Look on the bright side; at least they didn't use Myriad.

I've mentioned my frustration with the commonplace use of Helvetica and associated clone fonts before. In this case, though, it makes sense as a way to harmonize between the Art Moderne of the original station architecture (associated with Futura) and modern CTA graphics, rendered in Helvetica. The signage takes a modern font and renders it in a way that befits the historic building as well as integrates the station's graphics with those of the rest of the L system.

There is a ton of development about to happen in that triangle lot off clyborn. A pretty tall residential tower is planned up against that mixed income housing.

Wait are you talking about te new city project? Is that about to start??

^ Yes, I believe he is.

I have heard no word that that project is about to get under way..

I'm thinking more along the lines of a coordinated, long-term planning effort to actually increase transit-friendly development near all rail stations, a scenario where the investment inthe Pink Line rehab would have been (could still be) supported by TOD infill near all the stations.

Would any parts of Chicago facilitate tram or light rail construction, or are buses better served as a complement to the L?

My school is doing some concept design stuff with that site, so I had to do some research. I spoke with the developer last monday and he sounded like plans were pretty much ready to go. No dates exactly but my professor told us it should begin before the semester is over, ie before December. But no promises.

What pisses me off is that the city prohibited extending that north/south street that goes through the mixed income housing. That complex is so isolated, they can't even walk to the park they can see out their windows (By that blue elementary school).

Schiller? The renderings for New City show a long, thin apartment block along the south side that has a street-sized break that lines up with Schiller...

Maybe this is just the architect (OKW) covering all the bases, in case the city ever comes to its senses and allows the street to connect?

I don't think anything that is not grade separated will work any better than a bus/designated busway would in Chicago. The city streets get far too gridlocked to allow much in the way of at-grade rail. It is much cheaper just to build express bus lanes and integrate them with are already huge bus system.

^ Well, I hope you're right.

I can only imagine what the New City development will do for that area. Terms like "leaps and bounds" come to mind. I would love to see North/Clybourn continue its transformation from its early days as strip center hell into a full-blown urban, bustling retail/entertainment district served by a subway stop.

In theory, there are several places where the aesthetics of a streetcar might offset the congestion issues enough to be competitive with a bus option. But in general, since buses can easily move around a double-parked car, etc, buses are a far better option for street operation. In general, buses given the same sort of street prep and priority would be about 25% faster than streetcars because of their better accelleration and their ability to pass. But sometimes aesthetics or other factors may weigh into the equation enough to tip the scales.

The possible exceptions, in my opinion, are as follows:

1) Running in the Boulevards system, similarly to how the St. Charles Line runs in New Orleans. A Garfield Line running from Hyde Park to Midway, a West Side line running from McKinley Park to Logan Square, and a Kenwood Line running from McCormick Place to Hyde Park might be your best bets for this scenario.

2) As part of a Clinton Street transportation center, running below grade (shared with buses) under Clinton, then one branch east of the River along Carol Street to Navy Pier (again, shared with buses) and one branch north along Kingsbury/Larrabee to the North/Sheffield area. This would require some streets re-engineering and strongarm traffic management in the North/Sheffield area.

3) Running using partly divided center islands along certain wide streets (Chicago Avenue comes to mind), with a select few spots of below-grade street passing. In the Chicago Ave example, it might have to run below grade from just before Orleans to past Michigan Ave.

4) As a Circulator model, running below grade in most parts, for example under Monroe through the Loop and north along Columbus/Fairbanks to around Oak Street and south through Grant Park along the South Shore tracks to McCormick.

Blame the idiot NIMBYs who live due south within the Cabrini redevelopment. They didn't want any additional "traffic". It is this reason and this reason alone that Burling Street will not be extended northward. Original Plans had the extension, and the residential structures to be built along a re-established segment of Eastman Street still will be positioned in a way to allow the street extension to still occur in the future (highly unlikely). A pedestrian connection will still be provided, albeit with a locked gate for residents only :rolleyes: .

I always thought Irving Park would make a good choice for a light-rail line of this type, because of its wide width and the existing stations on the Red, Brown, Blue Lines and Metra-NW line. It also isn't a vibrant commercial corridor like some other streets, so it wouldn't be as big of a deal to kill the street parking (if it came to that). It would run from Montrose Harbor down LSD to Irving Park, then west to Six Corners.

This is the Toronto Transit City model, of course.

Lake Shore Drive is also mentioned as a corridor where light rail would work.

^^^ It would be excellent to see a Light rail line that runs from the Blue Line Irving Park to Lake Shore Drive and then south through streeterville (maybe get it to follow Columbus some how) to Grant Park. However this would then compete with the perfectly effective LSD express bus service. It would be nice for two reasons: One it would serve the under served highrises in Lakeview and Lincoln Park and two it would draw more foot traffic out into the park.

Yes, Schiller street. That has since been removed and buildings are planned to back up against the alley/gate. A large residential is planned for the southeast area of the site.

Actually the small neighborhood due south is lower income than the neighborhood to the north (That weird suburban apartment complex by the baseball diamond that has completely rejected to city fabric). From what I've heard, the neighborhood to the south was in favor of extending Eastman and Schiller. But the city blocked this (fear of the low income residents walking north??)

I would put the line along Inner LSD/Stockton Drive. Essentially a rail-ized version of the 151.

It wouldn't necessarily compete with the express buses. The express buses are still nonstop from some point to Wacker or Oak/Michigan, and even light rail will have trouble competing with them.

The light rail would help to condense and simplify the local services provided along the lakefront, and would provide a convenient and legible way for tourists and visitors to access the attractions of the north lakefront.

The neighborhood to the south is mixed income, and Department of Planning (as it was then known as) was supportive of connecting the streets. However some people bitched about traffic at a community meeting and the agreement was made to not allow a connection. It was a select few whiners preventing the connection from happening.

I know it's not everybody's favorite transit project, but at least Metra's showing some initiative.

If you have issues with the project as it stands, I encourage you to attend the meeting. The plan seems ill-conceived to me, since it will (as Viva has mentioned) cannibalize ridership from the existing Metra Electric, and will compete with the South Shore's plans for a branch to Lowell, IN.

It is, as it stands, a massive concession to the folks in the poorer parts of Will County, and the influential politicians that represent them. Is there much demand for a train from Chicago to Chicago Heights and Steger?

Although it is a greenfield commuter rail line, at least it doesn't focus on an already-wealthy, largely white section of the metropolis.

I'm doubtful, however, that it can overcome the existing problems that make this particular segment of the Southland unattractive to development. If it can't, then the money should be expended elsewhere.

I was actually just thinking about this on my drive to work the other day on LSD. A lightrail along the lakefront would be SOOO beneficial. I mean just imagine a lightrail that would start in Hyde Park, maybe near the Museum of Science and Industry, making stops right along the Lake in Hyde Park, what will come of the Reese Hospital Campus, McCormick Place, Soldier Field, Museum Campus', Grant Park, Millenium Park, Lake Shore East, Streeterville, Navy Pier, Oak Street Beach, North Avenue Beach, Lincoln Park Zoo, Belmont Harbor, The Tennis Courts and park off Recreation Dr, and then continue to make stops all along the lakefront until getting up to Bryn Mawr where it could easily follow inwards and connect to the Red Line! Just think the amount of people and tourist this would attrack...locations in the city that had been so stressful to get to using public transit would now be easy and ideal for visitors and city dwellers alike! Plus light rails are the cheapest public transit to build and are the most enviornmentally friendly!

I was at a bus stop on North Ave. this week. On the sign it had a message to text when your bus will be arriving. It worked lol! I think that was brilliant and so easy to use. I since then looked it up online and this is in some sort of test phase right now.

The text arrival times have actually been usable for a while if you happened to know your stop number, but the addition to the bus stop location signs has made it far, far more useful. Overall I'm a definite fan, it's a small change that makes a big difference in using the CTA.

Question
 

I have been reading for years and this is my first post!

Why does the CTA not have a stop/station at the United Center. Chicagoans have demonstrated they will use public transit to attend other major sporting events (cubs and white sox games) this must be the largest oversight for our transit system. Especially for a city that prides itself on being so "green".

The stop would also be able to serve Malcolm X College and the entire neighborhood around the center that presently only watches the train run overhead and not stop for blocks upon blocks upon blocks.

^^ First off, there isn't much money to build new stations, and the Wirtz family hasn't pushed for a station to serve the United Center. Without somebody influential standing behind them, even great ideas never see reality in Chicago.

CTA is planning to run Circle Line trains past, and I asked them why they weren't planning a United Center station as part of the Circle Line. The answer I got was unsatisfying.

Obviously, the current stations don't serve the United Center very well. Otherwise, plenty of people would be riding the train to the game. 5 blocks on the West Side is a pretty long way, especially when most of those blocks are windswept parking lots with poorly lit, narrow sidewalks and no shortage of unsavory characters.

Three possible explanations:
1) Somebody doesn't want a CTA station at the United Center (parking lot operators?)
2) CTA's team may have evaluated a station at the United Center and found that the potential ridership was very low compared to the construction cost, so it would be a waste of money.
3) CTA may be holding off on a United Center station for technical reasons - if the Circle Line is extended north up Ashland, there will need to be a subway portal somewhere around Madison. Putting off building the station allows the station to be designed around the subway portal whenever CTA gets around to designing the north branch of the Circle Line, far off in the unlikely future.

I thought Circle would use the existing Paulina Connector and have subterranean sections only further north? Does it need to burrow eastwards over to Ashland here?

I think this is the most probable reason. There would be minimal local traffic to justify operating a station at UC outside of game/event days. Perhaps one day as the real estate market rebounds and westward development re-commences there could be support for a station, but that's a good while off.

agreed, the area around there is just a wasteland and wouldn't support much of a ridership outside of gamedays. It has always made more sense to me to put a station at damen on the green line, which is ~1000 feet closer than the current blue line to the UC and is located in a more residential area. Of course if I had money to build a station there are better spots (south loop), but I'd currently prioritize damen (green) over madison (pink).

Back 4 years ago, before they put off the planning for the northern half indefinitely, CTA's presentations showed a map where the Circle Line curved from the Paulina Connector over to Ashland, on an alignment between Washington and Monroe. Presumably, they'd construct a new subway station under Ashland to transfer to Green and Pink (like 4th Ave-9th St in Park Slope in Brooklyn).

Just from a technical standpoint, it makes the most sense to burrow underground between Madison and Adams. The long ramp from elevated to subway would probably require a street closure in the middle (like 14th St in the South Loop or Wisconsin in Lincoln Park) and Monroe is the best candidate since it's already closed at the United Center.


I don't necessarily buy the ridership argument. Plenty of the stations proposed for the Circle Line are in marginal locations and are unlikely to draw serious ridership. Honestly, who's gonna use CTA to transfer to Metra when Metra doesn't run frequent trains? You'd need to pad your schedule quite a bit to allow for the travel time on CTA, and if you miss the Metra connection, you're waiting 30m-1hr. You can do the same thing downtown, but at least then you're waiting in a place with lots of shops and restaurants and plenty of open seating. I've done it in Jefferson Park, and there are no good waiting spots there at all on the Metra platform.

Personally, I don't think the Circle line should be built at all but my comment was intended to apply to the present situation and the unlikely future eventuality of the line being constructed. The CTA isn't going to add another low ridership station to existing infrastructure (Paulina connector) that will support no meaningful commuter or residential traffic, nor should they.

I wish the CTA/Metra would give up on the Circle Line/Star and concentrate on improving capacity on existing lines and fostering integration at their main stations downtown. For the money I'd much rather have a Clinton/Kingsbury subway and the WLTC. If the RTA and City of Chicago could find it in their hearts..er wallets to demolish 222 S riverside and re-build a real concourse that would be great too.

^ You know, with the exception of demo'ing a highrise, I could not agree more with this.

From my (VERY) amateur point of view, both as a casual & frequent visitor (and now property owner of! :) )to Chicago as well as a non-transit expert, I feel as if the Clinton/Kingsbury subway, as well as the Red Line & Orange Line extensions should be the only new heavy rail lines pursued in the upcoming years/decades. They will not only add new service to areas that will certainly use them, they will perform the key function of finally linking city residents to the growing W. Loop office district.

Otherwise, infill stations and TOD will do the rest.

People in LA (annoyingly) keep touting their city as the "nation's transit leader", conveniently forgetting that LA has been behind the ball on transit for a century and is simply playing a huge game of catch-up on much of the world. Chicago, however, really doesn't need much in the way of new lines. So much of the L, in my opinion, runs through some pretty desolate territory, that if anything perhaps the city actually needs less heavy rail infrastructure (or at least a redistribution of it).

^^^ TUP, I have to imagine the CTA loses a lot of money on the South branch of the Green Line. That's where I think you are dead on with the infill station idea. The South Loop really needs another station or two. Does anyone know if this is moving forward? I remember hearing about how TIF money was supposed to pay for some stations once upon a time, but haven't heard anything in a while.

I also agree about the Clinton/Kingsbury Subway. I don't see why this isn't the highest priority for the CTA. Metra and Amtrak (or Megabus/Greyhound for that matter) are not integrated like they should be with the L. This could really tie everything together. It would make the whole spectrum of transit services more attractive. I've seen calls for plans like this in various Central Area plans, but I never actually hear about any real steps to do it.

222 really needs to go if there is to be any hope of unscrewing the concourse area and to accommodate through tracking to increase capacity/flexibility for Metra and Amtrak

In the last phase of Circle Line planning, CTA acknowledged the idea and put it in their long-term plan. They also acknowledged the Brown Line extension to Jefferson Park.

There's a complex process that has to be followed for new projects - they need to be included in CMAP's long-term plan, CTA has to see a need and then order an Alternatives Analysis, etc. And, of course, a major politician probably has to push for it at various points. Other cities have a environment that's easier to navigate for transit planners, but here it's quite difficult (from what I understand).

Long Range Plan for CTA Capital Projects (distinct from the short-term plan including the Red/Orange/Yellow extensions and Circle Line Phase II)
Circle Line Vision (northern half)
BRT-Cicero
BRT-Ashland
BRT-Western
BRT-79th
BRT-Clybourn to McCormick Place
HRT-Midway to Pink Line
HRT-Kimball to Jefferson Park
HRT-West Loop (Clinton-Larrabee)
Transit to South Works Site

No, there's a lot that could be done by pushing various functions, such as ticketing and food vendors, upward into the first two floors of 222. The health club (old IMM) is an enormous sunlit column-free space that could be used to great advantage.

As for through-tracking, there are already two through tracks. During WWII, when long cross-country troop trains were regularly passing through Chicago, there was a scheme to connect tracks 17 & 26 to create an additional through track at the east end. Apparently the original caissons had been placed with that in mind, and I'm guessing 222 South Riverside didn't change that. There's another runthrough track that doesn't have platform access. Also there's a service roadway next to the river that's underused. With a few million dollars of work and a small encroachment on the river channel, I think there's room for a total of four through tracks next to the river. It will be many, many decades before our region needs more capacity than that.

Or back into the headhouse.

I forget which TIF districts exactly, but two different TIF districts definitely have substantial money (I think around $20m each) budgeted for at least one South Loop infill station. Of course, there is still the eternal question of whether a new station would be at 18th, Cermak, or both. In the past, Cermak always had higher ridership projections due to proximity to McCormick Place and improved bus transfer options, but the high population growth in South Loop makes any projections for an 18th Station a bit suspect, in my view, before new Census data are released. I think there was a perception that City Hall preferred a Cermak station, but given that things are set to change dramatically next Spring I would guess any decisions on that front are on hold until then.

For whatever it's worth, the bus lanes grant that was awarded to CDOT recently included preliminary design/scoping work for a multi-bay off-street bus facility on the site of the surface parking lot on the northern portion of the block bounded by Jackson/Canal/Clinton (just north of the Union Station parking garage). Conveniently, there is even a blocked-off underground walkway crossing Jackson from the Great Hall building that could be reopened to connect to the bus facility directly with no required street crossing. There is a concept rendering floating around somewhere but I don't remember where I saw it.

I've wondered about this building in terms of improving the sorry Concourse situation. Who owns it? Are there other tenants other than the health club?

Quite a bit of work on the UP Westline. Here is an article about it

Metra train station project chugs along in Elmhurst
By Annemarie Mannion, TribLocal reporter

Improvements to the Union Pacific West rail line and to the Metra station in Elmhurst are slated for completion sometime this fall.

The project, which is also being done at 11 others on the line, is intended to improve operations.

"It's a project to make the line run more smoothly and efficiently," said Michael Gillis, a Metra spokesman. "There are old signaling systems that need improvement."

The work includes adding crossovers, which allow incoming trains to switch tracks if a train is already on the track.

"It increases the flexibility when you're running a train," Gillis said.

The work includes adding sidewalks to better channel where pedestrians walk.


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

I've observed much of this work taking the train everyday. Other work that I've seen includes a pedestrian underpass in Winfield, some new track between Elmhurst and Berkley, in addition to adding and replacing (work still in progress) some small bridges to support 3-tracks (the UP-West Line goes down to two track between River Forest and Elmhurst). It's beautiful to see something get done. For those curious, here are the details of this work: http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/upw.php.

Union Station Intermodal Center

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/1...intermodal.jpg

This could turn out right, or it could turn out wrong. I'd love it if they built something like Kennedy Plaza in Providence... they do a great job of blending in historic architecture, and reconciling the opposing natures of a public plaza and a bus terminal.

As far as I know, it's owned by the same owner as 222 South Riverside. It would take some work to separate them, as "444 W Jackson" contains a long entrance corridor, the loading dock, and probably other functions for the office tower.

I believe the big Corner Bakery is a tenant of 444, not of Union Station (though Corner Bakery has another outpost down in the food court). Here's a street-level plan I did a few years ago:

http://i52.tinypic.com/9vfjab.jpg

Whoa ... is this for real? Is this city-owned land? I wonder whether a bus terminal would generate more revenue than a daily stuffed car parking lot - so it seems unlikely private enterprise would run this.

Is this supposed to replace the ad-hoc bus berthing along Canal? Do the Greyhound buses stay on Harrison?

The best thing would be to rebuild the entire block with a massive multilevel multiuse structure containing a bus terminal, parking and also car rental, and kiss & ride lanes serving Union Station (and the future WLTC). (Come to think of it, is the wait for plans on WLTC what's keeping this block from redevelopment?)

I think the situation is that CDOT very much wants it and Amtrak very much doesn't (because they don't want to provide facilities for Megabus). Curious things about the rendering above: why no stairways or ramps down to station floor level? The sloping site would seem to allow ingenious ways to get from trains to buses without having to cross Jackson. Why no taxi lane? And what are those LRVs hiding in the shadows next to the parking garage?

^^^ Nice catch with the LRVs, perhaps they are trying to represent some future iteration of the Kinze/caroll busway or light rail or something like that?

^Yes, it would make sense, but notice that there's no room for passenger loading. They're up against the parking garage wall. I guess the designer is just showing that as possible mid-day storage, and that a real LRT line could be routed through one of the bus lanes.

There are stairways. The other renderings show them... they're further down and hidden by the tree canopy.

Apparently, CDOT commissioned Terry Guen, so this is something approximating the actual planned design.

The description also mentions a taxi stand, although it would probably just replace the bus lane on Jackson.

^ Good sleuthing ardec.

The general idea would be for the 120-series "downtown distributor" buses to use this terminal as their layover/staging spot. I've heard conflicting things about whether intercity buses are a part of the plan, so I'd say that part is still up in the air. If Megabus is willing to pay a curb fee then it seems an ideal opportunity, and the Great Hall could actually function as a waiting area for intercity Megabus travelers (again if Megabus is willing to pay a rental fee for ticketing/information screens inside Union Station). Taxi loading is of course also up in the air. I've still never heard a convincingly good reason why the existing dual taxi ramps accessible directly from the Concourse can't be reopened as part of all this, and sending taxis into the bus terminal would clog it to the point of negating any potential traffic engineering benefit of having the off-street facility.

Did suddenly every bus stop get the addition to the bus stop location signs or have a I just noticed or luckily the busses I take got them?

That is such a great thing lol. I love it. I have saved in my phone the bus stop numbers I take and text the CTA while walking towards the stops. All the time now every time I text to see when the next bus is coming. And it works! It's so simple to use.

The stickers were ordered last winter but they had to wait for sustained warm weather to put them up, and it takes a while to do 11,577 signs--both sides.

Nice figure there... I had no idea how many bus stops were in the city.

I was actually in the early stages of planning a little website with an applet that would automatically generate stickers for any given bus stop in the city, so people could do it guerilla-style. Good to know the CTA already anticipated the need.

It would be nice to put the Bus Tracker information not on a sticker on the bus stop sign, but on the inside of the shelter somewhere. Of course, if a stop is busy enough for a shelter, it should probably have a Next Bus LED sign...

Well I don't care what you think of HSR, pro or con (or maybe just because I'm a little tipsy right now)
but this is BIG news, considering that it's happening in IL first:

High-speed rail construction begins
September 17, 2010

(AP) — Politicians on Friday cast Illinois as a pioneer for being the first to roll federal stimulus money into a high-speed passenger rail line, claiming that the jobs, tourism and traveler convenience anticipated from the St. Louis-to-Chicago route justifies the $1.1 billion taxpayer tab.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ruction-begins

QR Codes would be nice, although it's probably too late and too advanced for the CTA right now.

Advanced? Outside of specific industrial applications, they're a gimmicky joke. I certainly don't think they'd be worth the CTA spending time and money on. A human-readable number can be used by any phone that can send text messages - even smart phones. A QR code can be used only by smart phones - and even then I would argue that opening the QR app, snapping the photo, waiting for it to process and retrieve info is probably slower on average than just texting off the stop number to the CTA or manually inputting the stop number into an app. I personally hope the CTA never uses non-human-readable coding on their signs.