TUP, have you seen Transit Future? Have you called your commissioner to support it? If not, why are you complaining?

CTA in-house ironworker crews have been doing structural renewal for 6+ months, usually at night but sometimes on weekends (hence the periodic all-day Sunday single tracking). Once the structural work is done, the track will be replaced; last I heard (admittedly a while ago) the track replacement is supposed to begin this summer.

Clearer which buildings are coming down at this link:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news_i...pm/bypass.aspx

So Johnny O'hagan's and its parking lot. Maybe the Houndstooth Saloon at Clark and Buckingham? Hard for me to tell.

It also looks like some of the buildings will be for platform renovations further north, not just for the bypass.

This is pretty interesting..is the city ACTUALLY starting to plan ahead and embrace TOD?
Preplanning TOD density around the new brown line flyover?

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...s-after-bypass

Here are some images DNAInfo forgot to include of the TOD as well as how the new viaducts will blend in with the neighborhood:

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...Buckingham.jpg
Conceptual rendering of development at Clark/Buckingham
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...wayAinslie.png
Conceptual rendering of development at Broadway/Ainslie
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...ng_Generic.jpg
Preliminary, conceptual rendering of new structure spanning adjacent alley
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...-Optimized.jpg
Preliminary, conceptual rendering of a reconstructed viaduct

so when does the CTA plan to untangle the loop "L" due to many stop and wait intersecting line delays, is that a "priority?"

let's build some of these "flyovers" downtown shall we. . .

I really hope the architecture of the viaduct structure isn't that lame. It looks like its straight out of an old highway engineering standards book. I'd like to see something really modern done with the design of the elevated structure.

Why should anyone support that sprawl oriented plan?

I don't think there's all that many cost effective options for the type of bridge structure unless you mean there should be some extra architectural embellishment to what you see.

They'll want to minimize the number of vertical piers. Right now there's a ton of columns....just more structure to maintain. So they'll use longer spans of steel to minimize vertical support.

Then they don't want it to be too hulking, so they won't use any longspan box girder construction or else the structure will get really deep and massive. But that's usually what you see where you get some cool modern forms otherwise found in lower density areas where there's the space to build.

You won't see any trusses...just more connections to maintain.

These match the sections at Belmont and Fullerton which aren't the most attractive but are quiet as trains roll in and spacious below.

They could do something like this with U-beams... A modest upgrade but at least there are no flanges for pigeons to sit on and the underside is attractive.

http://www.hpcbridgeviews.com/images...lvd_BTR056.gif

^ Yeah, that would be a good look too. I'm sure it would be even better dampening sound and vibrations.

I am liking the "when we get the money it's getting built period" attitude from the CTA on the Clark flyover. A handful of residents shouldn't but allowed to strangle rail upgrades for all of the northern neighborhoods. I wish the CTA and Rahm would show the same spine on Ashland BRT.

My guess is that if/when Rahm gets reelected, he will hammer through the Ashland BRT. When that happens I will laugh with evil joy, especially when the left turn lanes for traffic are slowly closed, one by one.

Just for the record, despite my grumblings earlier I will reiterate that I am impressed with how the CTA is refurbishing the system (and working to increase the capacity of what we have), what frustrates me is to see cities throughout the nation adding new transit lines (light and heavy rail) while Chicago appears nowhere on any of those lists.

You can argue that those cities have faster population growth than Chicago, but that misses the big picture. It's not about how much a region is growing, it's about where a region is growing. Chicago has the fastest core growth in the nation, period. So there is a HUGE market for people to want to live in the core, and those are all potential transit users. So a new Metra line out into the cornfields may not be the best use of transit dollars, but how about connecting the system better?

Perhaps not the Circle Line, but the Clinton St Subway makes total sense and should be the #1 New Starts priority in Chicago right now, especially with all of the growth & development along the Blue Line corridor. Also, the West Loop Transportation Center with a subway connecting to Millennium Station and onward to Mag Mile/Streeterville/Navy Pier is badly needed. Forget this Mr. Rogers Trolley BRT nonsense that we are building for 39 cents, it's a waste and I don't think a lot of people are going to use it because it's just a goddamn glorified bus. We need subways.

The money is out there. It's just going to other cities, not Chicago.

:cheers:

I rather not waste money on the Ashland BRT and instead aggressively pursue the Circle Line.

And WHERE do/should all the (lots of them) delivery trucks go urban (3 right turns -- or avoid the area like Ebola?)

Or use a better 21st Century transit mode on Ashland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_sxmhjLU2A

These are very flexible vehicles, with doors on both sides -- and power pick-up from overhead wire or center-rail. I think the Ashland Corridor communities might be much more receptive to this type of transit installation, and it could be the start/first phase of a city-wide re-introduction of streetcar/light-rail service.

What exactly is the advantage of rail? The braking distance is far inferior, so left turns would have to be aggressively prevented, lest you have a repeat of Houston's wham-bam-killer-tram.

More visible to casual users? Smoother ride? Not compared to a purpose-built guideway. Less noisy? No. More maneuverable? Definitely not. Faster acceleration? Perhaps a tiny bit, but time advantage lost in slower deceleration. Cheaper to operate? Disproven many times.

Makes railfans drool? Well, you got me there.

Sorry guys, as sexy as it would be to just build subways all over the place, BRT is the only logical way to expand the system right now. Don't forget that Chicago has always been a city of hub and spoke heavy rail connected by a much lighter rail/bus grid. Buses have simply replaced cable cars and streetcars and Chicago is built to support an excellent network of surface based transit. BRT is a fantastic way to upgrade that network of buses so that they achieve speeds that are nearly as fast as the L. As awesome as it would be if Chicago never removed and paved over the street car lines, BRT will be even more awesome since the streetcars were always disadvantaged by the fact that they couldn't easily be rerouted or avoid obstacles. BRT has the best of both worlds: a reserved ROW with fast loading at a limited number of platforms just like heavy rail, but is not tied to expensive trackwork at street level.

I for one cannot wait to see Ashland BRT and am even more thrilled about Western BRT. I don't give a damn about the poor delivery truckers who will have to obey another traffic law. If it really is that big of a problem then distributors will simply have to start buying smaller trucks which would be a win for the whole city because I really don't think 18 wheelers belong in the core in the first place.

I feel the exact same way, I think the City needs to try to explore the subway option whenever possible for future expansion of existing lines and future additional lines. I really think the purpose of the refurbishment of the system is to eventually apply for federal money for additional lines, might be wishful thinking.

My distaste for buses is due to the long waits for people boarding at each stop, the bunching of buses, and the existing routes snarled by normal car traffic. I walk faster than most bus routes (36, 22, 8) passing through main streets in Lakeview and Lincoln Park. It amazes me that I can walk from Diversey to Irving Park along Broadway Avenue and never see a 36 bus pass me. At least with heavy rail, I know that the train will be boarded by passengers quickly, have no interference (e.g. stop lights, car traffic), and the next train is always in 7-9 minutes. I rarely use buses anymore now that Divvy is so prevalent throughout the city.

I personally never experienced a BRT transit, so it is hard for me to believe the benefits. However, I am not a fan of light rail. I visit Portland often for work and their light rail system is extremely slow compared to the standards I am use to from riding the red, green and blue line on a daily basis. A BRT system along Ashland or Western would not entice me to move to any west side neighborhood of the city that is not within walking distance of a green or blue line stop. I expect rapid transit access if I choose to live without a vehicle. I love visiting Humboldt Park and Pilsen, but I could never live there due to the lack of a CTA rail station.

^^^ See that's the thing, BRT virtually eliminates all of the problems you mention with regular buses. There is no loading wait because the passengers are prepaid. There is no bunching because the buses have signal priority and dedicated ROW. Same goes with being snarled in regular traffic, there could be some situations where it spills over into the BRT lane, but as along as the lane is enforced by the city, that shouldn't be an issue either. I think once people see BRT in the flesh on Ashland, they are going to immediately realize the potential it has for the entire city because, let's face it, most of the outer neighborhoods of Chicago simply are not dense enough to justify the high costs of heavy rail. Maybe we could use a few more heavy rail connections like the circle line, but Chicago is so perfectly suited to BRT it's ridiculous.

I'm not sure why the CTA is bothering to show a conceptual development here:

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...wayAinslie.png

Maybe they are simply trying to show that the revived stations and track would be an impetus to development in that area, because I don't see that strip center coming down anytime soon. Also, the parcel north of Belmont between Wilton and the tracks was being marketed as a TOD opportunity for a while before being relegated to a car-share lot.

As for the flyover viaduct, I don't want to speculate about anything, but if 3336 N Clark is spared, I'll be happy. Their "conceptual rendering" shows wholesale clearance of that block section, but perhaps they will employ a piecemeal demo instead when they actually proceed with the work.

^ But that's just it: Chicago was a streetcar city 100 years ago. It was a hub and spoke city 100 years ago. But look at what is happening now: the population is concentrating along the core and lakefront, and dropping everywhere else. The population is really getting dense in a few areas. We need a transit system that serves Chicago's population patterns of the future, not the population patterns of 1910. It makes no sense that there is no way to get from the West Loop to Streeterville other than a car or a bus, for example. These are areas that are growing, and that is where the jobs, shopping, and tourist attractions are. Perhaps that was not important 100 years ago, but it's really important now.

^ I like that Ashland BRT idea. But why can't we apply for Federal funding for the Clinton subway as well as a subway connecting the West Loop to Mag Mile/Streeterville/Navy Pier? Those are needed, and I feel they are needed far more badly than the Red Line extension.

Politics rules here. Community leaders on the Far South Side are counting on the Red Line Extension as their economic savior. It's a false hope of course, but Rahm has committed to it as a gesture to that part of the city.

This is not just a Chicago problem, by the way - in many cities, pressure is always to extend the system outward because on a map, it looks like the core has a ton of transit already while outlying neighborhoods do not. Of course, that doesn't take into account where people actually live and work.

red line flyover
 

if CTA built a clearance bridge along the red line section instead of the brown line flyover, wouldn't that eliminate the need for any demolition?

Ashland BRT: I'm going to agree that it should just get built; get on with it. . . and we'll see. it's really an awful idea, but the debate is tiresome at this point.

The point of Transit Future is to get regional stakeholders on board and get the metro area rowing in the same direction. It's pragmatic. If the Republican congressmen from the collar counties pull hard on their levers in support of, say, the Clinton Street Subway, it's because the plan also results in investment in infrastructure in their districts. I'm not sure it's perfect, but a flawed plan with a chance of success it better than a perfect plan with no chance. I'm a supporter.

As for sprawl, I'm not a suburb fan, but calling transit investment in near-in suburbs "sprawl inducing" dilutes the term sprawl until it becomes almost meaningless. Anything that reduces car dependence in the region is going to strengthen the core. Lots of criticism can be directed toward commuter rail and ring rail plans, but I'm going to reserve my sprawl criticisms to stuff like the mortgage interested deduction, and the Illiana highway.

In retrospect what they should have done is never rebuilt Fullerton and Belmont as they did and run the Red north in a new subway.

The Red Line, instead of leaving its portal south of Armitage could have stayed in a new tunnel that ran under the elevated ROW until exiting north of Belmont. The existing north main viaduct could have been cleared of Red Line trains from Addison all the way south and at that point rebuilt. This would not have required demolition as well and would have given the Fullerton and Belmont stations amazing potential for multilevel elevated to subterranean designs with escalators and large station houses.

Oh well. One can dream. Obviously those kinds of people don't work for the Cta.

I plan on attending the CTA meeting on May 22 (19th District Police Station - 850 W Addison St.) and plea for the subway option one more time. :shrug:

in retrospect. . . .
 

they should have never done many things in retrospect, among them:

*state street mall construction/teardown
*soldier field renovation
*block 37 station
*block 37 destruction, period!
*retained the loop "L" vs. putting the loop "L" underground in the late 1970's
*not making the blue line subway from ashland/mke to the kennedy
*not making the red line subway from north/cly to wilson
*not building crosstown exp. during an era when it would have made sense
*not building an mid-city "L" along with the crosstown
*getting rid of "x" express busses where they are still desperately needed
*never making the north lakefront south of lawrence more rapid transit accessible

there are, for sure, many more should haves

On a per passenger basis, rail is almost always much cheaper to operate.

Operating costs per hour doesn't take into account the additional passengers carried by rail.

Some Photo of CTA Clark JCT.
 

Some who are from other places might love some photos of Clark JCT.


http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...P1040506_4.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...lmontRavSB.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...bnsf/Clark.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1000603.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1000640.jpg

I don't get to the north side too often, but when I do go through that section I usually wonder what the hell just happened. It's hard to advocate for the expense just to relieve me of that occasional moment of confusion, but I do appreciate it.

I think if they want work on public support they should spend more time talking about what exactly will be improved rather than just saying what changes they want to make. Put it in numbers. The flyover will make the train system work X% faster, or people will have to wait X minutes fewer per day.

Cite?

As the last line of my earlier post notes, "operating costs per hour are more than double (average 220% of bus costs) but crush capacity is only 50% greater."

These statistics on operating costs come from Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems, a Federal Transit Administration report from 1992:

BUS $60/1000 place miles $3.80/revenue vehicle mile
LIGHT RAIL $96/1000 place miles $9.30/revenue vehicle mile
RAPID RAIL $50/1000 place miles $6.50/revenue vehicle mile

(a "place mile" is a passenger place (seated or standing) carried one mile)

I would certainly like to quit citing such old statistics, but can't until FTA funds a new study.

Sort of like this?

Source: CTA

Just to put that into perspective, a 30% capacity increase on the North side Red Line is roughly an extra 35,000 riders per day, which is greater than the daily ridership on the Purple Line (10,250 2012), Pink Line (16,700 2012), Orange Line (28,850 2012), and almost as much as the entire Green Line (38,500 2012). This is a very big deal.

Why are you quoting something I never said?

No, increasing the amount of trains is not likely to increase the amount of passengers, maybe a marginal ridership increase. More likely it will ease the terrible overcrowding the red line currently experiences during rush hour. It's so bad that it may as well bypass Clark and Division because at the point no one is getting on between roughly 7:30am and 8:30 am.

My source is the NTD (national transit database) reports from 2012. Click here to get to the RY2012 databases. Extract the "data tables" folder and open "T27."

Here, you'll find operating cost per passenger trip from 2012. For example, heavy rail in Chicago costs $2.20 per passenger trip and $2.40 per passenger trip for bus.

Enjoy lol it's really interesting to see the operating costs for different modes.

In hindsight, I worded my response poorly. I was trying to say that the capacity increase alone is capable of accommodating more riders than the current ridership of the other lines mentioned. The flyover wont create an extra 35,000 riders overnight, but as ridership along the North main continues to slowly rise, and once RPM is completed offering useful express service, I could see that 30% capacity increase filling up 10 years down the road.

Don't forget the planned expansion to 10-car platforms, which adds another 25% of capacity to the Red Line.

Thanks; I'm quite familiar with the NTDB; it's where I got the statistics I posted. The statistical problem is that it aggregates figures from all lines using a given mode in a system. So all the bus lines that St. Louis (for example) runs—no matter how lightly patronized—get compared to the two light rail lines. That helps us not at all in looking at what mode would be most cost-effective for a particular corridor, where ridership will be about the same no matter what mode is chosen.

Suppose Bombardier tests the very same railcar in Philadelphia's Broad Street Subway and on the Sixth Avenue IND in Manhattan. Because the ridership denominator in the New York statistics is much larger, the cost per passenger mile will be half or even less in New York than in Philadelphia. The cost per operating hour or per place mile would be roughly the same.

The NTDB doesn't give us place-mile figures, but we can make a good guess by looking at the hourly figures and estimating the number of passengers that can be carried on different vehicles. As I've twice pointed out, light-rail vehicles carry only about 50% more than standard buses, but the hourly operating costs average 220% of bus costs.

Remember that the labor costs for the light-rail vehicle aren't just the operator you see on board. They have to include the people who stock the ticket machines, sweep the platforms, audit and enforce the fares, repair the catenary, and the ones back at the shop who vacuum out the trash, true the wheels, and rewind the motors.

Wow! Lots of trains car, huh? It gonna so crowding! Overcrowded!

I agree with the above, it's tough to truly measure cost efficiency. Generally, a rail line attracts more ridership than a similar bus line. And even though cost per revenue hour is more for rail, a train has much more capacity than a bus so that has to be factored into the equation as well.

Where's the proof of this?

We're not comparing a heavy rail line to a local bus service. We're talking about the cost-effectiveness of LRT vs. BRT on a specific corridor in Chicago. Do Pittsburgh's light rail lines "attract more ridership" than their busways do? Are Edmonton's light rail lines better patronized per mile than Ottawa's busway?

Looking at mode by entire systems using the NTDB is a bit like comparing cost per passenger-mile between the Green Line and the Red Line. You'd conclude that lines named for warm colors are vastly more efficient.

Would BRT here be using new, as-yet-unproposed bus models, or something retrofitted from the current (or already pipelined) fleet? One thing the L trains have going for them is zero emissions. That said, I know nothing about the current buses' emissions but I assume they're greater than zero.

This being Chicago I'm sure we'll end up with some butt ugly New Flyer CNG "metroliners" like the ones in LA all dolled up with ticky tack to look like its different than an ordinary bus. For the infrastructure required for the Ashland BRT, I wish they'd go ahead and install overhead wires and give Chicago a real trolleybus again.

Not electric, but Van Hool just released a new BRT bus made to look as much like an LRV as possible:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H2C3URqgrZ...lding_1170.jpg
><><

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/...9209204f08.jpg
><><


Trolleybus version:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/4j70wk.jpg
><><

http://www.tbus.org.uk/obusvanhool.jpg
><><

^ Those are bad-ass. ABC Companies (Van Hool's USA affiliate) features the ExquiCity on their website, so it seems like they are looking for American customers. Of course, I don't know if they meet Buy America requirements which could be a sticking point.

http://www.abc-companies.com/

The buses for Ashland will need doors on the left, though, so they can't just use traditional buses with cosmetic upgrades. Ideally you would flip the entire bus design and put the driver on the right (like a postal truck) so he can monitor the entrances. Depends on whether CTA will do an honor system with proof-of-payment, though.

Agreed. I love the pink one.

Well, zero emissions right around the vehicle, anyway. There are still emissions around the downstate power plants, though I think ComEd gets about 40 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants.

Plus renewables like wind and solar. Environmentalists don't like to include nuclear or hydro power as "clean" or "renewable" but Illinois has an especially low reliance on fossil fuels for power generation, at least by American standards. Our carbon emissions are still around the average for America, though.

Using electric traction for transit decouples the consumption from the generation of energy, and that alone has huge benefits. Nobody would seriously propose a nuclear or wind-powered bus, but that can actually happen through electrification.