Crap, I always thought the resurfacing was just from Mannheim to the Circle! I had no idea that the resurfacing would extend west of Mannheim, much less up to 94 at Woodfield, or down 355 to Army Trail! Damn, this summer's gonna suck. They're basically resurfacing half of the IDOT (non-Tollway) system!

On the plus side, we'll have a shiny new Eisenhower by October... just in time for the pavement to get royally f'ed up by the snowplows.

Expand the view, then. What road/highway improvements would be a smart addition to the regional system? I think we can all agree that the Prairie Sprawlway is a bad idea, but what about the O'Hare Bypass, Mid-City Transitway, or anything else? I saw a proposal awhile back for a connection between the Eisenhower and Stevenson along Western, which would allow trucks/regional traffic to bypass the Circle. This would have the nice side effect of improving air quality downtown (at the expense of Little Village).

Would the transitway network serve this purpose if built as BRT? You'd still have to get buses from Lake Shore Drive to Carroll at Lower Michigan, but then they'd have a fast link to the West Loop.

Or, in the short term, why not just redirect them onto Lower Wacker/Lake Shore Drive?

^I'm not talking about getting buses from Union/Ogilvie to Streeterville. I'm talking about getting the North Lakeshore Corridor buses in and out of the Loop. A few years back, CTA moved nearly all of the LaSalle variants to use Wacker/Lake Shore Drive instead of LaSalle. But what if there were a shallow-cut bus subway under Michigan Avenue, using either dual-mode buses or pavement gratings in Michigan Avenue's middle lanes (as found in Illinois Center) to ventilate the busway below?

The Carroll Street Busway goes to the West Loop rather than LaSalle Street so the only tie-in would be one of interlocking scheduling: Lakeshore express buses coming downtown in the morning would end up in the West Loop, then make distributor runs from Union/Ogilvie to Streeterville, then head up north for another inbound line-haul run. Reverse the process in the afternoon. This gives both sets of routes efficient vehicle usage.

I've always thought it was a mistake for the city and the region that the Crosstown Expressway was never built. A Mid-City Transitway built in conjunction with this would tie in nicely to my busway proposal for the Northwest Corridor:

http://chicagocarto.com/NWC.html

A Michigan Avenue bus subway would be great, but it should have at least two stops, maybe three. Grand, Chicago, and Oak? If the buses aren't gonna provide service to the Mag Mile, then they should just run along Lower Wacker directly to the Drive.

Not sure exactly how it would have worked in practice (clearly a complete reconstruction of LaSalle between Wacker and Randolph), but a direct connection between LaSalle and Lower Wacker would have been very useful when Wacker was rebuilt. The PM rush is a disaster at Wacker/LaSalle because of such high demand for right turn movements from NB LaSalle to EB Wacker (both bus and auto) and the high pedestrian counts, and there's not much to be done about it at this point. The only plausible solution is to make more widespread use of bus-only lanes, both on streets with no parking and those where there are already rush hour parking restrictions to add an extra traffic lane - bus only lanes are of some value in the few places they exist in the Loop (Dearborn, Jackson, Adams) but of course they are still susceptible to back ups from right-turns. The stripes of paint for bus only lanes also equal some amount of free formula money from the feds, for whatever that's worth.

Some time ago I saw renderings of a grade level busway down the center of North Michigan Avenue, but that's obviously not happening anytime soon between the implied required tulip relocation and limiting of left turns.

Hmmm. It's pretty easy to go from LaSalle to Lower Wacker via Lake and Garvey Ct. I take a lot of tour buses down that way.

We're getting into pretty wonky territory, but I don't think a 60 foot bus can make those turns (both Lake->Garvey and Garvey->LWacker). I know they can't handle the turn from Post onto Wacker, nor can they handle the turns onto the ramps down along N-S Wacker - hence why the 120-series is served by 40ft buses despite being commuter routes more apt for a higher capacity vehicle.

Lake to Garvey is no problem because it's a left turn. Garvey to EB Lower Wacker might be an issue; my routing always takes the buses WB with a left turn.

I've commented before on my desire for a bus tunnel, similar to Seattle's downtown transit tunnel, under Michigan Ave. There's just way too much congestion on Michigan Ave for good quick service between the north side and the loop.

This will be your chance to use the blue line :) Take advantage of the transit that it provided !!

No, that's my point. The Blue Line doesn't even remotely serve the 355 corridor. Pace used to run an express bus, but they just canceled it a few weeks ago - not that it would have really assisted me. I'm not driving into the city, but I do drive down 355 quite a bit, to other suburban areas.

I am glad they're repaving 355... the pavement from the 290 interchange to Army Trail has gotten pretty bad lately. That doesn't mean I can't engage in Chicago's national pastime and complain about it, though.

i guess, im actually surprised the blue line doesn't go as far as Manheim.

In my long wish-list a few pages back, I suggested center, counter-flow lanes on Michigan for buses (I also suggested additional rail subways that would serve the north lakefront be built over the next 30 years, but center counterflow lanes could be done cheaper and with at least somewhat less controversy hence quicker).

Yikes! Can you imagine center contra-flow lanes on a two-way street with millions of clueless tourist pedestrians? Or did you mean a single reversible lane like we used to have on Ridge? Would you board from safety islands?

Yeah, safety islands. There are plenty of other streets in other cities that manage similar things. Some of San Francisco's streetcars have boarding islands. I actually do like a bus subway, it's just so expensive and disruptive to build one - even a shallow one.

In my long proposal, the reason I didn't go with a bus tunnel was that I combined additional rail subway downtown with deliberate density enhancements. I'm not anti-bus, but sometimes rail's worth the extra effort.

Also, if you did create a bus subway, a cross one should perhaps be added at Chicago Ave, extending from between Chicago/Lasalle to Chicago/Fairbanks, so that a Chicago Ave BRT line could navigate the Mag Mile area quickly. Of course that would conflict with the Chicago Ave subway station ...

^San Francisco doesn't have slush and salt spray. Chicago had safety islands in streetcar days (even used for buses on State Street), which prompted the old ditty about how "there's no geese on Goose Island and no safety on a safety island."

As long as we're fantasizing about bus subways, I don't think it would be too disruptive to actually build under Michigan. Chicago has the luxury of an existing lower level on Michigan all the way north to Grand, which takes care of about 1/3 of the route already. You could bore two tunnels from a launch pit on Lower Michigan, and then an incline in the park space near Oak Street Beach. Both excavation sites avoid disrupting traffic.

If you were to build stations, they would only need 150-foot platforms, long enough for two 60-foot articulated buses plus breathing room. Even for three stations, that's only two short Mag Mile blocks' worth of cut-and-cover construction. If the tunnels had a big enough radius, you could even squeeze platforms into them, and you wouldn't need to use cut-and-cover, except for the elevator/stair shafts. Extensive mezzanines are unnecessary, but you could put turnstiles and a fare machine at sidewalk level at the top of each escalator.

Not bad. But these things take vision on the part of CTA and of course funds to actually get built. In a perfect world where over-imaginative and under-applied forumers like ourselves are in charge—I'm with ya.

Or maybe only use a tunnel boring machine to get from Lake Shore Drive to Rush Street (at Chicago Ave) and then do the cheaper cut & cover the rest of the way along Rush Street to the river. If only there was room to get back to the surface to take the Wabash Street bridge across the river and then proceed either west toward State Street or east toward Michigan Ave.

how would you reroute Wacker Drive though? Severing the connection between 290 and LSD that Lower Wacker provides would lead to insane amounts of congestion on the surface

^Wacker wouldn't be affected. It's south of the river.

We can't use a TBM in Chicago unless your more than 150 feet below grade. TBMs are designed to bore through stone, not clay and the first 100 feet of depth is nothing but clay and hard pan. A bored tunnel has to be done with smaller machines and by hand as was done in the Depression with the Blue and Red Lines.

I was under the impression they used pressurized TBM to build the subway in Bangkok.

This seemed relevant to the train tracker discussion a few days ago:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cta-...val-signs.html

Read the article for more details...though the details that are there are light on specifics and come second hand. Not sure when we can reasonably expect train tracking for the CTA...

I'm pretty sure you can bore through mud if you use ground freezing.

Want High Speed Rail to Fail? Don't Fund Local Transit


04.08.10

Ted Rosenbaum

Read More: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/elev...l-transit.html

Theres also this:

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cta-tattler/

Someone in the comments made a great point regarding the awful graphic design compared to Berlin's system (which this is supposedly modeled after). At the very least they should justify the columns/rows of data.

Look at the comparison:

Chicago
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/...7e5b7d0f_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/...7e5b7d0f_b.jpg

Berlin
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/...559aa921_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/...559aa921_b.jpg

Theres a big difference in readability and aesthetics. I dont understand why its so difficult for us to get these simple, but important, details right. It does make a difference.

Agreed that the test sign is awful. Thankfully, the sign appears to be a big, low-resolution screen. Reduce the number of trains displayed and redo the rendering and that would look a lot better.

That's assuming the software can be easily changed/upgraded...

I'll just say that the CTA guy now in charge of these things is pretty savvy about such design concepts. Look again at that Fullerton display, though. It looks like the idea is to show the inner track arrivals differently from the outer track arrivals. It didn't work out quite right, but it's not just some techie mindlessly centering the lines because that's the default.

^ Well, Mr Downtown, in light of the evidence I'd say he can't possibly be that savvy.

Why not do it all the way, then? Align the inner track departures to the left side and the outer track departures to the right side. If it's an intentional design cue, it's too subtle. You might even want to throw in some arrows.

The inner and outer track arrivals should also be consolidated, rather than being integrated into one long list by their arrival time.

The sign is showing so many trains, I believe, because it's required to show the next two trains on each line that serves the platform. Since the next Purple train is 11 minutes away, the script includes all the trains arriving in the next 11 minutes.

I'm not a programmer, but I know that all these changes are easy to make... like, 5 minutes of coding easy. It's the collection and verification of the data that's the challenge. Fortunately, since changes to the sign are so easy to make, CTA will probably keep tweaking it until it's optimal.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/504/traintracker.jpg

Im willing to give the CTA the benefit of the doubt since this is just a test run. At a bare minimum, they do need to make it neater. But again, look at Berlin; they're using 3 different bolds to emphasize each column, the display appears to be far brighter and easier on the eyes, the fonts are cleaner, etc. If we're copying a system (and btw, theres absolutely nothing wrong with that. no need to reinvent the wheel) we might as well go all the way and make sure the details are up to snuff. Its stuff like that which locals and visitors alike sub-consciously take note of and plays a role in forming perceptions of a city.

Aesthetically speaking, nothing I've seen anywhere beats the Metro countdown platform signs in Paris. Kinda small picture but you can see it reflected on the ceiling of this ridiculously beautiful copper clad station—

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3430/...941ac6bb14.jpg
ç

It's also stuff like this thats proof the CTA needs a few more right-brained folks working for them.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...o-service.html

Glad to see the electronic signage made it into the final version. The spy photos of the new cars didn't show them, but maybe they will be added in the remaining 396-car order.

Why are the new 5000s going to the Red Line, though? The Red Line is running 2600s, which won't need replacement for another decade. The Blue Line needs the 2200s replaced quickly, and after that, the Green/Purple Lines need their 2400s replaced Maybe they'll just shift some 2600s over to the Blue Line?

EDIT: just saw CTA's photos of the electronic signage. WTF? It's just a printed map of the CTA system with holes drilled at each station and an LED bulb in each hole. It will also be quite complex to modify whenever infill stations/line extensions open.

I was expecting an LED screen that would show advertising and an interactive graphic showing the train location, thereby removing the expense of printing/installing new maps whenever the rail system is altered, and making it flexible enough to show station closures, elevator outages, and so forth.

This is just... amateur hour. It looks like a middle-schooler made it from Radio Shack parts.

^Probably not far off.

NY's newest cars have a fine LED line board, that I think looks and functions great. A solution to the design could have been made in Chicago for more line-to-line mobility. Completely perplexed as to why they feel the need to display the entire system map as part of the LED board. The LED board should be line specific and focused. Not much intellectual or creative decision making behind the scenes at the ol' CTA. Can;t blame Bombardier, they're just building what the CTA asked for. Once again, I'm embarrassed for the CTA. How hard is to get your act together???

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q.../img_45349.jpg
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q.../img_45349.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...ourse138th.jpg
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...ourse138th.jpg

I saw one like that in London... in 1996.

I suspect the current solution was simply done for expediency, reverting to whatever was spec'd in the early 2000s when this whole epic saga of a procurement started --- since stopping the presses in 2009 and "doing it right" with a nice custom-spec'd route indicator would have resulted in yet another delay to the delivery of the prototypes, which needed to be tested in all seasons.

Stuff like seating configuration or the system map are such a small component of a railcar that they not only can be relatively easily modified in time for the final order, but by rights they should be the least of the engineers' worries for a prototype when compared to the bread and butter issues like propulsion, brakes, cab signalling, doors, suspension, and so on.

Similar story on the next train predictions being sent to those LED signs... the prototype phase is more focused on actually getting the technical aspect of the systems integration working in a reliable manner, with minimum-effort design choices until the technical details are worked out.

As long as there is eventual follow-through on the final 5% of user-experience considerations, it always pays to focus on the underlying technical/functional details of a project first rather than focusing on how it plays in a rendering in a Powerpoint; the Titan Outdoor LCD Screens should be pretty strong evidence of that.

Schedule for 5000-series revenue testing on Red Line
 

Monday, April 19, 2010 through Friday, April 23, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010 through Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010 through Friday, May 7, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010 through Friday, May 14, 2010

Southbound – Leaving Howard

Run Number      Scheduled Departure Time

904                   0901 

905                   1244 

819                   1550 

829                   1918+ 

Northbound – Leaving 95th

Run Number      Scheduled Departure Time

806                    0730

813                    1038+

818                    1419+

827                    1720+

826                    2048+

Photos of the new cars (inside and outside) from Ben Meyerson on flickr

Here is a very large article from Crain's

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...rticleId=33270


Illinois Toll Highway Authority needs $2 billion to fix I-90. Will drivers accept a toll hike by scandal-tarred agency?

By: James Ylisela Jr. April 19, 2010


...

With the expected growth of the region, the tollway is likely to expand, not shrink. In addition to the I-90 project, the tollway is considering numerous others: the Illiana Connector, to join interstates 57 and 65; the Prairie Parkway, to connect interstates 88 and 90; western access to O'Hare, and an extension of I-53/I-355.

...

Tolls for I-Pass users are the same, in nominal dollars, as they were in 1963! Forty cents! If they had kept pace with inflation, the tolls would be somewhere around $3. I don't think an increase to $1 is unreasonable at all. The toll on the new segment of 355 is already $3, but I think that's a bit absurd to apply elsewhere... drivers going the length of the Tri-State would pay $12 over the course of four toll plazas. That's ridiculous, and it would only encourage more traffic through the city on the free 90 and 94.

But imagine the ridiculous stuff we could build with a $3 toll... I guess that explains why much of the tollway system was able to take shape in less than ten years back in the 50s/60s with an equivalent high level of tolling. That, and the fact that state and federal governments weren't on the brink of insolvency.

^ The article also says Illinois tolls are a bargain compared to other states. Raising them should be a no-brainer.

I don't understand the relevance of the insolvency statement. No state or federal money was used for the tollways.

...How would those departure times be translated into normal clock time? I totally want to check these out tomorrow!

I'm assuming it's military time/international time

midnight is 2400 noon is 1200

so 1918 is 7:18 PM

good luck

I would agree, except that most voters are too stupid to know the difference between different units of government, let alone even understand tollway financial arrangements, so I think ardec's point still has some relevance pertaining to how any toll hike would be handled in the public realm.

Seriously?

Until the early 90s, CTA expected the public to understand signs that said things like

Ravenswood trains
berth at north end of platform
Mon-Fri 0745 to 0922
and 1545 to 1915

use center berths at other times

Totally serious.

My bad. :/

theres really no need to raise the cost of doing business in the Chicago area (considering its already high in comparison to some sun belt states), especially when cities such as Memphis and Kansas City are beginning to eat into Chicago's dominance as the freight train/air cargo/trucking capital of North America. If the Illinois Tollway Authority doesnt need to raise the tolls, then it shouldnt.