I agree to an extent. I think BRT could easily accomplish what a circle line sets to accomplish at a fraction of the price. I would just want to see it done right, and not be a half-ass BRT situation where they have to deal with traffic situations, etc. Not sure we need BRT on LSD though. For folks wanting to get North-South, the Red Line serves that purpose pretty well. Not against it though. I would love to see a new West Loop transportation center. Ogilville is nice, but it just serves Metra, no other service. I don't really use Union Station, so not sure what can be done there. Having a nice shiny new center in the West loop to help tie in different services would be sick.

Stupid things like the Red Line Extension happen when a city is more focused on "equity" than creating a useful system. The cta could have worked out a deal with Metra and upgraded the M.E Line to cta standards for about 25% the costs of the redline extension. It also would serve way more stations and people. AND it is on the south side, so the equity issue is hit too.

But why spend 75% less when you can say "we extended the line to the far southside, servicing a few thousand people! We did it! We made a plan and stuck with it even though way better plans could have been supported with these billions of dollars."

This is dumb and I'm mad its most likely going to be built. Sure, if we had some massive transit package, this could be a decent project, but of all projects, why is the RLE getting built?

And thats not even getting into the fact the UP corridor IS NOT the ideal ridership catchment route for frequent heavy rail rapid transit or the laughably incompetent aerial rollercoaster the engineers have designed (forgoing the obvious short tunnel solution) to connect the Dan Ryan row to the UP corridor. The whole thing is a disaster. And this is what passes as the Cta's most eligable shovel ready project?

I forgot about the Clinton Street Subway. That would be a great additional as well, by tying in the two big suburban Metra stations directly to the CTA. Additionally, we can then split the blue line into two separate lines, the Forest Park and O'Hare lines that both terminate in the new big underground loop. This will allow the CTA to focus higher frequency train service on the busier O'Hare branch without having to do so on the Forest Park branch, or having the trains turn around at UIC-Halsted or the IMD.

Sort of a tangent, but can you point me to the law or regs governing the noise wall requirements?

Viva, it's been a while...

Is this an actual project under consideration? I had seen the West Loop Transportation Ctr and Clinton subway with a split Blue Line loop in a Central Area Plan but I don't recall seeing any study of it. For example, I don't know how complete this site is, but it at least lists the previously studied Circle idea

https://www.transitchicago.com/planning/

I think the last time the city was discussing it was the early 00's. I don't think it's something that is being actively talked about currently.

Here is a Crain's article (on chicago-l.org) dated April 2002 on the matter:

https://www.chicago-l.org/articles/ClintonSubway.html

I'm not sure I fully understand the policy, but in general the sponsoring agency must do an analysis of sensitive land uses (residential, schools, parks, etc) and a noise wall is required when there is a certain concentration of those uses along the route. Expansions or new highways would trigger the requirement but resurfacings, reconstruction etc would not. Apparently communities can opt-out of sound walls somehow, because IDOT has put them to a vote along the Eisenhower through Oak Park and along the Kennedy through Norwood/Oriole Park, as well as various IDOT and Tollway projects in the burbs.

They also put the Stevenson sound walls up to a vote in Bridgeport. A few owners screamed loudly about how they were an eyesore, but when it was actually put to a mail-in vote the walls were favored by 78% of voters. The response rate was only 22% so Ald. Thompson called for a 2nd vote... I can't find any info on how the 2nd vote went, but the Managed Lane project essentially died off anyway so it's a moot point for now.

Wait, you're complaining because you want CTA to spend even more money putting part of the route underground? The current route is sunken below street level and it needs to transition upward to an elevated alignment for the extension, so why would they go even further down with a short tunnel? Tying into the above discussion, CTA will be required to put noise walls along the entire elevated structure.

First section of the Red/Purple Line box girder is in place:

https://i.ibb.co/WpfSMJq/F4-D686-F6-...A6-DAC4-DA.png

https://i.ibb.co/XCNCFyR/4522-AA6-F-...62942179-E.png

https://i.ibb.co/7YKJc6T/1187-D428-9...6-F0-C9-A3.png

https://i.ibb.co/CtYpgZR/A5-D71328-D...F236652-DE.png

Check out the presentations from the recent transit supported development planning meetings. Their proposals for multi-family and mix used development near the stations is looking in the right direction. Even if all the infill they have mapped out doesn’t materialize, the city seems to be focusing a lot on developing multi-family housing near transit so I’d aspect at least that part to come to fruition.

http://https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/PR_20211207_PM3_FINAL1.pdf

https://www.transitchicago.com/asset..._PM3_FINAL.pdf

Apparently the city's contract with JCDecaux for bus shelters and other street furniture will expire in 2022. The useful life of the bus shelters is only projected to 2030.

So the city is seeking new partnerships for street furniture that could include bus stop replacement. I actually don't hate the black-iron design of the JCDecaux shelters (done by Robert AM Stern, fyi) but wouldn't mind seeing something more contemporary. These things often bring out a high caliber of design as seen in NYC and SF.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...marketing.html

Agreed. For the record I don't think the existing shelters are bad even if they have a sort of "snap-together" quality about them, but I think Chicago can do better and I completely agree they need to go in a modern direction. The NY MTA shelters are muscular and handsome, but some of JCD designs in Europe are stunning:

The new shelters being installed in Paris:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/26...b8198f23a9.jpg
_

https://www.displaydaily.com/images/...er_concept.jpg
_

Streetsblog says this article talks about the need to better integrate metra and CTA on the South Side. I don’t have a subscription. Are there any interesting insights?

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...akefront-op-ed

the most pertinent paragraph:

Several contemporary bus shelter designs were proposed and a few samples actually got installed for a brief time back when the JCDecaux contract was awarded in 2000. I worked on one of the other bids, and coincidentally one of the modern ones was on "my corner" at 9th & State for several months. I'll have to see if I can find a photo. I of course preferred the contemporary one—but I didn't hate the Robert AM Stern design Richie Daley chose.

I always thought the biggest issue was the random 'holes' in the design that allowed snow/rain/wind to easily pass through. Feels like solving that + some better bustracker signage would go a long way

The Buttigieg Dividend?

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...-michigan-city

Boost finalized for South Shore Line riders

Yes please

NICTD is also working on the West Lake Corridor, these are great times for transit in The Region. Heavy construction expected to begin this spring.

On our side of the state line, not so much...

The West Lake Corridor is so close to the IL state line however that it is almost like a transit expansion for the south suburbs. And all on Indiana's dime!

Yes, hopefully it is the final nail in the coffin for Metra's idiotic South-East Service expansion plan (which was only 2-3 miles parallel to Metra Electric anyway...)

Yeah, that alignment would not have been the most ideal, but to Metra's credit, I don't think there are existing N-S rail ROWs further east that would have been a better fit. Until you get into Indiana that is.

The SES would have been a fine compromise if Metra was willing to transfer the ME line to the CTA. I would have taken that deal. :)

The double tracking project will reduce commute trips from South Bend to almost 90 minutes. Impressive considering that's about the same distance to Milwaukee.

There are some indications that Amtrak is considering shifting its Michigan and East Coast trains onto the South Shore Line (likely from Burns Harbor into the city) to take advantage of the greater reliability. This would be in place of the dedicated "South of the Lake" Amtrak line that was planned ~10 years ago.

Once in the city, it's not clear how those trains would get from the SSL/Metra Electric to Union Station, there's a few different routes they could take but all require hundreds of millions in upgrades/construction.

Well, assuming the city doesn't tap the brakes as some are now calling for (see editorial in Crain's last week).

The Loop has a huge volume of infrastructure serving it to enable all that density. Fulton Market has only 2 L stops on the Green/Pink Lines no less, no Metra access and no direct connections to the North Side except the traffic-choked and overcrowded Halsted/Ashland buses. If you want to drive, most of the intersections in Fulton Market are still 4-way or 2-way stops, no stoplights. They get overwhelmed and gridlocked with only moderate traffic levels.

Hard to see how this growth can continue much longer unless the city finds better ways to handle transportation in/out of the area. Covid gave them a headstart since all of those shiny offices are sitting unused, but I don't think the city will have anything at the end of the pandemic when workers come flooding back, except maybe some better gates at the Metra crossings. The Fulton streetscape was nice and certainly makes walking more pleasant in the neighborhood, but it's not gonna help tens or hundreds of thousands of people come and go daily.

Great points.

I'd argue there are 3 L stops though, Ashland, Morgan, and Grand. Grand will actually be closest to many of the new developments north Of Kinzie like 330 N Green and many others - and it's on a different line. Also Fulton Market is just as accessible to Ogilvie as much of the western Loop is. Instead of hoards of commuters walking over bridges over the South Branch to the Loop from Ogilvie, many will end up walking west over the Kennedy to Fulton. It's the same distance in many cases and Ogilvie's entrances extend all the way up to Randolph. I think a Metra stop will come eventually as well. Also I think there will be a lot more people living in Fulton than the loop which is pretty devoid of residential internally.

But yeah, I think we might be in for a shock after the pandemic is over with all the new construction in Fulton and how much more congested it might be.

Rethinking this, it would probably be a nightmare boarding any of the L (Ashland, Morgan, Grand) trains outbound from the Loop during rush hour, though the Brown and Red are the worst. The Merchandise Mart brown/purple line comes to mind going north. It's basically impossible to get onto during rush hour.

Maybe the 'tapping the breaks' is to adjust zoning more towards residential which they've already started to do. https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/03...fulton-market/ This is a major reason the Loop is so congested, it's all commercial.

Well, if the city "taps the breaks" where are they going to get any of the money for the Invest South/West initiative and the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund? That money practically pours out of the West Loop to the rest of the city. Unless they unseat the more nimbyish aldermen in downtown (looking at you Reilly) then good luck getting that money for development.

How about their affordable housing goals? All the new affordable housing built in the West Loop is wonderful reelection material. Unless the city challenges the prerogative of downtown wards then good luck getting the money for the south and west side projects. It would be idiotic of them to tap the breaks on this. Better to have a traffic clusterf*ck than be accused of not investing in other neighborhoods.

In some ways, I see the concern, but in other ways... I feel like there are other parts of the city where it can feel even more disconnected. While the West Loop has two (or three) L stops, they get you to the loop very quickly. Plus, it takes two seconds to transfer to the Red/Blue lines from there. If they build a Metra stop nearby, that opens things up a bit to the suburbs. Also, the Kennedy is right smack dab there too. When I would go to Boystown this past Summer, I would just walk over to Halsted and take the bus. It was super easy and convenient.

Honestly, I felt more connected to the rest of the city than I do in East Lakeview where the only advantage I have is LSD being a block away if I want to shoot downtown in my car. I can get to downtown via the Brown/Red line, but it takes a 10-15 min walk along with several L stops. And the airport? That feels so far away given there's no direct route there without either a bus or Uber through a ton of traffic on Belmont. When I was in the West Loop, it was very easy to transfer to the Blue line and shoot out to O'Hare.

I get the concern about West Loop transit infrastructure, but it's in a great location geographically given the intersections of L's, buses that get you to the north side, along with the highways. Could be much much worse.....

The city should push Fulton Market to the absolute limits regardless of the existing infrastructure. If people really want to be there, they will hike if must needs.

The Loop was already a monster of a neighborhood well before the L tracks were built. There’s no real reason for Fulton Market to be lesser than the pre-car, pre-CTA Loop.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RjPCiy6XqN...0/41028612.jpg
http://www.chicagoquirk.com/2011/07/...ago-l.html?m=1
http://www.chicagoquirk.com/2011/07/...ago-l.html?m=1

https://chicagology.com/wp-content/t...n1911color.jpg

This is more than a little dishonest - hard to say METRA servers River North, but not the West loop. Not really seeing River North as having more El stations than the West Loop. --- and --- really not seeing how driving in the west loop/Fulton market is any more difficult than in the loop or River North.

The only development recently that is truly tranisit challenged - and that being AUTO challenged - is Wolf Point.

The West Loop is really the second best transit served district in Chicago.

It’s closer to the main expressways, it has L stops, it is walkable to the main Metra depots and probably will have a new Metra station in a couple of years.

It even isn’t too far by Water Taxi (on a nice day).

It will never be as good as the Loop, but it can serve as an offshoot much better than River North can. It’s a bitch getting to RN from the burbs.

Plus, having a vibrant West Loop can also increase the appeal of IMD and those Pink Line hoods that are dying to gentrify.

Keep these projects coming, I say

Yeah I don't get why anyone says the West Loop lacks transit. In addition to the Pink and Green Line Stations it's also served by the Blue Line (UIC Halsted and IMD) and has one advantage no part of downtown has: bus through routes to other parts of the city. Being able to hop on the Halsted or Ashland bus puts you 15 minutes from the densest parts of the North side and Pilsen.

And, like you mention, it's far more accessible by car than most of downtown. No need to pile onto the Ohio Feeder or wait in gridlocked traffic on Lake Street trying to get into the Loop. There's probably a dozen ramps directly into the neighborhood from Ashland and 290 to Chicago and Ogden on the Kennedy.

Expanding DX zoning across the entire West Loop and making people pay into the South and West side to get it was one of the most brilliant urban planning moves in the last 20 years in the US. Other cities currently struggling with crippling affordability crises would kill to be able to do something like that. As far as I'm concerned they should do it again in 5 years and push the Western border of downtown at least to Damen, probably Western. The entire IMD should be included in that.

If people think there's not enough transit, simply add more stops on the Blue, Pink, and Green Line. Add a Metra Station between Pilsen and the IMD, add more along Kinzie. No downtown district needs more than three transit lines and multiple commuter stations.

Try the 151 bus and 147 buses If you are 1blk from LSD

Great round up Harry.

Pink Line United Center stop would be helpful

On odgen and jackson for sure. :D

My understanding is that Wirtz (and possibly Reinsdorf?) has an ownership stake in the UC's adjacent lots, and probably wants to keep the ancillary parking income flowing while watching the adjacent areas in two directions canyonize with highrises.

CTA studied the Near West area about 15 years ago and looked at the pros and cons of various station sites around the UC. Given the realities today, the Green Line at Damen makes more sense than Pink at Madison because:
1) Green Line covers more of the city, out to Oak Park and the South Side
2) there is a major bus transfer to the #50
3) the combination of #50 bus + Green Line is a reliever for the overcrowded Blue Line esp. for Fulton Market workers.

Providing the best service to the United Center is like the 4th-level priority here, it really is an investment in restoring a missing link in the citywide network. The United Center just explains why they are building a new stop at Damen and not Western, which would also serve goals #1-3 equally well.

If they built a Pink Line stop at Madison, it would serve the UC very well but wouldn't add much to the overall CTA network. There would be a transfer to the #20 bus, but that wouldn't be a busy transfer because both the #20 and the Pink Line go to the Loop. There isn't much residential development in that area either; outside of game days, the station would be very poorly used unless the UC parking lots ever fill in with dense residential. Lastly, the Pink Line isn't really set up for gameday crowds. It only runs 4-car trains and the headways aren't that great. The Green Line runs 6-car trains, so there's a lot more capacity to hold sports fans and concert-goers.

but i think the point others are making is that a in less ass-backwards city, a centrally-located 20,000 seat arena that hosts an average of 200 events a year and sits within 750 feet of a rapid transit ROW would've had a direct-access station added there ages ago.

priorities or not, chicago just seems really fucking bad at picking off some of the lowest hanging fruit sometimes.

I’d argue the Pink line station would work for another time that is not today or the near future. Maybe some day in the distant future. Anyone I know going to hawks or bulls game is grabbing drinks in the west loop beforehand and then walks over. After the game, it’s buses loading up along Damen and Ashland, and they sure do get a lot of passengers. The pink line might make sense only after the game if you needed to get back to the red line or live downtown. I bet you’d fill only 1 train though. This station felt like a priority and then I finally realized it made no sense at the moment

^ for me, the easiest way (least walking) to get from my home up in lincoln square down to the UC on PT is to take the western express (x49) or regular western bus (49) down to the madison bus (20).

i can conversely take the brown line down to the loop and transfer to pink at washington/wells and take that out to ashland and then walk over to the UC from there, but that 10 minute walk is enough of a time penalty to make the bus route faster and/or more convenient (the particularly more convenient when the weather is less than ideal, as is often the case for bulls/hawks games).

however, if there were a pink line stop at madison (only a 2 minute walk from the UC's front door), i'd never consider taking the bus again.

i STRONGLY suspect that there would be far more than one trainload of other UC attendees who would find similar such calculus advantageous to them as well.

I see it the other way - the city will build an L stop if/when the team owners are ready to get serious about developing their parking lots (and the privately owned lots run by Wirtz/Reinsdorf cronies). Remember, developing those lots probably means the overall supply of parking goes down, and many fans will have to look for alternatives. That, plus any new land uses in the parking lot area unrelated to sports (residential, bars/restaurants, hotels) might actually provide enough traffic to support a station investment.

Right now, I don’t blame the city at all for focusing in a Damen stop that only kinda serves the UC. The management of the UC has made no indications that they want to encourage fans to arrive by transit. If they’re not serious about it, the city shouldn’t be either. It has to be a partnership to turn the UC into a transit-oriented facility like MSG, Barclays or CapitalOne Arena.

again, in a less ass-backwards city, every single last lever of pressure would've have been brought to bear by the city upon the UC's shitty ownership to turn it into a more of a transit-oriented facility.

don't ask, dictate!

^ Who's priority?

Why should building an L stop to the UC be a priority to Chicago and its taxpayers?

I'm not asking why it should be a priority to Skyscraperpage enthusiasts who think trains that they hardly use are cool and that "it will make us more hip like Barcelona", although I am sure that it is from this exact perspective that my answer will arise.

The question is: why does Chicago need an L stop built today, in 2022, at 2022? It won't do diddly shit for anybody. And it will cost like $200 million.

^ because a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year and sits within 750' of an existing rapid transit ROW would already have a dedicated stop in any city that wasn't stupid.


20,000 people.

200 days/year.

4,000,000 people total.

strictly from a mathematical perspective, it's a complete no-brainer location for rail transit.

Do you hear yourself?

Maybe tax the new sportsbook they just allowed at the UC to cover it? Then you can have all the gambling junkies have easy access...its a win win

Only someone who's lived in a time where U.S. cities are mostly getting smaller or stagnating would ask something like that. People said the exact. same. thing. about the Morgan stop just a few years ago. We have a whole neighborhood that has a train running through it and there's no stop. It's close to downtown. Why plan for failure? Put a stop there and eventually it's going to pay off by leveraging our already considerable assets with transit.

There are people who spend over 30 minutes on the Red Line now that would love to spend 15 minutes on the Green Line to get to the Loop. And if it's only a 10 minute Divy ride to Fulton Market or Wicker Park, that's how you turn development on like a spigot.

Just 10 years ago if you lived at Fulton and May people would be like, "Where?" Now is might cost you seven figures. Short memories.

Most Americans in a nutshell, right there.

Newly opened Chase Center (opened Sept 2019) also has a Muni Metro stop. The T Third Line was already there before it was built, although the platforms were split into a northbound side platform and southbound side platform. During arena construction, they redid the station and combined it into a single island extended platform, to accommodate two two-car trains in each direction.

To me it seems like a no brainer to add an infill station to an existing line to service United Center especially in a high public transit usage city like Chicago.

https://goo.gl/maps/Bw6HiRpfCLDqrdyH8

When the Central Subway extension opens, the T Third Line will merge with the Central Subway to connect to Chinatown going through downtown SF rather than looping around the Embarcadero.
https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/...ys_web_3x2.gif