^I think the problem was that Lake Point Tower was worried that people could step from the new overpass onto their private rooftop garden.

That was indeed the problem. LPT residents were also concerned about receiving some privacy and sound protection on their terrace. Lake Shore Drive traffic has whizzed by for years, and the construction of this flyover finally affords an opportunity to erect a sound wall for little additional cost. On the portions of the flyover that don't butt up to LPT's podium, there needs to be a dense system of slats for safety reasons - every 4" or less, by code. I guess CDOT felt that chainlink wasn't appropriate, so they designed this more substantial block.

http://chicagojournal.com/News/12-16...point_on_trail

$9mm to design the thing? That's friggin absurd.

More than absurd—it's probably criminal.

Sidenote: CDOT awarded a $25.2 million contract to FH Paschen for construction of the Morgan/Lake L station on December 15.

The CTA just launched a bus tracker by text:

http://www.transitchicago.com/riding...ackertext.aspx

Awesome!

Some pictures of the bowling-alley seating in the 5000s.

http://menaceofprivilege.com/wp-cont...52-300x225.jpg
Chuck Metalitz

Lol at that and the comments. "They aren't going to be comfortable wahhhh". Well when the train is as packed as it has gotten as of late, I'd rather get on than be comfortable... Higher capacity is a huge plus...

That new seating configuration is the most pragmatic, especially for the blue line where the first 5000s are going. Anyone who has ever tried to navigate their luggage on the train knows that the current seat configurations just don't work.

Oh, and London's tube is set up the same way...but what the hell do they know about mass transit...

http://www.hpherald.com/lfoindex.html

Tattered 35th Street bridge to be replaced
by Sam Cholke

The Chicago Plan Commission approved the replacement of the 35th Street pedestrian bridge and plans for a harbor at 31st Street at its Dec. 17 meeting.

...Construction of a new $16-million suspension bridge is expected to begin in fall 2010, after federal funding is secured, and take a year to finish.
---
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7...eetbridge2.jpg
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8...eetbridge1.jpg

Lawrence Ave Streetscaping and Lane Reductions

http://www.ward47.com/site/files/160...e_Presentation

They are going to reduce the lanes on Lawrence Ave between Western and Ashland from 4 lanes to 3, adding bike lanes, and center pedestrian islands for crossing the street. With 2 lanes each direction and a center turning lane. This will make it really nice for pedestrians crossing Lawrence since right now it's like playing frogger other than at major intersections. But it might slow down traffic.

I've always wondered why Lawrence is 4 lanes just between Western and Ashland and 2 lanes the rest. :shrug:

Bridge

Some ten years of talking about it—something's finally going to happen. Merry Christmas!

Good. I used to live along that stretch of Lawrence and I support any attemps at creating a more pedestrian friendly environment.

^ Just reviewed the document. Looks like a good project.

It's good to see that cities are beginning to come to their senses (slowly) and undo some of the post-war streetscaping that ignored the pedestrian altogether

Will Metra stations meet their promise?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5347768.story

from the article

"On the North Side, state Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, said an additional $10 million from the state capital bill should suffice for now. He wants the station at Peterson and Ridge avenues to have ample parking and a design that's "a nice fit for the community."

The station would be an added stop on the Union Pacific North line that runs from downtown Chicago to Kenosha, Wis. It would help ease heavy traffic between the city and suburbs, especially the bottleneck at Ridge, said Osterman, who has advocated for a new station for at least five years.

"It's going to create another public transportation that would be an asset for people in the community," he said. "My strong belief is the ridership will be there, and over a period of time it will be one of the most used stations."

Though it will take at least three years for the station to be built, Osterman said, "it will be well worth the wait." "

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

This sounds particularly ominous......ample parking....just what that stretch of the northside needs is another traffic driver. It sounds as if Osterman is more interested in catering to would be car commuters from the suburbs or far flung neighborhoods that in creating a dense economic driver that is what is required for economic development

This station I think is well intended but ill-placed and it sounds like maybe ill-conceived. I would replace the Lunt station with one at Howard and one at Devon; but that is unlikely. Critical to the success of this proposed station as an economic driver will be proper design /development priorities and integration into and for the surrounding community. If as Mr. Osterman seems to desire there is "ample parking" the end result will be a potentially worse outcome than the status quo. The parking lots necessary will devalue surrounding land and crowd out and ultimately dissuade more intense economic uses. ie those focused on providing the surrounding community with services which it can use throughout the day as opposed to a weigh station for car commuters who will not spend time / money in the neighborhood. This station is designed as Mr. Osterman seems to indicate is his preferred choice has the potential to develop into little more than a "kiss-and-ride" style station; instead of the transit oriented nexus it could become. If designed as such the traffic intensity in that area will worsen as people will be lured by the ease of parking who otherwise may use an alternate transport method to get to the station or to their terminus. It essentially becomes transformed into a traffic driver without the added benefit of also being an economic driver.

This station incidentally is one of the reasons why I am so annoyed about the development choices along Western Ave. north of Peterson to Granville...ie car-topia style Walgreens and such. The Peterson / Western stop is a 5-6 minute bus ride to this proposed station. Development within such a close boundary should be focused on the ease of transit access, not auto-centric stly development. The zoning is in place, if I am not mistake it is c2-2 which given the accompanying lot sizes of the available parcels along Western Ave would allow buildings with commercial / retail on the first floor and residential above to the tune of 5 stories or so.

These types of decisions are precisely why this region needs a more unified transit / land use authority to overcome the balkanized decentralization of power that plagues the Chicago metro area.

... dupe from general development thread ...

I got the chance to speak for this beauty at plan commission a few weeks ago. I told the TENG guy well, the plan commission in general that I hope that this is a project that TENG could actually complete. There was a chuckle around the chambers. Here are a few more images that I took for this project.

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...5%3C5324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...5%3C6324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...94648324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...5%3C7324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...94652324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...99335324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...34%3A324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...99256324nu0mrj

http://images.photo1.walgreens.com/2...3A947324nu0mrj

^ I hear ya, but remember that Osterman can only get the station built, he can't dictate what kind of development goes up around it. That's the job of zoning, developers, and (sigh...) the Aldermen. Besides, having parking at a Metra station does not necessarily preclude urban, walkable design--think Arlington Heights' Metra stop.

And when you sit there and let developers do what they do best, sometimes things go right--even in Chicago. The condo boom of 1999-2008 was clear evidence of that.

Whats the area like where this new bridge is being built? I dont make it down that way often, the renderings look nice though.

That bridge looks fantastic. I really like the looks of the planned West Approach entrance.

So this suspension bridge at 35th St is going to cost $16mm, and the pedway over the river is going to cost $40mm? I smell bullshit.

*sigh* The Streeterville bridge can't have any center supports, like the 35th bridge does, and it has to be high enough to permit larger tour boats to pass at all times, and MOVABLE, to allow sailboats to pass during spring and fall.

I suppose you're one of the ones that believe it cost $9mm to design as well...

No center support for what, the stretch between Grand and Illinois? That is maybe 50 feet more than the distance over the rail tracks.

Maybe this was already posted here and I missed it, but in case that's not the case, the CTA has posted a "Red and Purple Line Vision Study" page on TransitChicago.com.

It appears to be their project to prepare to get funding for a renovation of what I've seen commonly called the "North Main" tracks, plus all the rest of the Purple Line tracks to Linden, and they had public meetings about it at four sites on the North Side and Evanston the week after Thanksgiving. Looks interesting.

EDIT: On the first PDF, page 10, there is a column that says "Population w/in 1 mi." for each station. I think that means within 1/4 mile, because on the other PDFs, with station details, they show satellite images with 1/4-mile radius circles superimposed on the stations.

There's more engineering involved for the pedestrian flyover bridge. Also, I believe that the flyover is 2 seperate branches: one that follors the exit ramp that leads to Navy pier and one that follows LSD along the west side of Lake Point Tower.

Ardecila , will this flyover be attached to the LSD bridge that spans the river, or is it totally seperate?

Oh, ChicagoChicago definitely said "pedway", so I assumed he was talking about the pedestrian bridge over the river at McClurg that is mentioned in the Central Area Action Plan. My statement about the high cost is about THAT bridge.

The lakefront trail flyover, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. $40 million is a pretty penny for that bridge, especially when there is ample lawns and greenspace in the area to use for staging. There will probably be traffic impacts, though, which are usually an indicator that construction will be expensive.

I'm not sure how far south the flyover project goes. A September Crain's article says that the project will expand the cantilevered sidewalk a few feet outward, and cut holes for the northbound lane through the bridge towers. But a more recent December article in Chicago Journal says that the flyover project will leave the bridge alone, and only go as far south as Ogden Slip.

After the first article, a section of the cantilevered sidewalk collapsed, forcing CDOT to shut down a northbound auto lane to detour the bike trail. It could be that CDOT crews uncovered structural issues with the original bridge that would prevent the sidewalk from being expanded safely, so they are just going to repair the existing sidewalk and reduce the scope of the flyover project.

...

Could this lead to an official Grey Line project? I'll be following this one...

This article states that the South Side is the densest part of the city. That's not the case.

^ Perhaps they meant the part of the city with the densest population of people who do not own cars or rely on mass transit?

I'm sure somebody here will know

^ I was thinking the exact same thing :tup:

The South Shore issue is a total red herring... but I understand South Siders' frustration with the ridiculous complexity of the Metra Electric. Even without the Grey Line (i.e. a transfer to CTA) the ME could still use some infrastructure improvements to simplify operations.

North of Kensington, mainline tracks 1 and 2 should be for frequent (~15 min headways) South Chicago and Blue Island trains. 3 and 4 should be for South Shore and University Park trains, operated at typical Metra frequencies.

South Chicago and Blue Island trains would operate at ~15 minute headways on the mainline, alternating to each branch. You could probably set it up so that every third train goes to Blue Island and the other two would go to South Chicago, giving the Blue Island branch ~45 minute headways and the South Chicago branch ~20 minute headways. On the branches and mainline, they would be local, making ALL stops - or they could continue to use the flag stop system at less patronized stops, or eliminate the less-patronized ones altogether.

Then you'd build some infill stations - one at 119th for a Red Line transfer, one at Lake Park Crescent (41st) and one at Lake Meadows (35th).

University Park trains would stop at only a handful of city stops north of Riverdale, near major destinations - at 119th (Red Line), 103rd (Olive-Harvey), 95th (Chicago State), 56th (U of C/Hyde Park), and 35th (Lake Meadows) - all built as 2 or 3-platform transfer stations.

A possible track 5, if CN relinquishes it, could be used for South Shore trains to allow them to bypass University Park trains in the peak-travel direction during rush hours. They would continue to run express to Hegewisch as they do now.

Track 6 would continue to be used by CN for their (limited) freight operations.

Or split the difference and put ONE station at Oakwood Blvd.

Big development, on par with Central Station or Lakeshore East, is in the master plan for Lake Meadows. It should have a close and convenient station, at 35th or 31st - not the existing one at 27th, which no longer serves Michael Reese, and not one at Oakwood.

41st/Lake Park Crescent isn't high-density, so you could probably drop that one and replace it with one at 39th/Oakwood if you want. Either station would be a local station, but both make more sense than keeping 27th open. I just thought the "crescent" of Lake Park Crescent seems perfectly suited for a train station, like you find around a few Metra stations (eg Norwood Park). The #39 could go to either location pretty easily.

^The densest population of SOUL members.

Metra/RTA get sued

Riders to sue over minority transit 'disparities'
While I really dislike these kinds of suits in general, I'm torn about this one because I don't think the disparity is racially motivated but I do think Metra gets a disproportionate amount of funding. But I also think the last thing we need right now is another city/suburbs battle.

^ It's about time this issue is really tested at a higher (ie court) level, I guess, although I'll defer to some of the attorneys here to actually comment whether that's actually what will happen.

In the end, Metra and CTA both serve both the city and suburbs, with Metra being VERY important to downtown Chicago's economy. I think this is too complicated to easily tease it out as a city versus suburb thing.

On another less related note, what exactly does it do for some of the poorer African Americans and Latinos (obviously a generalization, since there are a lot of people in these ethnic groups who are highly educated and doing quite well) on the south and southwest sides to have better train service to downtown Chicago if the jobs downtown aren't even going to hire them? In other words, you can take a train to the Loop every day but if you don't have an MBA, a Law degree, or a degree in finance or computer programming what's the point? I can understand if the Loop was full of factories but....that's not the case. I think we need to focus less on blaming the CTA for our problems and instead focus on schools, lousy parenting, etc--the real roadblocks to upward mobility, Mr. Jackson & Guitierrez

^I'm thinking its more of an issue of principle.

^^^
I seriously doubt that this case will go anywhere. First of all, is there any precedent of class-action racial lawsuits based on demographics? What happens to the poor whites that live among the poor blacks on the South side? Are they SOL on this lawsuit because of the color of their skin?

I'm not saying that Metra/CTA don't discriminate, but they sure as hell don't do it based on race. It's based on neighborhoods and income.

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2002...garity_001.jpg

^ All 50 of them?

I think a case based on race can definitely be made.

Yes there is precedent. They're making a disparate impact claim. They don't need to show intent or exclusivity of harms, just that certain groups are disproportionately harmed. I doubt the suit will go anywhere, but it's by no means unprecedented.

Lovely. I hope they win and it solves all their problems.

I supposed Jackson and Guitierrez don't represent whites though.

It's based on a lot of different things. How about the fact that 2/3 of Chicago's population lives in the suburbs? Suburbanites are totally justified in arguing that, since they are numerically greater, they deserve the bigger piece of the pie, regardless of income. And since many inner-ring and south suburbs, and satellite cities, now have sizable impoverished minority populations, and the city now has more wealthy people than ever, you can no longer make some sort of simplified argument about rich white suburbs and poor black city. On the other hand, CTA continues to provide far more transit trips than Metra and Pace combined. Since the city is set up for transit, city-dwellers use it more often.

Metra is a completely different animal than CTA. For the most part, it is not subject to capricious and self-interested minority politicians, or Chicago politics in general, being managed largely by suburbanites and disconnected from the machine.

This means that service levels are set like a commuter railroad (which it is) instead of a urban metro system (which it's not). You won't get trains coming every 10 minutes except maybe during rush hour at busier stations.

They don't own most of their lines, so they have freight railroads picking up part of the tab for regular maintenance, which isn't too onerous anyway since Metra is a "dumb" railroad with no power supply systems and simple signaling.

The lack of a heavy maintenance expense means that Metra is free to sink money into, shall we say, 'cosmetic' improvements - keeping their cars shiny, spotless, and perennially new, as well as replacing and/or renovating older stations at a steady pace. Its stations are also controlled often by the municipalities they are in, so each town makes it a point of pride to have a nice Metra station, and uses their tax dollars for this purpose. In the city, CDOT is responsible for nearly every CTA station and has very limited funding that cannot possibly cover renovations of all the stations that need it, in a timely manner. (They're getting close, though - only the North Main needs to be modernized.)

Metra's advantages make it seem like it has better service, but when you actually look at things, it provides far more inconvenient service. Off-peak trains come hourly, if you're lucky enough to live on a busier line. Platforms are outdoors. There are no subsidized transfers to CTA or Pace buses. It only makes sense if you work downtown. For all other trips, it usually costs more than driving and provides little to no travel time improvement.

I can't be sure, but it always seems like Metra gets a better value for its capital money than CTA. Makes me wonder how much Chicago-style sweetheart deals are going on behind the scenes at CTA. (Wow, I sound like John Kass...)

^ While writing the above post, a thought occurred to me.

Any improvements on the North Main Line (i.e. the 'North Red/Purple Vision Study) won't provide any serious increase in capacity. The stations can already handle 8-car trains, so there's no rationale like there was for the Brown Line. I guess you could build side platforms at some stations to turn the Purple Line into a bonafide express service like New York's, but that seems unlikely.

So is it CTA's plan to eventually request New Starts money for the North Main rehab, and hope that the Obama-LaHood connection is enough to overcome the fact that the project would add no new service? I guess Chicago did the same thing for the Douglas and Green Line rehabs, neither of which increased capacity and in fact probably lowered it due to station closures. But it bothers me that Federal tax money might go to pay for Chicagoland's failure to maintain the stations and viaducts.

Any rehab will have to result in added service if for no other reason then to give politicians some talking points. I'm guessing the purple line will indeed become full time express.

Thats a good thing then.

I don't have a problem with the Feds paying for it. We pay taxes, things need to be replaced sometimes, and that includes even well-maintained viaducts.

That said, here are my hopes for the vision study:

• CTA gets serious about motivating the City to zone for TOD developments near their stations. Motivated by, but not limited to stations in the Vision Study area. This, more than any other single item, will boost CTA ridership over the long term. Stations that get improved express service (see next item) should get zoning around them close to downtown levels of density with low (in my dreams, even no) levels of required parking.
• Purple Line turns into a full-time express line every 10 minutes and, coupled with the Locally Preferred Alternative of the Circle Line, gets routed on the current Red Line tracks at Belmont and into the State Street subway, adding stops at Loyola and Wilson, maybe at Sheridan (if coupled with strong TOD zoning encouragement), but skipping Wellington and Diversey.
• Yellow Line takes over rush hour express service running on current Purple Line route into the Loop on the Brown Line tracks.
• Extension (or at least design) of rebuilt stations to support 10-car trains (tracks at Howard, Belmont and Fullerton were all already built to support easy extension to 10-car platforms in the future, and most, if not all, of the subway stations can support 10-car trains), coupled with extension to 10-car platforms of all stations, including the Dan Ryan ones, timed with the extension of the Dan Ryan line to 130th.
• Improved viaduct design that results in higher clearances under the tracks. Could be used in the future for double-decker buses, which are shown to improve ridership in other cities, and take up less space in traffic. How much better would Michigan Ave rush hours be with no articulated buses taking up so much extra length?

Is there really a significant constituency in favor of upzoning around CTA stations? The pessimistic side of me says no.

^ The CTA has already done this.

It was posted a page or two back.

We'll see how far it goes. As long as we have Aldermanic Prerogative, though, that throws a wrench in the situation