Some peoples minds cannot be changed, and I have learned to just accept that (and that CNT/CTAQC thing means little or nothing to you - I JMT'ed them).

What people though, the transit planners or those who have to be asked to provide the money..

When you haven't actually provided an argument for your proposal, no. We have been going back and forth now for roughly most the day and the extent of your rebuttal is to tell me who agrees with you and who you've talked to. I've gotten into arguments before with people on these boards and I typically leave them alone after a back and forth because its not productive and in the end its just people on the internet yelling, there's more than enough of that. But you are the author of this and your only defense is to point at to another person's or group's credentials. Am I seriously supposed to ignore my arguments against because a non-profit linked to your website? You are trying to spend, at least, $200 million dollars of other people's money and you can't defend it on its merits. The burden of proof is on you, but because a non-binding planning document written by a consultant in California rated your proposal highly, you're right and I'm wrong. Sometimes, when the people's mind's can't be changed it's not the people's fault.

As I suspected, the 2-track subway is less expensive than the 4-track elevated, and it's the same price as the 3-track elevated. (Otherwise why would CTA even consider a subway?)

The Scoping Book has no information about travel times. If the 2-track subway can substantially shorten up the travel times versus an elevated option, it might be worth it. Otherwise, I'd say the 3-track elevated is the better deal, provided the elevated stations are built to some basic comfort level - unlike the last round of Brown Line stations.

I'll take a value-engineered subway station over a value-engineered elevated one any day. There's no wind or freezing rain in the subway.

Personally, I think the most responsible choice is the "Renovation with Transfer Stations" option. CTA says it will only last 20 years, but that seems like a huge underestimate to me. If they suspend Purple Line service during construction, then they can completely rebuild the retaining walls with stronger tiebacks and a better blend of concrete, and it should last for another century. The steel sections should be replaced altogether to reduce the noise.

While it would be nice to be in a subway station waiting for a train during the winter, and while I generally prefer subways over elevated trains, in this instance I'd prefer the 4-track rehab as long as they created all-day express service. It's only 5% more than 3-track or subway, it creates a more true express service, and maintains more of the existing commercial-street ties to the "L" service. Plus, I think the "L" is part of what makes Chicago unique, and having outside views during the ride is a nice perk.

I think the worst possible choice would be the 3-track option if for no other reason than it has the highest operating costs, while not offering any service benefits over the 4-track option. I'd take a 5% increase in infrastructure investment for reduced operating costs and more efficient (and reliable) express service any day of the week.

What I don't quite visualize is how they would install new elevated structures. Would they build one set of tracks in the adjacent alleys and then remove the embankment and then build the third and fourth set of tracks?

Agreed—I was puzzled why they’d get rid of the embankment and replace it with a concrete structure. Also, we would be able to keep some of the historic structures without weirdly grafting them onto the new elevated structure à la 10 S. LaSalle (okay, it probably wouldn’t be that flamboyant, but it would still have an ersatz feel to it). Any word as to whether this option would have space for ten-car trains on the Red Line at some point in the future?

Some of the station consolidation did make sense, though, especially on the Evanston Branch and with Granville-Glenlake. Can they not do this in the basic rehab option because the ADA won’t allow for new narrowish stations?

There’s also the argument that you don’t need to get rid of stations. Even though it’s the least-used station on the Gold Coast Thorndale has ridership comparable to a lot of the Brown Line stations, so it would also make sense to retain it, even if you could conceptually put a new entrance a block away (and it also offers the possibility of my favorite Chicago transit idea—some kind of public art tribute to the Bob Newhart Show :D). And taking away Jarvis didn’t make much sense to me either—even with a new Howard entrance at Rogers (resulting in a platform large enough for 16-car trains, or maybe Congress-style ramps?) it still leaves a big gap in the system, and that station still gets more ridership than a lot of the remodeled elevated stations on the Cermak Branch. And I’d really love to see both local and express services preserved—the north side corridor’s really one of the few places outside New York able to support overlapping metro services like that, and I’d like to preserve that richness and build upon it.

I still really like your idea from a couple of pages back, though—having a subway between Belmont and an Ainslie-Argyle station. After all, if there’s no way to get a Brown Line flyover approved, the next best thing is to have the north side mainline fly under (and it would get rid of the Sheridan curve to boot). So, in summary, this would be my ideal plan, from north to south:

Evanston: Basic rehab, but extend platforms to allow for eight car trains and do the full modernization option for Noyes, Davis and Main

Howard-Argyle: Basic rehab with Loyola transfer station, maybe consolidating Granville and Thorndale into Granville-Glenlake.

Argyle-Belmont: Do full rehab at Argyle to make new Ainslie-Argyle station, then merge Red and Purple lines to go underground to a new tunnel with stations at Wilson, Irving Park and Addison before rising again to Belmont, getting rid of the Clark Junction.

South of Belmont: Run both through the middle tracks of the four-track segment to the State Street subway, with the Red Line going south along the Dan Ryan and Purple Line going Southwest to Midway, replacing the Orange Line.

>> You are correct we have been going back and forth all day, I was trying to explain the reasons for my actions to you; BUT - I actually don't have to defend or prove anything to anybody, I could have just politely said "Thank you for your comments" and left it at that - but I was raised better.

>> I will consider your input, but it doesn't change my thinking, actions, or goals. Also past and present heads of CMAP and the RTA have told me to NEVER stop what I'm doing because Common Sense will eventually overcome political B/S.

>> CMAP is not a California entity, it is the Government Certified MPO for the NE Illinois Region - so how will you pass-off them carrying MY website and including the project in the RTP??

I'm going to say this and walk away because I've taken up too much of this board space already.

So, after an entire day of pressure, where you could have provided transit studies and ridership numbers and cost figures, you're final argument is this:

"I can spend $200 million of other people's money and not be accountable."

congrats, you're in a place we all aspire to be.

>> N O T H I N G _ I could show, do, say, or link to would in ANY way change your mind - so what would be the point. Walk away - good luck (but the board is here for intelligent conversation).


>> btw: Why don't you attend Metra's Electrification Conference ($75); I am registered, and we can discuss it directly (peacefully): http://www.tflex.org/default.asp

>> btw II: Here is a Commentary I did in 1998 on an RTA Ridership Study; I didn't mention it because I do not have the original RTA Report
that it refers to, so it doesn't mean much standing alone: http://www.box.net/shared/9eogms6vco

whoa! maybe I've had this wrong, was this all a joke? have I completely misread this? if this is a meta-internet joke... good job, I was fooled. I mean arguing with me about spending actual people's money without feeling the need to defend it by not providing a single figure or fact to support it. Brilliant work playing the "nobody could convince you" angle, complete cop-out but totally makes sense within the joke. I'm sorry, I was wrong, didn't catch it right away, it was an internet joke. I can't believe I actually caved and argued for the Gray Line back in '07 on this board, that was before I got the joke, sorry, kind of embarrassed...

Whatever; Good Luck to you.

Second City! Next Step SNL. Man did I have you wrong, what a fool.. I am.

For whatever it's worth, I'm pretty sure CDOT currently has some of it's retained transportation engineering/planning consultants looking at the south lakeshore corridor, with the idea of coming to some updated and more firm conclusions vis-a-vis appropriate service levels, routings, and so forth.

All major capital investment aside, there are a number of potential improvements to the ME that are mostly procedural (aside, of course from regional fare integration, that could encourage more transfer trips and multi-agency riding patterns for the many 7-day pass rides on the south side). Metra is always challenged by the rigid work rules of the railroad union culture --- CTA changes it's schedules about twice a year, while the commuter rail routes change their schedules maybe once a decade, and even then it's only the most minor of tweaks. Given the absence of freight conflicts on the ME, right off the bat off peak service could be made more passenger friendly if work rules and crew scheduling allowed for it.

As a former Hyde Parker, the off-peak service is very counterintuitive: There are 2 inbound trains per hour, one local and one express, but they arrive in Hyde Park within a couple minutes of each other. Outbound, the express departs just 10 minutes after the local.

Absent 1970s-era consideration of freight conflicts and complex timed transfers between branches (transfers for which there is negligible demand in the modern era), a simple twice-an-hour, every 30 minutes mainline (once an hour by branch, University Park trains running express north of 75th) service would make the ME much more attractive and beneficial right off the bat, using the same number of crew-hours and railcar-mileage.

Exactly! As someone who lived in Chicago for 5 years for school to IIT, the 4 track restructre with eliminating the old stations that are too close together is the best way to improve the efficency and demand for the network. The 2 track subway while sounding nice I think will lose some ridership because the core portion of the effectiveness of the Red Line are the easy cross platform transfers to the Brown and Purple Lines at Fullerton and Belmont.

^^^ There is absolutely no talk of them eliminating the platform transfers at Belmont and Fullerton. The subway would begin after Belmont...

There is one in progress—the South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study, which started in 2010 and is currently listed as “in process”:

A concrete structure is easier and cheaper to build than a retained earthen embankment. It would also allow for the space under the tracks to be used for parking, garbage, and whatever else needs to be done (the new viaduct would be occupying much of the alley).

The station consolidation is likely being done to reduce costs as much as to streamline service. If they can eliminate 3 or 4 stations, that's a massive cost savings, since the biggest part of transit construction usually comes from the stations, and all the complex issues of property acquisition and construction staging that come up when you build a new station. You can see this pretty clearly when you look at the crazy 3-tracking they had to do when they rebuilt Belmont and Fullerton. Imagine a project like that, but with 12 Belmonts in a row.

CTA might be able to get around the problems of widening the embankment by building side platforms for the local service. The line would then resemble the main line from Belmont south, but with the Red Line on the outside tracks and the Purple Line on the inside. The embankment would still need to be widened at Loyola and Wilson for the transfer stations, but those are fairly optimal locations.

You are correct that, under the guidelines for new construction, ADA would not permit a Thorndale to be constructed today. A newly-built station would need to have fairly wide platforms, perfectly straight and level, with a certain clearance around every obstruction, and obviously elevators from ground to platform level. The platforms would also need tactile edging. There are many, many other details as well, but those are the big ones.

According to the CDOT, the first Public Hearings should begin sometime in March; they are presently in the process of securing a venue.

Yay. Another damn study.

If we look at this as a way to add new capacity & service while rebuilding infrastructure, a subway from Wilson underneath the Lakeview trunk line to North & Clybourn, south to the proposed Clinton Ave transit center, then further south to link up with the Orange Line at Halsted.

At least 2.5 miles of this line would be part of a tunnel to provide through running high speed access to downtown. While the other 5 miles would be adding additional capacity along a proven high ridership corridor. It would be an undertaking you wouldn't attempt until the high speed project was approved, but it would allow express trains to run in the center tracks of the existing 4 track sections, into the State St. subway.

Not running these trains on the same tracks as the Brown Line would allow for more capacity on the Brown Line as well as lines running clockwise through the loop. Not to mention direct service to the west loop, a high speed rail station, and Midway Airport, all of which would draw additional ridership.

The total cost would probably be more than $8 billion, but would include an HSR tunnel, as well as service to at least 5 new stations in areas previously not well served. It would also provide transfers between every CTA line & every Metra Line.

Not that realistic in the short term, but it could be a long term solution if the Lakeview trunk line reaches maximum capacity during rush hour, & serve a much greater population than rebuilding the entirety of the Red Line ROW. Which in my opinion isn't worth the cost, whether in subway, 3-track or 4-track variations.

Moved from the Mayoral Race thread...

As I said before, I don't think the Red Line to 130th will make overall transit trips longer - it will just be a modal shift. A greater portion of the distance of each trip will occur on rail as opposed to bus.

Your 103rd extension scenario is an interesting one, but the 103rd location is only marginally more attractive as a bus terminal than 95th is. There's still another 3 miles of city south of that point, including the 111, 112, 119, and the 34 bus routes, as well as the 352, 353, and 359 Pace routes that all provide a tangled mess of service through Roseland and East/West Pullman that costs the CTA substantial money to operate.

If I were king, I would prefer a terminal at 115th/Cottage Grove (peeling off from the UP alignment) which could have ramps connecting the garage directly to the Bishop Ford, and it would offer trips on the Red Line, Metra Electric, and South Shore. It would reduce the total mileage over the 130th terminal, lowering the cost. It would be directly adjacent to the Historic Pullman neighborhood and might give that area a big shot in the arm. There's plenty of open land just south of 115th that could be used for dense redevelopment, unlike 130th, where all the land is very underutilized but spoken for by the water district and industries. It would also be walking-distance to the big planned community north of 111th.

The only downside is that it wouldn't put a transit station on the doorstep of Altgeld Gardens, which would cost the project a lot of political support.

EVERYONE is being lead down the Garden Path; there are N O $560 Million Local Capital Matching Funds available for the Red Line Extension from the State of Illinois and/or the RTA, and the Federal Government will NOT allow the Red Line Extension to go beyond the "Alternatives Analysis" phase without assurance of these funds.

Check with RTA and CTA Executives for yourself.

I'm fully aware of the state budget crisis. However, the state is able to issue bonds to borrow money, and so is the city. Plenty of other cities wishing for transit expansion have raised sales taxes within the metro area to fund the construction (Dallas, Denver, LA, Seattle, and others). This was never a realistic option under Daley because the sales tax was already so high, but it might come up for discussion under a new mayor.

There are numerous places that the local matching funds can come from - not just another state capital bill.

There was the alternative that ended at 115th/Michigan--under the old Federal cost-effectiveness ratings it scored 22% better, though now that community development is somehow being thrown into the mix that isn't as relevant, but should definitely still be taken into account.

Something that I feel often gets forgotten in the Red Line extension debate, though, is the CTA's desire for a new yards-and-shops facility around 120th, which adds another $2-300 million to the project. It's not something that your average rider really thinks about, but the old facilities are around forty years old now, and the Dan Ryan's ridership has only grown. Additionally, it's in the middle of the Bishop Ford, which puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to shipping equipment (and is also not so great for the health of everyone working there); 120th also has railway access, FWIW. I wouldn't be surprised if the original plan was only to extend the Red Line to 115th or so, but when they found a place for new facilities at 120th they though, "What the hell! We'll have to add an access track to reach the shops down there anyway, so let's just extend this thing all the way down!"

Red, Purple Line Upgrades May Mean Cutting Stops

While a subway would be nice, I enjoy the elevated ride because it gives the opportunity to look out & enjoy Chicago through the windows.

Does the concrete structure that the Orange line runs on provide relatively quiet conditions for nearby residents? To me, it seems as though the embankment that the L runs on from near Lawrence Avenue to Evanston helps lessen the severity of the noise as compared to the steel structure further south. Between a concrete structure & an embankment, I'm not sure which would produce the least sound.

As for station eliminations, that's probably reasonable, though I'll be surprised if it happens as I assume the affected neighborhoods will voice their displeasure loudly. Ideally the north line would have stops at Addison, Sheridan/Irving Park, Montrose, Lawrence/Leland, Fostner/Winona, Bryn Mawr/Hollywood, Granville/Glenlake, Loyola, Pratt/Farwell, Touhy/Chase, and Howard/Rogers.

^^^^Count me as one of those who thinks closing Lawrence is dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB



I agree with your sig....extending brown line to Jeff Park ...to me would make more sense than extending yellow line or redline

has it ever been seriously considered

The Orange Line is pretty quiet through Chinatown when it runs on a concrete viaduct. But the Red Line runs on a steel viaduct in Chinatown too, and it's not really any more noisy. But both are modern, monolithic structures, unlike the 100-year-old steel structures that are made of many, many small pieces of steel, each one vibrating separately when a train goes by.

Really, though, I think the sound difference between a modern aerial structure on piers (regardless of material) and a solid-fill embankment is pretty small. The bigger noise reduction comes from the parapet that most modern viaducts have now. Since most of the noise is generated where the wheels meet the track, shielding this area with a parapet will reduce the noise going outwards and down. Look at the new sections of the Pink Line, where there's no parapet. It's much noisier.

^^ Ok, thanks for the info. I guess it doesn't really matter one way or the other between concrete pillars and a solid-fill embankment.

On a different subject, when I've been in Wicker Park/Bucktown in the past, I've always noticed the old elevated rail right-of-way alongside Bloomingdale Ave. Has there ever been any consideration in turning this elevated right-of-way into a new CTA line? It's only about 2.5 blocks away from the commercial corridors of North Ave & Armitage Ave. Trains could be split off the blue line similar to the old North Avenue line that serviced Humboldt Park back in the 50s. The line could terminate at the Grand/Cicero Metra station.

I can't remember the rational, but that has been abandoned for transit usage, and is slated to become a greenspace : LInk

SSDD

Seems like a waste of a perfectly good right-of-way, especially since a large park exists just a few blocks south (Humboldt Park)... not to mention Palmer Square to the north and the Humboldt Blvd green space between. If I was a resident in that area, I'd be more interested in having rapid transit than another park

Definitely the embankment. I talked with one of the engineers about this at tonight's meeting.

Due to ADA, there's almost no middle ground between a new coat of paint at a station and a complete rebuild of the entire station. Getting rid of some of those two-block-apart stations would reduce operating time and cost -- not just by reducing the number of station agents, but also by speeding up run times and therefore improving CTA's notably low line productivity.

Why would you need a high-speed tunnel heading north from downtown? Would that tunnel be built to HSR turning radius standards? Would it be four tunnel bores? (Not saving that much money vs. two bores.) Cut-and-cover? Even Milwaukee, much less Minnesota, is best served by heading northwest, then north, rather than using the UP/lakefront alignment.

The point is that it's a linear park, thus offering good east-west connections and an uninterrupted 2.5-mile path, in a neighborhood that is actually starved for greenspace (particularly for active uses) given its density. (Second lowest amount of park space per capita among the community areas, I think.) It's hardly an ideal corridor for transit, either -- surrounded by single-family pretty much the entire way, except for some loft conversions. The same money would be better spent on rapid bus service along a parallel street.

It was briefly considered as an alignment during the alternatives analysis for the Circle Line and rejected.

I mean, there's a reason why the Humboldt Park branch of the "L" was abandoned so early in the game, and before that why passenger service on the Bloomingdale hasn't existed in a century -- it doesn't make that much sense. (And even that was in a much better position, behind the mixed-use North Ave corridor.)

Yeah, I agree... the MD-N should be enough for high-speed rail to the north (with additional tracks and some grade separation) and the IC should be enough for HSR to the south/east. The only place you need a tunnel is to connect the two, in the downtown area. We're fairly lucky in that regard, unlike European cities where the surface rail lines are all maxed-out with commuter trains and slow intercity trains.

Court strikes down state's $31 billion capital program
 

Are local matching Transit Capital Funds (like the Red Line Ext.) involved in
this mess??

______________________________________________________________________

http://www.suntimes.com/3506114-417/story.html

Court strikes down state's $31 billion capital program

BY DAVE MCKINNEY Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief

dmckinney@... Jan 26, 2011 10:02PM


SPRINGFIELD — In a stunning blow to Gov. Quinn's administration, an Illinois
appeals court Wednesday tossed out the $31 billion construction program passed
in 2009 that has been a centerpiece of his job-creation efforts.

In so doing, the three-member appeals panel also invalidated video poker,
partial state lottery privatization, higher liquor and sales taxes and other
revenues that add up to $1.1 billion, money that was designed to support massive
borrowing for the bricks-and-mortar program.

Quinn vowed an immediate appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Reversing a lower court's decision, the appeals court ruled unanimously that the
General Assembly's passage of the tax and fee hikes that underwrote the
construction program violated the single-subject clause of the state
Constitution. That clause says a bill can only deal with one specific issue, not
a multitude of them.

The law in question "began as a five-page bill addressing the narrow subject of
amending the Illinois estate and generation-skipping transfer tax. As enacted on
July 13, 2009, [it] grew to 280 pages covering a variety of subjects," wrote
Justice Patrick J. Quinn, who is not related to the governor.

Within that sprawling package were the legalization of video poker, a partial
privatization of the lottery, a boost in sales tax on candy, soft drinks and
grooming products, an increase in taxes on wine, beer and hard liquor, and a
hike in vehicle registration fees. It also contained a requirement that the
University of Illinois conduct a study on the effect on families that purchase
lottery tickets.

"In the present case, not all of the provisions of [the law] have a natural and
logical connection to the single subject of revenue to the state. For example,
we discern no natural and logical connection between the subject of revenue and
the amendment to the University of Illinois Act to require the university to
conduct a study on the effect on Illinois families of members of the family
purchasing Illinois lottery tickets," Justice Quinn wrote.

The lawsuit upon which the court ruled was brought by Chicago Blackhawks owner
Rocky Wirtz and his family's liquor distributorship, Wirtz Beverage Illinois
LLC. Wirtz also is an investor in the Sun-Times Media Group.

"This lawsuit was always about how the Legislature passed this bill and the
discriminatory tax on wine and spirits. The decision affirms that, and we are
gratified by it," Wirtz spokeswoman Julia M. Sznewajs said.

Officials in Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office said lawyers would file a
motion to stall the ruling on Thursday.

"The administration intends to appeal the Appellate Court's decision and to seek
an immediate stay from the Illinois Supreme Court," the governor's office said
in a prepared statement.

"The Illinois Jobs Now! capital program is an important part of Gov. Quinn's
plan to put Illinois back to work. Capital bill projects are putting thousands
of people to work in every corner of the state, while supporting local
businesses, improving our infrastructure and increasing energy efficiency," the
statement said.

"While the administration's request for a stay is pending with the Illinois
Supreme Court, capital projects already in progress will continue as scheduled.
We would expect the Supreme Court to rule on the request for a stay in the very
near future," the statement said.

So far, the state has borrowed $2.2 billion in construction funds that are
linked to the threatened tax and fee hikes. The state has collected $425 million
from the increases. If Wednesday's ruling stands and the original money
generators don't get re-enacted, bond holders would have to be paid with dollars
from the state's deficit-riddled General Revenue Fund that now covers state
government's day-to-day operations, said Kelly Kraft, a spokeswoman for Quinn's
budget office.

If Wednesday's decision is not overturned, Gov. Quinn will face an unexpectedly
difficult and financially uncertain spring legislative session that many
observers had expected to be relatively tame. Now, after passage of the
politically unpopular income-tax hike, he could be faced with scaling back the
construction plan or persuading re-enactment of the stricken tax and fee
increases, borrowing and video poker that has been rejected by dozens of
communities.

"For those who supported this most recent tax increase and then went home and
heard from their constituents, what will your reaction be to another vote on fee
and tax increases, which were part of the original capital proposal?" said Sen.
Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), who said it is not a certainty that Republicans in a
new Legislature will agree to the same framework as before on a construction
package. "We're in a different time."

The prospect of having to go back to the Legislature and win backing again for
billions of dollars in construction borrowing is further complicated by Gov.
Quinn's push for a separate $8.75 billion borrowing package he had intended to
seek this spring to whittle down the state's backlog of unpaid bills.

"You'd like to think at a certain point we'd collectively achieve borrowing
fatigue. I know I'm there personally," Murphy said. "This is just a sticky
wicket."

Yes - $2.7 billion in total for Chicago public transit capital funds (CTA/Metra/Pace).

Illinois Jobs Now Projects - Chicago

The state already announced the first round of money, and CTA quickly decided how they would spend it. But it's my understanding that the state still holds this money and CTA will not receive it.

CTA Block 37 SuperStation
 

Does anyone know what the final Capital Cost of the thus completed part of the Block 37 CTA Airport Express Superstation was??

Ardecila, somehow I only just now noticed your signature; good call - that is EXACTLY what I am trying to do. I added my own too, Thanks.

Not to be obnoxious, but isn't park space per capita sort of a silly measure of park space? It's especially silly since it penalizes density and would encourage the creation of park space just for the sake of park space in dense areas that have adequate park space but a lot of people?

Wouldn't a better measure be average distance to a park? That would reflect the accessibility, which is far more important than the raw amount of space per person within an arbitrary boundary.

Ridership keeps going up, stations keep closing. Thats Chicago logic for you.

http://www.suntimes.com/3510964-417/...-stations.html

It's right in the article you quote--stations would be consolidated and there would actually be a net increase in the number of station entrances, up to 19 in the underground alternative and 21 in the elevated alternatives.

I don't follow. How exactly are station closures a net positive? What does "addition of entrances" even mean? For one example. removal of South Blvd. leaves an 8 block gap, which is more on par with Metra distances.

Lawrence is a major bus interchange. It also directly serves venues like the Riviera, Aragon, Green Mill, and other bars/restaurants in that area. Just wait until all the kids have to stumble from concerts and bars at 2AM up to the Wilson stop....I'm sure that will go over swell.

And God, the Illinois's appellate courts are annoying, too. First Rahm's candidacy, now the capital program's shut down because some booze magnate's unhappy. Right when we the legislature makes an attempt make the state functional, the court tries to keep its ungovernable reputation intact.:hell:

This basically describes Hyde Park, which is an overparked neighborhood that tore down nearly half its housing stock in the 1950s and 1960s to create more open space. No question that --some-- of the projects were beneficial, and the periodic smaller corner playlots are a very nice amenitiy which describe your second point, but the neighborhood went way overboard with Nichols Park (which wasn't meant to extend north of 54th but has due to rampant NIMBYism and the shadowphobia of the older generations).

I understand some of why they are looking at that, but I think they should be very careful when looking at station closures, or at the very least pressure the city (or cities) into promising to encourage high density zoning and use near whatever stations remain. It would be especially disappointing to reduce stops in Evanston considering they've been making real efforts at encouraging TOD near their stations. They could do more, but they've certainly not been ignoring the resource.

I would say that if they choose the subway option and eliminated the express service, they REALLY should get Metra to add a stop at Howard Street (and maybe add one anyway and making Howard an office park, which wouldn't be a terrible idea given you have although Evanston wouldn't be excited about competition for their downtown).

Anyway, I actually wouldn't care too much about Lawrence closing, because I think between Argyle and Wilson the area is still well-served. Especially if they did some sort of cool lighting installation on Broadway under the tracks to make it less scary and tie the parts north and south of the tracks better together.

Whichever option is used, it would be really nice if the City used the rebuilt as impetus to strongly encourage very dense infill along the entire Sheridan/Broadway corridor. It's already dense, but there are still a lot of opportunities to make it even more dense. It's too bad they didn't do more to encourage that with the Pink Line and Green Line rebuilds. Imagine where CTA ridership could be if the City just put a bit more effort into directing dense development near existing stations.

Good (nerve-calming) listening on both the capital bill and the Red-Purple Modernization Project from WBEZ:

http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments...appellate-cour

I seem to remember that before the downturn there were more midrise proposals in Evanston west of the El tracks between Davis and Foster streets. If these ever went through and NU ever built out the parking lot next to the grad student dorm tower next to the El tracks, there might be enough demand to justify the continued existence of the Foster station.

But hopes to support Foster and South Blvd stations based on attracting future higher-density development seem a little far-fetched to me, given Evanston's approach to zoning and development.

I just hope that a red line rebuild spurs the redevelopment of the parking lot wasteland along Broadway.

It's a standard measure of park space access, dating back years. Not perfect, and yes, you're correct that "people not living within walking distance of a park" is probably better -- and probably should be used now that it's easier to compute things like that.

Not comparable to reclaiming as open space and transportation (yes! bicycles and shoes are transportation!) an already abandoned rail line, which hasn't been used for transit in generations.


1. I think it's dumb that the Red Line stops every two blocks. Granville and Thorndale have platforms just 800' apart, particularly when trains themselves are 400' long. Is this "rapid" transit or a local bus? Does everyone absolutely have to be one block from a station?

2. Yes, many times; see the history of plans at Chicago-L.org. I don't think it makes any more sense than extending other lines, particularly if attracting new riders is a goal. Pullman/Roseland and Old Orchard are bigger draws than Mayfair, and north-siders headed to the O'Hare Blue Line can take any number of westbound buses in about as much time as the Brown Line would take to get there.

The Brown Line extension was also given a cursory look during the Circle Line alternatives analysis (pdf), after people complained that the initial study area was too small—it was basically a way to get the Mid-City Transitway back on the table, but they ended up including a Brown Line extension as part of it. The Little Village Environmental Justice Organization was pretty upset about this, accusing the CTA of using the the Brown Line extension to inflate the cost of the project to make it bad compared to the Circle Line, but I think that’s unfair. A heavy rail MCT would be very expensive—that the railways are being much more demanding about rapid transit separation now, and I’ve even heard that the Orange Line would be impossible to build today—and I’m skeptical of claims that it would carry more people than the Brown Line, given that the Cicero X bus only had something like 7500 daily boardings—sure heavy rail would attract more people, but not eight times as many people.

Anyway, personally I think Lawrence Avenue west Kimball is probably one of the few places in the city that’s dense enough to support all new rapid transit, but a Lawrence Avenue subway would still be pretty expensive, due to the need to tunnel (you could do it elevated in one of the alleys behind Lawrence Avenue, but there’d be so much demolition that you’d probably lose the community’s goodwill). I don’t think it’s really a pressing need, either—there’s no capacity issues like at 95th or Midway, and the Yellow Line extension, extraneous as it may seem, is projected to essentially double ridership there (and I bet the Circle Line’s slowly sliding into oblivion). So, I think the CTA’s rail expansions priorities are about right in the moment, but over the longer term it might be nice to see.

I think the station closures make sense, but only if CTA can handle their closures well and mitigate the problems caused in each affected neighborhood.

Foster - Noyes should be closed instead, it's the less busy station. Plus, Foster acts as a secondary station for DT Evanston.

South Blvd - OK, but the second exit from Main should be at Washington and not Madison.

Jarvis - OK, but CTA needs to help the businesses relocate.

Thorndale - OK, but the Hollywood exit needs to be on the north side of Hollywood. Either that, or Hollywood needs to be drastically traffic-calmed.

Lawrence - Nothing wrong here. Move the 81 so it stops at a new off-street bus terminal at Wilson. The kids attending concerts can walk up to the Ainslie entrance of Argyle faster than they can walk to Wilson anyway.


Also... re-orient Berwyn to face Foster and rename it so idiot tourists don't confuse it with the suburb of Berwyn. Obviously they need to keep a secondary entrance on Berwyn, but I have no idea why the station was built to face a sidestreet when the 1/2-mile street is one block away.

The Belt Railway north of Chicago Ave. is abandoned. UP owns it but doesn't use it for anything. UP is pretty recalcitrant with transit providers, but I'm sure they'd part with it for the right price, and then there'd be no worry of separation from freight.

South of Chicago, you'd need to move the alignment over to Cicero (elevated or subway) to make effective transfers with the Green and Blue Lines.