Yes, we all saw how tolerant the Brown Line rehabs were to Chicago's climate...

Giving a beautifully designed station to the CTA is like giving a Tiffany lamp to a toddler I'm afraid. It's only a matter of time before they do something to break it...

Apples and oranges. The Brown Line project went through numerous rounds of value-engineering to meet Federal cost-effectiveness guidelines. The wood platforms are part of a whole other issue that affects the use of wood in general; weatherproofing must be combined with fireproofing to meet current building codes, but no good chemicals exist to do this, especially for high-traffic environments like a station platform.

The Morgan station, since it was funded individually, had much less pressure to value-engineer, and no obligation to use delicate materials like wood or tile for historic appearance. Platforms are precast concrete and it looks like most exposed surfaces inside the station are simply white-painted steel, which can always be sanded and painted back to a good appearance even if it rusts.

The only problem is where the stationhouses meet the ground. Since the Green Line shuts down at night, and the stationhouses sit right out in the street, they present a prime opportunity for vandals.

Wow! Looking great! Is they will built new elevator or escalator? What about bridge? Will they go other side?

Man, stuff like this makes new station ribbon-cutting a destination event. (The way it should be.) How soon before the public can drink it in?

A rumor has begun to make the rounds saying that the CTA is planning for a 5 month shutdown of the Dan Ryan Red Line starting in the spring of 2013 for a complete track rebuild. Southbound Red Line trains from Roosevelt would be routed via the 13th street incline to the South Side Elevated where they would continue to Ashland/63rd, where shuttles would be stationed for travelers to further South Red Line stations.

From Chicagobus.org:


Again, just a rumor at this point, but a potentially huge system alteration. It is even briefly addressed in a recent CTA presentation http://chichapter.cmaanet.org/files/...esentation.pdf ...these specifics are not mentioned, but the rebuild is stated to occur over a single construction season and to have the largest customer impact in CTA history.

The Morgan Station looks excellent. I am critical though of the materials the CTA has been using in their stations.

Polycarbonate roofing panels? Collect dirt and not UV resistant, they will discolor and look grimy after awhile.

Steel mesh? Well, this would be ok except they tend to overlay them overtop of a solid material. Have fun cleaning all the debris out that gets caught behind. Don't know what I'm talking about? Check out the stairways at Belmont and Fullerton Stations.

More heavy duty aluminum. Steel will rust after awhile, and the CTA just can't afford expensive stainless components. The downside of aluminum is strength, and you usually need to beef up column posts, railings, mullions, etc to achieve similar rigidity and strength and steel. The plus side is it won't rust. Using a ton of steel wouldn't be an issue for the CTA if they paint at the first signs of rust showing through. But proactive maintenance shouldn't be expected.

Non scratch / graffiti resistant materials. It should go without saying that any and every material in the station should be able to clean up nice with water pressure only slightly greater than a garden hose. Going back to those metal perforated railings and walls.......You get permanent marker or spray paint on those, and they are done....unless you dismantle them and ship them out for cleaning and recoat.

^ Location matters too. When it comes to graffiti resistance, you're really only concerned about the materials that are accessible from public spaces. Presumably in a transit station, would-be vandals can't be climbing up to reach far-off surfaces, since there are too many people passing through. The biggest concern is at platform level and along the stairs/elevator, and it looks like the materials in those areas are pretty resilient.

I can't really tell from the photos how Ross Barney is detailing the Morgan station, so I'll reserve judgment on its durability for now. It does look beautiful, for the moment.

Hmm... this won't be popular. There are several big issues with this plan. First, the South Main has far more stations than the Dan Ryan Branch, and several tight curves. The Red Line (scheduled) can go from 35th to 95th in 20 minutes. The Green Line takes 18 minutes to only go as far south as 63rd.

Plus, most riders at the Dan Ryan stations are already transferring from a bus... density around stations is pretty low. So now CTA will require all these passengers to make a second transfer? That seems awfully onerous. I like Rahm's transit-first agenda but him and Claypool see this is simply the cheapest, fastest solution to a physical problem without thought of the impact on riders. Suffice it to say that this would never even be possible on the North Side.

There are things CTA could do to mitigate the damage, though. Take all the buses that currently terminate at 95th/79th and extend them, non-stop, up to temporary bus terminals at Halsted/63rd and King. Work with Metra to add more service to Gresham on the Rock Island.

That's a bit of hyperbole I think. Certainly shutting down the entire Green Line for two years counts as a bigger customer impact than shutting down the Dan Ryan branch for 5 months.

Also, if they're going to shut down the Dan Ryan branch for 5 months, seems like they should fast-track getting the Green Line Cermak station built.

In the PDF that was linked to, there was mention of work on the Kinzie/Hubbard curves - what sort of work is slated there - anyone know? Just track renewal or something bigger?

The Red and Blue lines parallel the Green Line for its entire length, though—there’d probably be another transfer involved from Red Line substitute buses running from the station locations to 63rd & Hasted via State, Wentworth, Wells and LaSalle, and I’d suspect a number of people would also switch to taking the Ashland, Halsted, State King and Cottage Grove buses to the Green Line. There are alternatives, but none of them great.

Also, I’m curious whether how well buses could substitute for the Red Line. Given the way the current Red Line stations are set up and the fact that the roads directly paralleling Dan Ryan are one-way, it would be pretty convoluted to have the substitute buses run stop at each station—I’d guess they’d go directly from the existing station (which would serve as a transfer point for crossing buses) directly to 63rd/Halsted, with people who use the Red Line for crosstown trips will just have to use the nearest crosstown regular-stop line.

Alternatively, they could just beef up the 29 and have some of them terminate at 63rd/Halsted.

No, I really think all locations need to be considered. I don't believe the stations are monitored as well as people think. I mean look at this:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6...27becd7f_z.jpg

Cleaning it off a sign on the platform is easy, but over tracks? Now they must retrieve a track maintenance vehicle and temporarily halt service to remove or clean the sign. Or they could use graffiti resistant glazed surfaces and take a hose to it from the platforms.

Theoretically, Chicago's a grid, which means there are always at least two paths for any diagonal trip. So somebody living at 79th/Western could take the Western bus to the Orange Line instead of the 79th bus to the Red Line. This strategy should work for anybody between 63rd/95th (if you live near Ashland or east, you just go north to the Green Line). North of 63rd, riders can continue to ride east/west to the Green Line.

South of 95th, most bus routes are designed to fan out from the 95th terminal. Extending these nonstop up to 63rd/Halsted or King solves this. You can supplement this with a temporary, local State/Lafayette shuttle that duplicates the lost Red Line service, for those few people with origins/destinations that are actually near the stations.

I'm a little steamed at the callousness and hypocrisy of this move, though. As I said, it would never fly up on the North Side, and it smacks of Rahm's skewed vision of the city. Here's hoping CTA at least puts out a thoughtful and well-designed ad campaign to get people to alter their habits and find new routes. Interestingly, this might even fix the ridership imbalance between the Green/Red Lines that has persisted since the Green Line's closure.

There is such a glazing? Incidentally I am in whole hearted agreement with you.

I thought they just re did all the tracks south on the redline a few years ago?

There's all kinds of finishes, but to keep it simple I'd spec a clear neoparies surface and put any signage behind it. It's also good in that it can withstand equipment ramming against it.

Dan Ryan branch ridership ...
as % of total Red Line: 20%
as % compared to North Side: 41%

% Dan Ryan ridership change 2010-2011: -0.0%
% North Side ridership change 2010-2011: 5.4%

Total North Side ridership Red/Brown: 47.2 million in 31 stations (includes Grand, Chicago, Division and North/Clybourn)

Total South Side ridership Red/Green: 25.5 million in in 24 stations (includes Roosevelt and Harrison)

South Side service length: 13.5 miles (length of Red from Harrison plus 63/Ashland to 63/Cottage Grove)

North Side service length: 14.5 (length of Red from Grand plus Brown from Belmont)

They're comparable in service area and number of stations. But the North Side has nearly twice as many riders. The North Red is growing. The South Red is barely holding steady despite the South Green growing.

The CTA wants to fix the problems that are causing stagnant ridership on the Red Line, and they can do it a lot faster if they just shut it down. I bet once they're done we see double-digit increases in year-over-year ridership the first two years after they're done. And I bet the Green Line keeps a good chunk of the ridership it gets from it.

And they're prioritizing this project, on a line with much lower ridership and no growth, ahead of the North modernization project, which has fast-growing ridership.

So don't spout off bullcrap that the CTA is somehow hypocritical for putting repairs on a lower-ridership, zero-growth, much more-recently constructed line ahead of a high-growth, high-ridership, much older line. If anything, prioritizing this Red Line project over the high-growth, older, more used North Red/Purple Modernization project is skewed and plainly politically motivated.

The reality is that in the end, as long as both happen, none of us have anything to complain about and the city will be better off. So there's no reason to sow discord and make petty whines about how the CTA plans to address the serious issues that have accumulated over the years.

Hear, Hear!! Well said. Cynicism is seemingly so endemic in today's discourse that the facts don't seem to matter. A reasonable decision cannot simply be that; a reasonable decision among alternative; no; there must be some ulterior pernicious motive. It is tiresome.

That was electrical systems, signals and stations.

The thing that’s causing declining ridership on the Red Line is declining population on the south side, and less employment concentration for south siders downtown. It’s also worth remembering that, in general, the south siders are more transit-dependent than north-siders, and for those who take long trips switching to all-bus commutes is going to be a major hassle.

The north side is getting some short-term improvements, and that the scale needed for the RPMP is <i>much</i> bigger (and much less funded) than this one. I would have accepted this argument when they were rehabbing the Douglas branch, but now it’s not quite comparable here.

And before we get two carried away, the shut-down’s just a rumor. I’d personally prefer a longer maintenance period if it means less disruption to commutes. I think that a shut-down should only be considered if the repairs are projected to slow (or impair capacity) on the Red Line to such a degree that switching to crosstowns becomes an attractive option for riders.

I don't think there's an "ulterior pernicious motive". Nobody's trying to keep the South Side down. I do think that such decisions are the product of a CTA management culture that sees the community as an obstacle to progress, instead of the very core of progress. I understand the frustration of mounting budgets and the unpleasant prospect of endless construction, but I would think long and hard before doing something that would so dramatically affect the daily lives of 50000 people.

We can't claim to promote a transit-oriented lifestyle while simultaneously making transit shittier for the city's most transit-oriented residents, the ones who can't afford other options.

No, there was some track renewal as well, north of 47th IIRC. I believe the real issue is the underground drainage system, which needs to be rebuilt along the entire length of the Dan Ryan segment.

Design must be on the agenda as Chicago embarks upon infrastructure improvement plan


March 07, 2012

By BLAIR KAMIN

Read More: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....ent-plan-.html




http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....f6b3970b-800wi




http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....3852970b-800wi




http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....714e970d-800wi

But the Jeffery BRT is on a two lane street and the BRT takes away a traffic lane leaving only one lane for automobiles. Who is going to patrol that rush hour only lane and ticket overtime parkers?? On the southside, all our police officers are needed to answer calls. We don't have cops hiding behind stop signs waiting for traffic violaters. How will autos making right hand turns impede BRT when pedestrians are crossing at crosswalks. Are bicycles permitted on Jeffery during BRT hours? Why not put BRT 1/2 mile west on Stony Island that has five and six lanes in each direction? Do you get the opinion that I think BRT on a narrow street like Jeffery stinks??

DH