Hasn't Monroe Street been developed over the years with very minimal utilities underneath it, for the very purpose of a future transitway?

Whoa.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...?id=38143&ba=1

That's the story anyway but they never actually know what will turn up once they start moving dirt.

The 1990s iteration of the distributor plan (the "circulator") used street-running light rail -- I forget if the final routing was down Monroe or Madison, but I'm pretty sure it was Madison -- which could operate fairly quickly and efficiently if coupled with intelligent traffic signal systems. Much more affordable than subway construction, but still not cheap, as obviously there'd still be the issue of the river; I seem to remember a figure in the $700 million range, which would put the present day cost at around double.

In the meantime, we can think about what might have been, circa 1965....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tor_Subway.jpg

EDIT: the cross-loop routing was down Madison, with the north/south artery being State Street; north of the river, the line extended north along Wabash, and there was the Carroll Ave component that then continued along Grand/Illinois to Navy Pier. Lines extended along lower Randolph and Columbus to service Illinois Center, and to the south, the line turned from State to Roosevelt, then south along Indiana to serve McCormick Place. The yard was to be at the end of a southward extension of the Canal/Clinton route, located a bit south of Roosevelt. Along with the LRT routes, there were a few planned complimentary bus routes to fill in holes in the distribution capability of the LRT, such as a bus circulator to northern Streeterville. Total capital cost was $689 million in 1994. The plan completed alternatives analysis and final EIS, being at the preliminary engineering stage before being killed.

all of this has essentially remained intact in the long term city planning for 60 years, of course its just shifted from heavy rail (1960s) -> light rail (1990s)-> BRT (currently).

I am always happy to see new transit service and would like to see more. I'd love to see a circle line and Clinton subway.

That being said, transit isn't a contest where the city with the most lines wins. I feel that way sometimes, but it's an emotional response due to my chauvinistic feelings for my city. Transit is about quality of life for it's residents and making cities work. If we want to make our city work better via transit, building a bunch of new rail lines probably isn't the first thing on our list. It's making transit work better in the areas that already have good rail service. We should encourage denser development and discourage car use near rail stops on the Blue, Pink and Green lines and try to make transit more attractive to people who already have access to it. We should build dedicated bike lanes separated from traffic. We should build high-quality BRT/streetcars going North-South on the West side of the city and East-West on the North and South sides of the city.

Here are my personal development priorities: 1) Any transit solutions that makes getting around the central area easier, this makes taking transit to the central area more attractive and the whole system benefits. 2) Increased development density and improved transit quality along the existing system. 3) Low-cost, high impact improvements like BRT (*good* BRT) and attractive, safe bike lanes. 4) Circle Line and a South Lake Shore line.

What? Thats looking to the East from Chase Plaza. That is Inland Steel building with the green and silver.

Inland Steel is in the background. The building on the right side, in front of the Xerox Center, is a modern glassy tower on the site of Italian Village.

Yes, and then Xerox is to Inland's right (catercorner), and Italian Village, just west of Xerox, is gone (as is the whole corner lot, with the weather bell thing).
Its replacement reminds me of Harris Bank, but that's further west, so I still wish Pandemonius would let us in on his mystery.

Oh I see what you are talking about...

Didn't the city say it wanted to buy the Bell Federal Building? So it might not matter...

More El "Garden Car" information from the the guy pushing the project:

http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/12/chi...ldwin_an_1.php

This is just a plain bone-headed idea on several levels

^ It really, really is. I love installation art... when it's intelligent and well thought out. But this? Oy. The experience-- the artist writes that he wants it to "stop traffic"-- relies heavily on visual punch. But it appears the CTA is requiring that the car be covered, which sounds to me like it would make the whole thing DOA. Even if it weren't covered, plants take time to grow into their "container"/space. Maybe they would pack it full of mature specimens? Even then, I have a hard time imaging the garden would turn out as robust as it is in the renderings. The artist writes that he wants to use native plants and I can't help but think the end result may just appear to the average CTA user as a railroad car filled with dirts and weeds when it could otherwise be serving the real need for greater capacity.

Still, if it could be done on the cheap (and it does sound like an inexpensive project), sure-- give it a shot. But the artist is setting $400,000 as his fundraising goal. Wait-- what? Four hundred thousand? Really? How much did the Burnham pavilions cost? Shouldn't that amount lead to something, well... better?

And then there's the substantive question: What's the point? Is it supposed to be ironic because plants are sedentary? Is it some kind of environmentalist commentary? I don't see any hint of in-depth analysis in his interview; the guy actually sounds kind of vapid.

if he wants to raise the money on his own to pay for it, he can have whatever he wants piggybacked on the end of an El train for all I care.

IIRC, the Burnham pavilions were $5 million apiece. $400,000 isn't too much for an installation that has to withstand 55-mph travel.

Skokie Swift Oakton Station at last
 

It look long enough...

As usual, it's IDOT's fault.

Really? I thought they were 500k. Anyway, I don't think they're fabricating a car from the ground up but salvaging one. So, yes, 400k is too much, especially for the initial concept.

Ardecila, thanks for posting. When I was in town last week visiting my old stomping grounds, I was disappointed to see construction had yet to commence. I know a lot of anti-suburban forumers think this station is a waste of resources, but between downtown Skokie to the west and the relatively dense neighborhoods (where I grew up) around Oakton Park to the east, this station has a lot of potential to help revitalize the area. It will shave 20 minutes or so off the current bus commutes from downtown Skokie to the Howard station.

On a semi-related note, when I took the Skokie Swift last week, I clocked the trip from Dempster to Howard @ 7 minutes! There used to be some slow zones around downtown Skokie, but the train seemed to fly the entire way except on the Howard approach. At this speed, a commuter could potentially get from Oakton to Howard in 5-6 minutes!

Good news on the Oakton station! Hopefully it will attract news businesses, shops, & restaurants to downtown Skokie in the future.

Hopefully Skokie will keep the zoning dense around the new (renewed) station and build some TOD like many suburbs have done around their Metra Stations.

Well, to some extent, Skokie's already had quite a bit of dense infill - basically the same stuff that went up on every major street on the North Side, 3-4 story walkups. No towers yet, but the area immediately around the station is an office/R&D park, a 1-story commercial district, and a park.

The Crafty Beaver lumber yard next to the site is an ideal site for TOD, but I love Crafty Beaver, so I hope they don't go anywhere.

The next few years should be decent for CTA. Stops at Oakton and Morgan will be rebuilt after they were removed decades ago. Grand/State will open fully, and Wilson and North/Clybourn will have most of the major problems solved in their respective renovations. The South Loop infill station project will go into design, and we'll see some progress on renovating Clark/Division.

We have a strong chance of receiving a BRT grant I think, and the implementation of that should be only a matter of months (posting signage, installing signal priority/boarding shelters, dealing with the inevitable lawsuits from shopkeepers, ordering buses). There's no major construction. If I'm not mistaken, the R-O-Y projects should also be submitted to the FTA for New Starts funding, which would be awesome.

Has there been any decision regarding where this new infill station will be? I heard about a Green line stop at 18th street or 22nd/Cermak being kicked around a long time ago, but haven't seen any news in a while.

Getting Around discusses rider's review with CTA

..

Why is it that Bombardier/CTA have trouble with voltage fluctuations in LED lighting, but Europe and Asia have figured it out? I swear, it's almost as if they purposely try to do things the antiquated way.

Absolutely feels that way sometimes. Like some kind of inertia.

I think there is, in fact, a huge institutional bias against unproven technology. Conservativism in railcar design has served CTA very well over the years. Unlike in other cities, no CTA railcars have ever been retired or rebuilt early because of technological glitches or unforeseen problems. Instead, the various car series have soldiered on long after their expected lifespan, happily operating with older series cars, on any line they are assigned to.

No, that's why I wasn't specific. A station at 18th would be centrally-located to serve the existing development in the South Loop, since it's within a short walking distance of many newer developments, but a station at Cermak would lay the groundwork for the dense skyscraper corridor that the city plans along Cermak from Clark to Calumet, and would be good for bus transfers on the 21.

Both stations would probably be overkill, although if the Cermak station was built between Cermak/23rd and the 18th station was centered over 18th, they might be far enough apart to attract distinct groups of riders.

was there ever any thought about placing the station at 16th? it seems more natural and could theoretically also leaves enough space for a cermak station in the distant future. It seems like it would be more expensive due to the track configuration and existing structures though I could also see significantly increased benefit. In addition to the better spacing it could be a stop on both the orange and green lines as well as cover the bulk of the residential in the south loop. Also it could possibly directly connect into the future linear air line park (I won't argue for or against, just stating it may exist) which would provide direct access to the lakefront and soldier field. If I could choose a spot in the south loop cost excluded, that would be it.

We aren't talking about cutting edge stuff here. Most of the technology CTA is dismissing has been around long enough to see 3rd and 4th generation technology on it.

Does anyone know if CTA releases the raw data from "Bus Tracker" and whether that same data will be available for a train tracker?

Other city transit authorities have released this data, and private enterprise has taken it to new levels, enabling train time displays in coffee shops, 3rd party iphone apps, etc.

http://www.transitchicago.com/developers/

http://www.transitchicago.com/apps/

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chic...kbucktown.html

I agree. I think this goes beyond midwestern pragmatism. Smells more like good old fashion lack of vision and my oft stated failure to understand the user impact of good, smart design—system wide.

Umm, Holy Cow!

Anyone interested in making some money? We could put a train/bus tracker monitor in virtually every Starbucks in Chicago. And charge a monthly fee to monitor it.

You're a little late to the game on this one.

There are third-party apps for just about every smart phone out there, plus I think there are third-party desktop widgets for just about every computer OS out there. The front page of the CTA website has had a link for developers who want to interface with CTA data for over a year now, for crying out loud.

The CTA has made enormous strides over the past 10 years in how and what they communicate to the public, enough that at this point I honestly feel sorry for the agency because they still get criticized for problems they've fixed because people are simply too lazy (or maybe jaded) to see what's available. At any rate, while their new cars may not be so modern-looking, in many other ways this is a long way from your father's CTA. :)

^^^
No need to be a dick.

I've yet to see any type of tracker in any business here in Chicago, so while some may have in fact thought it up, they haven't yet made it viable.

And for those of us that wonder every single day if they have enough time to squeeze in a cup of coffee between trains, it would be a welcome addition to my daily routine.

He isn't really being a dick...he's just telling you the facts.

I would also appreciate a bus tracker in my local shops. As viva tried to point out a few posts back, people are working on this and it is currently available at a couple places in wicker park:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chic...kbucktown.html

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not sure the huge gap in service you are describing is real. Though I will say: if you could give me system wide train tracking right now, I'd happily give you money in return.

Do you mean putting a laptop next to the cash register with bustracker on it? Suggest it to your local indie coffeeshop.

Yeah, I put a Bus Tracker screen in my condo building lobby last year. All you need is a computer that can run a reasonably modern browser.

Because I show both northbound and southbound buses, I just keep two browser windows open (be sure to install the Firefox extension Refresh Every). But CTA has recently made available a do-it-yourself web page exactly for such local installations.

Train Tracker will be here soon. It's already working a number of places around the system.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/node/1316233

New security cams to be in place by the end of month

BY FRAN SPIELMAN
The Chicago Sun-Times
Updated: 05-24-2010 11:47 am

All 144 CTA rapid transit stations will be equipped with surveillance cameras by the end of this month, expanding the Big Brother reach of the nation's most extensive and integrated camera network.

By the end of this year, CTA buses and rail stations will have nearly 3,000 high-definition surveillance cameras -- up from 1,800 currently. Initially, cameras will be positioned at station entrances.

Ultimately, each station will have a "full complement" of 20 cameras. And later this year, the CTA will launch a pilot program so see "whether it's feasible to retrofit" older CTA rail cars with cameras. New 5000-series cars come equipped with cameras.

The cameras are being bankrolled, in part, by the $22.6 million in federal Homeland Security funds the CTA has received since 2006. The CTA is investing $19 million.



...

My condo building bought a flat screen monitor and a mini mac specifically for this purpose. The screen is mounted on the pillar by the door and shows not only all the local buses, but also the weather, time, and news stories. Its been up since about a month after Bus Tracker came out.

I don't really even use it anymore because I have Bustracker linked to my Nexus One. I wonder if I can set that up to use the GPS to automatically show all buses from the nearest bus stop?

I don't know how well it works, but I think both bustracker and TreKing (which I prefer) have the ability to do that.

Does anybody know how the 136 works? I'm curious as to why it only provides service in one direction. How do the buses return to the other end? Do the buses switch to some other route, like a 147 or 151, to make the return trip? Otherwise, they'd have to dead-head those buses, which seems like a big waste of money to me.

New Auxiliary Entrance on Archer Opens at Cermak-Chinatown Station
 

http://www.transitchicago.com/news/d...ArticleId=2628


6/3/2010

Elevator to be Added at Cermak Entrance

CTA President Richard L. Rodriguez and Chicago Transit Board Chairman Terry Peterson today announced the opening of a new entrance to the Red Line’s Cermak-Chinatown station. Located approximately one block north of Cermak on Archer Avenue, the new entrance will serve as the primary access point for customers while the main entrance to the station on the north side of Cermak is reconstructed and made accessible. The south entrance on Cermak also will be closed to customers beginning Friday night at 11 p.m.

"Infrastructure improvements like this are very important to CTA but are dependent on capital funding," said CTA President Richard L. Rodriguez. "Thanks to the stimulus funds we are able to renovate this station, provide a new entry point and use our scarce capital funds for other much needed projects. When the work is complete at Cermak-Chinatown, customers will be able to enjoy a more modern and accessible station with the added convenience of another entrance and exit."

Beginning Friday, June 4, both the north and south entrances on Cermak will be closed to customers so construction can begin. As a result, the westbound and eastbound #21 Cermak buses will undergo reroutes. The eastbound bus stop at Cermak/Wentworth will be eliminated. Eastbound #21 and #62 Archer buses now will stop in front of the new Archer entrance into the Cermak station.

Westbound buses will stop at Archer/Wentworth to allow customers to access the station at a signal controlled crosswalk rather than crossing in the middle of the road.

"Capital projects such as this require a significant amount of funding; however, they must be done if we are to have a reliable public transit system that serves all customers," said Chairman Peterson. "The availability of stimulus funds is a great opportunity to make improvements the agency otherwise couldn’t afford."

In addition to the creation of the new auxiliary entrance on Archer, the station renovation project involves upgrading the main Cermak entrance by replacing the stairs and escalator, building a new station house at street level on Cermak and constructing a protective perimeter, including posts and planters around the outside of the station. The main Cermak entrance sustained major damage as the result of a traffic accident in April 2008.

An elevator will be installed at the Cermak entrance making the station accessible to customers with disabilities. When construction is complete by the end of 2010, 92 of 144 CTA rail stations (65%) will be accessible.

Ridership at the Cermak station on an average weekday is 3,530. CTA’s Red Line is the busiest line in the rail system with 249,225 rides on an average weekday.

Total cost of the project is $12.5 million and is funded with American Reinvestment Recovery Act – also known as stimulus – funding. CTA received a total $241 million in stimulus funds. Projects funded through stimulus funds include the track renewal project in the Blue Line’s Dearborn Subway and the purchase of 58 hybrid articulated buses.

Two or three picks back, CTA switched to a new computerized program for run-cutting that basically looks at where a bus ends up as it completes one trip and what is the next trip that starts nearby, no matter what route it is. So a driver's run may now include three different routes and wander over a good chunk of the city. This has led to a tremendous increase in interlining. There has always been some; you might have a run that consists of two complete 147 round-trips and then a quick 157 trip in the peak direction only before returning to the garage or being relieved.

Supposedly deadhead mileage is reduced with this program, but there are two downsides. Drivers are not as familiar with their routes and it ended CTA's old official (but seldom practiced) policy that buses are always in service and passengers may ride even on garage pull-outs or pull-ins.

I'm assuming this program has some function that matches specific bus types to routes based on ridership? The articulated, standard, and short buses can't all be used interchangeably...

Question for all forumers: I have enjoyed reading the debate about new CTA rail lines and new stations and BRT corridors and everything of the like on this thread. I looked back about ten pages, and I had a question for all the proponents of new lines throughout the city.

What, if ever, do you think would be an adeuqate new coding system for the CTA 'L' lines once colors become too confusing to distinguish them? I imagine having a Magenta line or Chartreuse line may be a bit complicated. :D As most or all of you know, New York's Subway uses letters and numbers to define service routes (i.e. the A train, the 6 train). The Paris Metro has 14 services known by their numbers (i.e. le ligne 7), and the London Underground's lines are colored, but known by their names (i.e. the Jubilee Line, colored silver). Even L.A.'s rapidly growing Metro system already has people talking about kicking colors to the curb within 50 years.

When do you all think such a new naming system may need to be implemented in Chicago (as in, how many expansions away from this are we?) and what type of names would you prefer (letters, numbers, full names, etc.)??

Keep up the lively discussion! :tup:

As the designer of the CTA map, I gave the matter some thought four years ago when the Pink Line was named (though I had no part in that decision). It's not really a problem of color theory, but of semantics. Which colors are the general public immediately able to name? I concluded that Silver and Gold could be used, though there are printing and display challenges. Black and White are obvious, but there might be political baggage to overcome. Yellow could be redeployed, and the Skokie branch called a Red Line Shuttle or something. Beyond that, I felt the most distinctive and recognizable colors would be Maroon, Aqua, Lime, and Magenta. Things are complicated by the CTA's decision some years back to translate the color names into Spanish. This is linguistically problematic: on one draft of the first Spanish edition of the map we used three different Spanish words for brown in three different sections (translated by different people)—and it's unhelpful, since none of the system signage uses the Spanish names so you have to translate in your head anyway.

So CTA could use colors for a long, long, time if it wants to. As for a different system, I would suggest the direction or richtung system used in most of Europe, indicating trains by their endpoints rather than an abstract name or number. Red Line trains would thus be marked Rogers Park or Roseland. Brown Line trains would go to Albany Park rather than Kimball. Green Line trains to Oak Park, Woodlawn, or Englewood.

Quote:

I would suggest the direction or richtung system used in most of Europe, indicating trains by their endpoints rather than an abstract name or number. Red Line trains would thus be marked Rogers Park or Roseland. Brown Line trains would go to Albany Park rather than Kimball. Green Line trains to Oak Park, Woodlawn, or Englewood.

^Good grief. What goes around comes around I guess.

Considering the cost of building new rail lines, I can only see three additional lines as even remotely possible in the future: the circle line, the Clinton Street subway, and something in the Metra electric corridor. You could call the circle line the gold line, the Clinton Street subway the silver line, and the Metra electric corridor the gray line (although I guess extra care would have to be given to differentiate between silver & gray since the colors can be somewhat similar... maybe bronze would be a good color option since the line would serve parts of Bronzeville, though that too could be confused with gold). Beyond those three, it seems like any additional mileage of rail would just be extensions of already existing color-coded lines (red line south, orange line south, blue line west, and brown line west).