Not really. Sure, you can walk from the train station to plenty of shopping, eating, and entertainment, but residential density in downtown Naperville isn't much higher than any other historic town center along a Metra line. In fact, the density is probably less due to people combining residential lots in teardowns, and the removal of housing for parking and shops.

Outlying neighborhoods in the city, although they aren't really adding retail or residents, are still denser than the historic sections of commuter suburbs because the lots and homes are smaller, and multi-family housing has always existed alongside the homes.

A better example is Arlington Heights. It doesn't have the level of retail that Naperville does, but it has lots more people. The last 20 years has seen Arlington Heights be incredibly friendly to density in their downtown - so much so that NIMBYs can no longer claim high-rises as being out of character. There hasn't been any new development for about 7 or 8 years now, but there's little room remaining. Meanwhile, Des Plaines and Park Ridge have taken up the torch, each adding several 6-story or taller buildings recently. Even Palatine has gotten in on the act, although they're still far behind the other three. Mount Prospect and my town, Barrington, still aren't sure if they want development.

Thus the question....where in Chicago Metro is there an ideal car situation? Where traveling smoothly from Oak Park to the loop happens the majority of time? Sorry...we spent Friday, Saturday and Sunday going back and forth to Naperville...and traffic was always around Oak Park and into the city. We agree...but I feel the having two lines from CTA and the Metra and still choosing to drive into the loop/michigan ave are is not supportive of public transit.

I stated I supported them being in the middle of the freeways/tollways but noted we need to change the station environment and area around the stations.



I have heard 5-9 years at some stations.....to wait for parking so someone can take Public Transportation.



Naperville station area is VERY weak. That huge parking lot on the north side...the fricken ugly desert waste of that surface parking lot.....it screams more parking, residential and retail.

I think the bottom line is it's rarely a question of a transit line in the expressway median vs. an elevated or subway line through a neighborhood. More likely it's a choice between a transit line in the expressway median and no transit line at all, or between a new expressway with a transit line and a new expressway without one. In that case, the choice is pretty clear.

Don't forget the long-term plans that RTA has to extend the Blue Line out to Downers Grove in the median of I-88.

Also, we're not the only city to build median transit lines. DC took the idea and built their Orange Line in the median of I-66, and the plans for the Silver Line out to Dulles Airport take it along the median of the Dulles Toll Road (which was built extra-wide for that purpose years ago). Also, Atlanta built their North Line in the median of GA-400. I'm sure there are others. It is worth noting, though, that in both the DC and Atlanta examples, the rail line deviates from the highway at certain points to encourage development (Arlington/Tysons Corner in DC and Perimeter in ATL).

There's a good deal that can be done to make the expressway median experience better for transit riders. The big Dan Ryan rehab was a mixed bag:

Pedestrian facilities at street level were drastically improved. Overhead canopies over the crosswalks, and shelters at bus waiting areas. Bravo.

At track level, however, they didn't rebuild the trackbed retaining wall to be higher (even about 3-4 feet higher would have done it). This would have accomplished the very major goal of substantially impeding the direct path for sound waves to travel from truck engines to the poor ears of waiting transit customers. In stations where with higher retaining walls (e.g. Cumberland Blue Line, if memory serves) the waiting experience is notably less awful. I suppose one could possibly figure out some sort of semi-transparent sound absorbing screens to put up, but it would have to allow for air circulation and light, while being very low maintenance and sturdy.

There is very little that can be done about the air quality issue, though, I see a good deal of potential in the Eisenhower. At least from Pulaski to the Halsted subway portals, the 4-track right of way could allow for the Ike to actually be sort-of converted to a real Congress Parkway; median greenery would both improve air quality and absorb noise, aside from looking better than ballast. Combine this with improvements to pedestrian facilities at street level, and you've come a long way.

The other big thing is upgrading the tracks for 70mph operation. Even though you usually won't beat the cars due to the station stops, and even though your trip time might only be cut down by a minute, there's something psychologically important about going as fast as or faster than the cars on the road beside you. Otherwise, you sort of know subconsciously you're second class for being stuck on the slow train like a sucker. Despite only a minute of travel time savings, many people would experience an increase in their overall perceived trip value by more than just their time-value of 1 minute.

^ Denver is doing expressway median transit on I-25 I believe.

Has anyone ever considered building transit along the side of the expressway instead of in the Median? Obviously, it's easier to have it in the median, but on the side at least it could be physically a part of some neighborhood and hopefully trigger some urban-style development there. I'm thinking of a situation like Oak Park's, where there are commercial buildings along the highway at times. For me, the biggest issue about the transit in the median has to do not with noise and pollution, but with the fact that the transit is usually nowhere near anything attractive for use on foot.

For example, due to the way the trains run, Bridgeport will probably never be as cool as Wicker Park, despite similar proximity to downtown and despite the fact that Bridgeport has more train service.

Most cities realize that, as great as it would be to build rail lines through neighborhoods, in reality that would require a lot of eminent domain, especially for CTA lines that would run through densely-built up areas....so, probably anything new that is built will be on some sort of pre-determined path...expressway median, or in the case of the Orange Line, a pre-existing rail right-of-way. A sad reality of our times. At costs of $100 million a mile (at the extreme low end) just for creating a metro line on a pre-existing right-of-way, this is likely all that transit agencies will pony up for in these times when governments are too cheap to build anything truly nice in the United States.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know why Chicago didn't redevelop its elevated trains into underground subways in the early 1900's like New York did?

Part of Portland's original MAX line is beside the Banfield Freeway (the cut was widened to accommodate the light-rail line). Generally, though, there's a problem with on- and off-ramps and side-of-road transit unless you put it up on a viaduct.

I spent part of last week in Vancouver, whose automated ALRT I have long considered an underappreciated technology. Sections of the existing lines and long portions of the new Canada line are on elevated guideways alongside arterial roads (Vancouver has no freeways). I am unclear whether the municipality had reserved right of way (only about 12 feet is really necessary) or whether it had been squeezed out of existing setbacks and public ROW.

Incidentally, though I usually say that Chicago "pioneered" freeway median transit lines, the first was actually in Los Angeles. When Cahuenga Blvd, precursor to the Hollywood Freeway, was built in the 1940s, it included a median strip for the Pacific Electric. By the time the full freeway opened, this had been replaced with pullouts for express bus lines. Of course, median transit like New Orleans's St. Charles line and Chicago's Stony Island carline go back much further.

^ Interesting... The on and off ramps seem to be the biggest challenge, obviously. Is the development pattern near this MAX line trending toward something more urban than Chicago's median strips?

There is a very good book out there called "Chicago Transit" that details this. But as I understand it, the basic answer is that the lines were privately operated and the system was not coordinated toward producing a unified whole. Throw in a good dose of typical Chicago corruption, and there you have it.

I suppose the short answer is that Chicago did, but for various political and economic reasons construction didn't start until 1937. The Franklin Street subway project of the 1970s would have allowed demolition of the Loop L, but didn't survive the inflation and pessimism of the Carter era followed by the Reagan-era abandonment of urban needs, coupled with Byrne-era incompetency.

A more complete answer would involve Manhattan and Brooklyn's higher residential density, substantially larger office employment by the teens, and New York's long river crossings; and the rather byzantine politics (and associated graft) of Chicago's traction franchises and rejection of public ownership in the 1920s. And bear in mind that New York's Els didn't come down in Manhattan until the late 40s, and remain to this day in the outer boroughs.

There are some modest successes, but those are aided a lot by serious regional land-use policies and heavy city subsidies. What's been confounding to Portland planners is the fierce resistance of city neighborhoods to increases in density. A lot of the Banfield corridor was industrial, so the urban design is still a bit sketchy in places.

There's everything the others have said, but then there's also the reality that creating a tunnel in the literal rock that is Manhattan is a lot easier and requires less complex engineering than creating a tunnel in the mud that Chicago is built on.

Building a metro is infinitely less disruptive than an expressway. Give neighborhoods a choice: an expressway or a metro, and see which they choose. It's a false dichotomy to say "metro or nothing" if there is a real unmet transportation need.

^^^^ I agree completely. As more people become transit/green enlightened and desire a good, diverse transportation system, i think you will see a more genuine interest in actually getting something done. Or, quite simply, their community will flounder. It is becoming time for communities to either sack up or skulk away.

Yes, espeically that first branch. When they opened it up in the 80's many of us thought it would happen natually...then the Nimbys got a hold of it. All that capital put in with the expectation that not only would it improve what was there but will also build a future for more density. I believe Tri-Met attached areas to the westside MAX so that there wouldn't be any opposition from the nimbys who moved in once MAX got up and running and density would be encouraged.

Actually, hardly any subway tunneling is easier than that under downtown Chicago. A layer of blue clay at -30 or so can just be cut away with power knives to a fairly precise shape, and the cast-iron rings are then just bolted in and concrete liner pumped in. Vastly easier than the blasting required to get through Manhattan schist. There's a great little movie floating around that shows the Chicago subway builders just carving handfuls of blue clay away like Play-Doh and tossing it into a little disposal cart behind them.

The only real slippage Chicago encountered during subway construction was in the cut-and-cover work done for the stations. There was a drop of about four inches that affected some buildings near State and Chicago.

In addition to what's been said above, the section of the Red Line that's on the side of the freeway is mostly in outer Portland, which is nothing at all like the part of the city you usually hear about. Most of that area is not going to be massively redeveloped very soon, especially not while there are closer-in and more attractive areas along the streetcar and other light rail lines. It's also sometimes kind of awkward to get to the stations because you have to go up a steep stairway and then down another to avoid crossing the tracks. (However, Portland is working on two southern light rail extensions along highways--I-205 to Clackamas and McLoughlin Blvd. to Milwaukie--that do have a lot of potential for redevelopment.)

Also, obviously what makes sense about putting it in the median is that people on both sides of the highway suffer equally. In a bygone era, there would have been no great difficulty putting the 35th Red Line station on the west side of the Dan Ryan to favor Bridgeport users, but I imagine things are different these days.

^ Well, yes, but obviously my idea was not to favor one of the other neighborhood. Putting it west of the Dan Ryan makes sense because Bronzeville already has the green line. Putting it north of the Eisenhower would make sense because the commercial parts of Oak Park along the highway are there. Etc.

It is true that this kind of thing could be misconstrued, but really, people need to understand reason at some point along the way.

Ah, the eternal fight between the professionals and the politicians.

Without getting too philosophical, one could argue that at least sometimes it's a good thing when politics trump reason, though usually it just results in missed opportunities.

For example, it's probably good that the Lake Street Elevated was saved rather than torn down in the 90s, given how strong ridership has gotten on that branch. The obvious choice circa 1992, though, was to abandon it.

Despite this exception that proves the rule, I still agree with you...

The two biggest screw ups in Portland along the Gresham Line is Gateway and Hollywood. 62nd and 82nd Could be densified too. Gateway is a lose because it is backwards 1950's mentality (when it was born....) and Hollywood has languished by having too many people wanting too many things from any development....and a few times Hollywood has gone downhill because of all this NIMBY crap.

In Chicago's case we need long term planning....letting people know we are going to build transit oriented villages at major stations and encourage it at minor stations. That if a neighborhood fights it we will move the station to an area around it that would like the benefits of a direct gate to the city and dense development.

My understanding for tunnel work was that in today's world cutting the tunnel was the easy part, and building the support was where the complexity lay. Thus, cutting through something that could support itself (for the most part) was an easier project than building a tunnel in something that sought level. I could be wrong about that, that's my understanding.

^ I would agree that the engineering in our soil conditions is much more complicated.

You are 100% right on this one. There is a reason why so many of our towers have those awful parking podiums....it cheaper to build up in Chicago...than deal with our clay.

Towers present a completely different problem than tunnels. The watery soil above the clay is trying to seep into the hole from the sides, flooding is a problem for any spaces below the water table, and the "boat" is trying to float out of the hole.

Tunnels through Chicago's blue clay present only the problem of support for the soil above. Chalk or sandstone is about the only thing easier to work and virtually all tunnels--even through rock--require lining for support.

I will stand by my opinion that hardly any city is easier to tunnel under than Chicago. Remember that it is crisscrossed by dozens of water supply and sewer tunnels, and that 65 miles of freight tunnels were easily dug by a private company under virtually every downtown street.

Some interesting articles on how the Chicago subway was built appear in Engineering News-Record August 1, 1940 and Jan. 30, 1941 and the Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, Dec. 1938, April 1941, and June 1944.

Off-topic: VivaLFuego (or anyone else for that matter), are there any plans in the near future for renovation or to completely rebuild the Wilson station on the Red Line? Or better yet, an extensive overhaul of the entire north branch?

Some near-term improvements have been underway at Wilson the past couple months...replaced canopy, lighting, stairwells, and platform decking. Other modest improvements along the North Main are also underway, including canopy and lighting replacement. There is no fixed/holistic plan in place to rehab the entire North Main. It is a terrifyingly large and expensive job to do a thorough and effective reconstruction, and thus a bit of a hot potato.

There is a medium-term plan to completely reconstruct Wilson - in fact there has been for 15 years or more - but it's a very major job. Of course there is ongoing debate about what the replacement should be: a local/express stop with dual island platforms, or a local-only stop with a single island platform. There's also debate about location: should Wilson be eliminated and a new station built at Montrose instead for better station spacing? Should Wilson and Lawrence both be demolished and combined into a single super station generally over Broadway? For such a big project, what is the potential to bring in private developers for a TOD to use some private financing to aid in redevelopment?

And then of course, how to configure/use the historic station house.

These are major, fundamental issues, and I'm not sure if any of them have been resolved. I believe preliminary design work for the rebuild was started a few years ago but halted because of possibly changing demands for the station.

Naturally, there are a lot of political stakeholders involved in this sort of decision.

For reference, reconstructing Howard Station (a project of comparable scope) will have taken around 30 years from serious inception (i.e. inclusion in the capital plan) to completion.

^ This is the biggest pipe dream on earth given the financial state of our transit, but has anyone ever thought about reconstructing the Frank Lloyd Wright station design as a part of something larger? Wouldn't that be amazing? It definitely would be a major attention grabber, especially if Chicago wanted to shine some light on its new transit emphasis.

Have you ever walked from Naperville's station to its downtown? Its not all better than most neighborhood CTA stations sans some of the expressway median stations. Downtown Naperville is a good 1/2 mile walk south of the Metra station, and along a very busy and unpleasant arterial street. You can walk through a nice typical midwestern small town style neighborhood (which is a designated historic district) if one doesn't mind back tracking a bit. Point is though, that nearly all of Naperville's infill development happens away from the station, not next to it.

Tribune story on Daley in the Beijing subway
Click above for full story

Actually, Arthur Gerber designed the station building. Frank Lloyd Wright designed an earlier commercial structure on the same site, which looked quite modern.

^ OK, but you get my drift...

I've never actually seen a photo of what was there, but I was told that somehow the FLW building related to the earlier station. Was this wrong?

The Stohr Arcade Building (right) from Chicago-L.org:

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im...d/wilson06.jpg

I found this interesting esp considering that some people here were whining about removing seats being "inhumane" and unbecoming of a world-class city such as "New York, London, and Tokyo":

Thanks. You can tell I'm not much of a transit junkie - I try to keep this thread uncluttered with my naivety. :tup:

Ok, let’s assume Chicago is awarded the 2016 games, sometime in 2009. With Daley now in awe of the brand new Chinese transit system, how much can we honestly expect implemented in terms of new projects in the Chicagoland area by the start of the games? The Tribune states that the Chinese have built 4 new lines since 2002. Chicago will have roughly the same amount of time (7 years,) to really get cracking on additions / improvements before the start of the actual games.

Obviously 4 brand new lines / projects could not be built for around the 7.7 billion that it cost in China. The price here would be boatloads more. The various extensions, yellow, red, orange, possibly blue, would be relatively affordable and should be rather easy to construct. Additionally, Daley has always been in favor of the circle line and also the mid city transit line, however both projects would be quite costly. The airport express is something he favors as well, yet that appears to be another costly project. What about other proposals that have not been seriously considered, but would really improve rapid transit in the city such as connecting the brown and blue lines at Jefferson Park, the oft mentioned gray line, or even a north shore subway line that would have a HUGE ridership? All of which would be extremely expensive, but if Daley is looking at China as an example, maybe one or more projects become more than just pipe dreams. How about the west loop transportation center? Or the plan to bring rapid transit to the magnificent mile / Streeterville area? Would any of these fantasy projects suddenly become a reality? I guess what I’m asking is how serious is Daley about wanting to upgrade Chicago’s system? Is it even economically possible?

None of these projects would have much to do with Olympic needs. Daley might try to use the Olympics as an excuse to pry loose state and federal dollars, but that's rather uncertain. Who'll be governor? Who'll be on the conference committee that hammers out the next highway funding bill?

And seven years is pretty tight for any transit line in the US. You could probably build the passing sidings for Airport Express, and probably the Mid-City. But I don't think you could permit, contract, and build a subway line of any length in seven years.

Shooting for a "state of good repair" is much more likely given the timeframe and funding situation - e.g. maybe after this trip the Mayor will tell CTA to find a way to exercise every option on the railcar contract to get as many new railcars as possible as quickly as possible (CTA has already bonded out all its future capital money to buy new buses and fix slow zones, but... maybe there's more pennies to scrounge up somewhere, somewhere). Also, accelerating rail station rehabs, particularly in the downtown area, and completing the renewal, and ideally, expansion of the bus fleet.

In terms of "new" transit services, something resembling a BRT network is the most plausible option. King Drive, Roosevelt, and something along the north lakeshore would all serve Olympic sites and have the added bonus of also being quite beneficial to residents after the games are over. The first 3 are all straight-forward, but it's a tricky head-scratcher for how to best provide rapid transit along the north lakeshore, both from a design/engineering standpoint and an operational standpoint.

This is all interesting, however I don't have much background knowledge on these proposed/discussed additions to the transit system. Are there any publicized maps/drawings depicting these routes that I could familiarize myself with? I've downloaded PDFs from the CTA's site related to future outlook plans, etc. but can't seem to find much clear info on these topics. (Circle Line, Mid-City, Grey, etc)

http://chicago-l.org/

Great site about the history of the el and has many proposals for changes to the system that never happened or haven't happened yet.

Good place to start, anyway.

Taft

orange/yellow line extension alternative analysis screenings

nice to see some movement on these fronts, red line screening 2 is also being scheduled for sometime in the fall.

----------------------

Orange Line Extension Alternatives Analysis Study Screen 1 Analysis

Screen 1 Open House Presentations

CTA is holding a public open house to receive input on preliminary findings from Screen 1 of the Alternatives Analysis Study for the proposed Orange Line Extension project. The Alternatives Analysis study is designed to examine all possible transit options and determine a Locally Preferred Alternative for the project. The proposed Orange Line Extension would relieve Orange Line Midway Station and bus terminal congestion and allow for growth in travel at Midway Airport. Additionally, the extension would relieve arterial traffic congestion in the study area bounded by 59th Street on the north, 79th Street on the south, Laramie Avenue on the west and Pulaski Road on the east, allowing improved access to employment and activity centers in the region.

The Screen 1 meeting date and location is:

Tuesday, August 19, 2008
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Ford City Mall – Lower Level North Mall Entrance
7601 South Cicero Avenue
Chicago, IL 60652

---------------------------------------------------

Yellow Line Extension Alternatives Analysis Study Screen 1 Analysis

Screen 1 Open House Presentations

CTA is holding a public open house to receive input on preliminary findings from Screen 1 of the Alternatives Analysis Study for the proposed Yellow Line Extension project. The Alternatives Analysis study is designed to examine all possible transit options and determine a Locally Preferred Alternative for the project. The proposed Yellow Line Extension would provide more direct neighborhood access to transit services and enhance transit oriented land uses. Additionally, the extension would relieve traffic within and adjacent to the study area bounded by Old Orchard Road on the north, Dempster Street on the south, Central Avenue/Harms Road on the west and Skokie Boulevard on the east, allowing enhanced access to employment and activity centers in the region, improving multi-modal connectivity, and providing new opportunities for reverse commute travel.

The Screen 1 meeting date and location is:

Tuesday, August 26, 2008
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
National Louis University, North Shore Campus at Skokie
5202 Old Orchard Road
Skokie, IL 60077

Yes, it is nice to see some progress on these fronts. I think CTA will probably push to bundle the Orange and Yellow Line extensions together, both for engineering/design and construction, to save money. On the federal-funding level, though, I believe they must still be separate.

The Red Line extension may also be included in this bundle, but it's a much bigger project and it offers different challenges.

The Mid-City is a long-term goal, but it seems to be more politically feasible than the Circle Line because it has the strong backing of City Hall, whereas support for the Circle Line was really only limited to the CTA and the public.

Plus, the Mid-City Line (whether is is BRT, LRT, or heavy-rail) is cheaper, since it runs above-ground over an existing railroad ROW and requires relatively few land takings.

^ Either way, at this pace my ass will be wrinkled, gray, and sipping tea with cookies at the senior center long before any of these come to fruition.

Really? Last time I remember the Mid-City corridor coming up, Madigan and Daley were both backing using it as a two-lane truck route (which sounds bananas to me). It would be great news if they were actually still interested in it as a transit line since as you mention it would be a relatively straightforward project.

(Funny, by the way, that the Circle Line's relative popularity was "only" with the CTA and the public, who ought to be far and away the most important constituencies. But this being Chicago, your phrasing was right.)

I think the Circle Line was the goofy dream of three or four CTA staffers (who persuaded Kruesi), all of whom are now gone. I don't expect to hear much more about it.

Someone else, on another thread, made an equally bold yet vague claim about the Circle line being dead.

You say "I think." Anything to back that up?

Taft

Has any in their official capacity at the CTA ever mentioned anything about connection the Brown like to Blue at Jefferson Park? Or is that just something people on this forum have came up with.

Jeff Sriver, who came up with the idea of the Circle Line, and Mike Schiffer, the director of planning who took it upstairs, have both left CTA. It never had much of a constituency beyond them.

^ Fine, but what makes it a "goofy dream" as you said? I'm just curious why you don't think the concept of a Circle Line has much merit?

It's an idea based on looking at a map rather than looking at unserved transit needs. Lots and lots of money with little prospect of attracting new riders (only four new stations). It's even dubious how much it would actually speed trips for existing riders. A single transfer downtown is almost always faster than two transfers at 1600W.

The Circle Line was the brainchild of Jeff Sriver, who'd lived in Tokyo for several years. Tying together radial rail lines often makes sense for the polycentric cities found in Europe and Asia, but those it's usually done with a circle much larger than 3000 meters in diameter, and usually done to connect frequent-headway regional rail service rather than infrequent suburban trains.