off at 95th and waiting 5-6 minutes for an express train.

Block 37 accomplished that.

I'd actually like to see a portal to the Lake Street branch attached to the Blue Line, then you could run the Green Line through the Dearborn-State Street connection under Block 37 and clear up a little Loop timing space.

Remember - This is the Organization that persuaded the City Council to approve how much funding for our thriving Block 37 SuperStation?

Logic isn't always a part of their goals (think of all those needy "connected" consultants, and construction companies who must be fed regularly).

In the 1930s, when the line was planned, there was little justification for a stop there. But the bigger problem is that the subway line is on an incline, to go under the river.

Those stubs are at Canal, and head west from Milwaukee & Canal (only 75 feet or so). I'm not sure how they would help with a Blue Line connection without requiring underpinning one corner of North Western Station's trainshed.

http://www.suntimes.com/5896583-417/...-a-leg-up.html

Diagonal crossings, fewer right on reds could give pedestrians a leg up
By Fran Spielman
June 12, 2011 8:42PM

Fewer downtown corners where motorists can turn right on red. A hundred dangerous intersections where pedestrians get a three-to-five-second jump before the light for cars turns green.

Intersections where vehicular traffic is stopped for 14 seconds every other light cycle to give pedestrians a chance to cross in every direction, including diagonally.

Those innovative ideas - along with narrower streets and slower speed limits - may soon be coming to downtown Chicago to level a playing field that, newly appointed Transportation Commissioner Gabe Klein maintains, has put pedestrians at a "distinct disadvantage."

...

Well, you probably would need to do some underpinning. But the Red Line running beneath Clinton could pass over or beneath the Blue Line at Clinton/Milwaukee without a connection, and then a one-block section of track underneath Lake would connect the two tunnels (like a rail version of a quadrant intersection).

^Just for shop moves or for service? I don't see the point of having a train running west under Lake turn south under Clinton.

Sounds like a horrible idea. As both a pedestrian and occasional motorist, I don't think there is anything better than right turn on red. Pedestrians in downtown Chicago are hardened enough to stand up to a car creeping forward for a right on red. I do it all the time. I make eye contact and give them the "if you drive forward now I'll keep walking anyhow and sue you when you hit me" look and even the cabbies let me pass. I think the pedestrian environment in the loop is at a pretty good equilibrium right now and there is no way to generate huge back ups on the street to make the more timid pedestrians feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Diagonals are great! Saves time for the pedestrian. Like the fact that maybe someone is finally going to prioritize the pedestrian over the auto in downtown. Have lived in several cities that have them and they are fantastic! Not only does it save time for the pedestrian, but it means less people blocking cars trying to take rights....if I am on the SW corner and want to end up on the NE corner that means I will step into the path for right turning autos 2 times....blocking them from proceeding. A Diagonal crossing means I cross the intersection just once...going from SW to NE directly. Note this also allows the intersection to have "NO" pedestrians crossing on all four cross walks...allowing cars to take rights without needing to wait for pedestrians.

^ Gotta agree with Chicago3rd on this one.

I think nothing more would contribute to the ongoing evolution back toward a pro-pedestrian environment than these changes being proposed by the new Transportation Commissioner. Not everybody has it in them to give people dirty looks as they cross streets.

I'm especially a fan of pedestrian scrambles. I'd like to see more of those in the Loop and on North Michigan Avenue.

If I could opt for Pedestrian scrambles downtown, here's where I'd like to see them:

Michigan and Randolph
Michigan and Chicago
State and Madison
State and Washington
State and Randolph

I don't have anything against a few diagonals, but I do have an issue with limiting right turns on red all over the place. I'd love to see diagonals all over Michigan Ave because it's too wide to safley jaywalk. But even on Michigan Chicago pedestrians are extremely aggressive and will take the right of way even when it's not theirs for the taking (see left turn lanes onto side streets off Michigan). I don't think they need to be protected from cars jostling with them for position to make a right on red. I've kicked a few BMW's and Mercedes in my day that tried to edge me out of the cross walk to make a turn when they don't have the ROW and I know I'm not the only one who doesn't take shit from cars.

Subway Loop.

About time. CDOT refused to even look at the concept before the changing of the guard. I'm really loving the new transportation commissioner. I too have a concern about restricting right turns on red, because that will be hell for all the buses in downtown which often cannot pull up to a bus stop or make a turn because of other turning vehicles waiting to turn. This of course can be alleviated with right turn arrows and holding the light for pedestrians for a couple of seconds, ala Washington and State.

Subway Loop + El structure converted to Elevated Park/walkway/retail mezzanine...

No, subway loop, plus elevated loop continuing as transit asset. A steel structure elevated line hardly makes an appropriate elevated park.

If you want an elevated park in Chicago that actually stands a chance of being interesting and not just a mugger's paradise, then push for the North Main replacement to be a subway, with the conversion of the embankment portions to an elevated park.

There are all sorts of possibilities, depending on how the junction is designed. A subway loop was mentioned, although that would require a second complex junction at Congress and the removal of the Clinton station. But you could send trains from the North Side into the Dearborn Subway and then out to the West Side. You could take trains from the Dan Ryan branch and send them to the West Side, with the line crossing over itself at Congress/Clinton.

If operated in tandem with the Block 37 connection, you could through-route Dan Ryan to South Main, or Dan Ryan to Midway, or tons of other branch combinations. Since our system doesn't have great opportunities to make transfers between lines, it may be beneficial in the long run to introduce a series of new rail routes linking various combinations of branch lines, and rely heavily on interlining.

Has anyone seen any boots-on-the-ground evidence of a start to the UP North reconstruction? They better get a move-on - they have only like 8.5 years left (or whatever) in their construction schedule.

No evidence when I rode the UP North 2 weeks ago.

However, they still need to prepare construction drawings for the revised plan. That can take 18 months or more, and Metra only canceled the former plan last August. I imagine that, with the increased neighborhood impact of the new plan, Metra has to work through all the city politics as well.

In other commuter-rail construction news, they've started work on the 130th/Torrence project. The included pedestrian bridge (in red) is awesome. :tup: I'm guessing it's intended to provide pedestrian/bike access from Hegewisch to the Ford plant gates and possibly the Red Line when they build it out to 130th.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/9991/130thfull.jpg

LaSalle/Congress Intermodal Center

Great to have a pedestrian connection to LaSalle that doesn't require crossing Congress. The only thing that would make it better is an underground connection to the LaSalle Blue Line mezzanine...

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/225/0615011750s.jpg
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/7...13011520as.jpg
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9261/0513011521s.jpg
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3492/0513011522s.jpg