Ask CDOT.

Various stations have been rebuilt over the years though more slowly than is needed. The Chicago Red Line station is next on the list for renovation (and it really needs it).

Some of the Loop stations are indeed somewhat dilapidated (Wabash) with State/Lake being in really terrible shape and much to small to serve it's purpose as a significant transfer station.

I think you mean Grand Red Line station is next. And I consider the Chicago station a "monumental new one," as nothing except the basic trainroom survives from the old station.

Though expansion at Grand and Chicago can be justified by changing traffic patterns, I'm anguished to see the very handsome Moderne finishes of Chicago's downtown subways torn out simply because they need cleaning, restoration or lighting. If you look behind the grime and insensitive conduit installation, Chicago's downtown subway stations are a very elegant example of PWA Moderne, with curved gray glass tile guiding you into mezzanine floorplans geometrically designed for maximum efficiency and safety, and graceful touches like incised Futura lettering and "radio black" marble on the stairway walls. We should be restoring those, not covering them up with pseudo-Victorian slipcovers or New York-style mosaics.

^ Yes, exactly. All they need is to uncover the greatness, and to accentuate it tastefully so that people no longer read them as utilitarian places with no sense of style.

The stations were also a monumental and groundbreaking achievement in the field of soil engineering.

Yes, Grand. That's what I get for posting before I've had enough coffee.

Tell me more. I've recently been doing some research on Chicago's subway construction in the engineering literature and didn't see any reference to this.

^ Oh gosh, that was a long time ago that I uncovered the information on this. I will go back through my notes and PM you if I can remember where the info is.

You might try looking into the career of Karl von Terzaghi, one of the most prominent US (later non-US) soils engineers. He was the consultant to the project, and I believe this might lead you to other facts about the Chicago Subway.

..

The $6 billion figure is the CTA wish list, to achieve a state of good repair throughout the system would cost a more modest $2.5 billion.

To my mind the the biggest failing of the transit system layout is that the two busiest METRA stations are totally disconnected from the CTA's rail system. The West Loop Transportation Center proposal is the only realistic solution I've seen that would address the problem.

I wouldn't say they're totally disconnected. It's what, a 3 minute walk from Ogilvie's north exits to the Clinton L station?
In a perfect world they'd be the same building, but I've never had issue making the transfer.

It isn't exactly a piece of cake to get to the Red Line from either station or the Blue from Ogilvie, especially for people from out of town.

A single station that integrates Union/Ogivie Metra and Amtrak services, CTA bus and rail (Blue line connection), intercity Bus, and plans for future services (Light Rail, High Speed rail, etc) would be hugely beneficial.

I like the idea of a short subway under Clinton from Lake to Congress. The flying junction at Lake/Canal already exists (thank you, 1940s engineers!), and under Clinton it could be largely cut-and-cover, i.e. cheaper than deep tunneling. The Clinton ROW has supposedly been preserved from having many utilities running underneath, so that's one less cost. A station next to Ogilvie, a station next to Union, then a junction just east or west of the Clinton Blue Line station (this would be the most expensive part, a few hundred million). Then you've basically got a Blue Line Loop.

But I guess the scope of this proposal is too small or something, since the only one in the long range plans is the full Clinton/Larabee subway (Red Line bypass), which is total overkill and doesn't even give particularly advantageous routing for connecting the Metra stations. Bah. Politics.

Like the Shuttle line in NYC, under 42nd street from Times Square to Grand Central Station? Just a single line going back and forth?

It would be either integrated as part of the regular Blue Line service or made a loop circuit through the Dearborn subway. It could effectively be a 2nd loop moving people from the State St. subway and elevated into Union and Ogilvie.

Granted it would be better if the WLTC was built for integration purposes.

I wouldn't call Randolph/Wabash or Adams/Wabash dilapidated. Madison is pretty bad but it could be really nice given, oh, $20 million :) . Randolph is awesome because it is straight out of the 50s, right down to the chrome sign. Love the enclosed waiting room, especially. Adams was actually renovated in 1988 so it probably won't be renovated again too soon.

The Grand renovation is a nice start. Pretty soon all the tourist stations will be renovated. Clark/Division is next after Grand, I believe, though some of the funding for it has been earmarked for Grand's renovation. Neither North/Clybourn (love the old stationhouse, but it needs work, especially given the rising importance of the area) or Harrison (2 turnstiles?? In the middle of the college district??...and it's a pretty nasty station anyway) are even on the renovation list, at least anytime soon.

Personally, I have trouble liking the WPA Moderne style of the subways. Even the original photos look extremely plain. I guess that's the point, but I think the mosaics add to it, though they are a bit corny.

Also, I'm definitely for keeping the elevated. In this time of cheapskate corrupt, inefficient governments (especially ours), I doubt a subway under the Loop 'L' could even get built (note the crazy bureaucracy and 12-year timeline for the first phase of the new Second Avenue Subway in New York.) Chicago chose to keep the 'L' (well, mostly through momentum, but still...) whereas New York buried its 'L' lines. That choice defines our city, and no episode of ER would be the same without that choice. And without the elevated lines, we would never get those incredible upper-floor views of the canyons at the same time as the streets below that the 'L' and its platforms provide. So, I'll fight for keeping it, that beautiful ancient relic that I depend upon.

Madison is in pretty bad shape, Randolph not as much so though still in need of some work. I'd still have to rate them (and State/Lake) as being in the worst condition of all the loop stations.

CDOT has the say on what gets renovated when in the subway since they own it. The Grand renovation will be a welcome event. The existing station's mezzanine is too small and way too dingy to be left alone, especially when you consider the massive tourist presence in the area. It is flat out embarrassing at this point. Even the platform area is depressingly filthy with seemingly decades of accumulated grime covering the tube walls.

Can't they both be done? Build only the segment from Lake to Congress, but engineer the junctions at the north and south ends of the new subway with stubs pointing north and south to allow for future expansion. Who knows, it might take another 2 generations to use them, but they'll be there.

The point of the Clinton/Larrabee Subway is to relieve the traffic in the State Street Subway that would be created when Circle Line trains are routed through there. Since we have no Circle Line, and people keep telling me it's pointless without a comprehensive TOD plan, I don't see the Larrabee or South Clinton subways happening anytime soon, either.

Why is it that in a city of Chicago's size with so much tax revenue, there's no money left over for transit? Should $6 billion really be such an unachievable figure? Really and truly?

I'm gonna ask a somewhat obvious question (or maybe not).

Do y'all think that transit improvements should serve existing development, or dictate new development in low-density areas?

Compare, say, the Carroll Transitway with the Circle Line. The Carroll Transitway serves a huge corridor and provides service to an extremely popular trip - going from the West Loop commuter stations to Streeterville destinations like the Mag Mile and Navy Pier. Currently, the thousands of people per year who make this trip either use bus, taxi, or foot - but they're already making that trip somehow. These thousands of people have effected lots of dense development around the Mag Mile, simply because of their numbers. A few people choose to drive from home to avoid the long trip across the Loop from the Metra stations.

The upside to this type of transit-building is that you have guaranteed high levels of ridership. The downside is that the new transit line won't really serve to increase development levels along its route, since high-density development already exists there. Another downside is that, with heavy, tall buildings over much of the corridor, the route needs to conform to the streetgrid more, which limits your turning radii and makes diagonals very tricky.

The Circle Line, on the other hand, attempts to create a totally new trip type - transferring from Metra lines and CTA lines to other Metra/CTA lines without going downtown. Crosstown trips like this haven't ever been facilitated by Chicago's rail network, which means that for many years, people have avoided rail for crosstown trips, using either buses or driving.

So by building the Circle Line, you are creating a new corridor and a new trip type, and then hoping that people start making that trip. Once the transit line is in place, you then hope that developers latch on to the possibilities and over time, restructure the city to accommodate the new line. These lines can, in essence, be built anywhere. There are infinite possibilities.

The upside is that you can bring development to low-density, perhaps poverty-stricken areas. The construction of new lines is also easier through low-density neighborhoods, since property values are lower. The downside is that you run the risk of low ridership, making the new line a tremendous waste of money.

I think it's great to propose plenty of new CTA and Metra lines that look good on a map, but we all need to remember that the most popular commutes in Chicagoland still lead from outlying areas to downtown. There's plenty of other commutes, but they all have highly-dispersed start and end points that are difficult to serve with transit.

I definitely think the most important new transit proposal is the Red Line extension. Talk about an untapped market... there are hundreds of thousands of people down there in the city alone, not to mention the suburbs that it will also serve, that have no transit except Metra (which is nice during rush hours but not too useful otherwise) and a few buses that go miles out of their way to connect to the 95th/Dan Ryan terminal.

What is this all about?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servic...,5140885.story


TRIBUNE EXCLUSIVE: O'Hare stuck with flight cap: FAA decision shocks city, threatens runway project funding

By Jon Hilkevitch

Tribune transportation reporter

November 10, 2007

In an about-face, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday that a 3-year-old cap on flights into O'Hare International Airport won't be lifted in November 2008, when the first new runway is scheduled to open.

The policy reversal delivers a potential setback to the city's $15 billion expansion plans at O'Hare and could hamper new airline competition that promised to benefit consumers.

During a visit to Chicago, Henry Krakowski, the FAA's new chief of air-traffic operations, told the Tribune that the decision to extend controls on airline arrivals at O'Hare is aimed at keeping flight delays and cancellations in check.

"The new runway will get traffic on and off the airport faster," Krakowski said. But it won't lead to a significant increase in flights, he said.

...

Krakowski's disclosure that the flight caps won't be lifted a year from now took city officials by surprise.

"When flight caps were proposed for O'Hare, the city was assured that they would sunset in 2008," said Karen Pride, spokeswoman for the city's Department of Aviation. Rosemarie Andolino, director of the O'Hare expansion project, said that based on city projections, O'Hare would be able to handle an additional 50,000 flights annually after the first new O'Hare runway opens and an existing runway is extended.

FAA projections were far lower.

"I think we need to sit down with Mr. Krakowski because he is new to this position," Andolino said. "The flight caps are not supposed to be in place for perpetuity."

Robert Everson, the FAA's tactical operations program director in the Midwest, confirmed Krakowski's assessment that the initial airfield changes are designed to address delays, not boost capacity.

"The new runway is going to relieve some congestion, but not all delays are going to go away," Everson said.

...

The FAA originally promised that the O'Hare restrictions, limiting the airlines to a maximum of 88 arrivals per hour, would be eliminated when the first new runway opened as part of an eventual eight-runway reconfiguration of the airfield.

Before the FAA restrictions, the airlines often scheduled as many as 120 arrivals per hour during busy periods. Combined with an equal number of departures, that often created gridlock at the airport and hours-long flight delays in Chicago and elsewhere.

FAA officials said the opening of the first new O'Hare runway, at the north end of the airfield, likely won't increase flights much because of its proximity to several existing runways.

"You really don't get much capacity increase until you go to Phase Two with the next runway on the south end," said Krakowski, a former United executive who was an O'Hare-based captain at the airline for many years.

But so far, the airlines have not agreed to pay for the second portion of O'Hare expansion, citing concerns about construction delays and spiraling costs.

The Daley administration initially said the massive airport project would be finished in 2013. Lacking airline agreements and still fighting airport opponents in court over the relocation of a nearby cemetery, the city has not set a date for the project's completion.

The extension of flight caps would severely complicate Chicago's effort to pay for the O'Hare expansion, which is behind schedule and at least $400 million over budget.

...

:(

The CTA is part of the RTA (which also runs Pace and Metra serving the suburbs primarily), which is and always has been funded by the STATE not the city. Spread the word because there are a lot of people that think it's the city's fault for not funding the CTA properly, and that's not the case at all.

I'm pretty sure Chicago could just pay Detroit to send some mobs to burn down southern Illinois for ya'll ;)

At the very least, MSU probably has a department that handles these sorts of things.

I don't know that the two conceptions of transit (dictate new development vs. serve existing demand) are all that mutually exclusive. Yes, the Circle Line will go to currently underdeveloped urban areas, but the point of the Circle Line as I understand it isn't necessarily to serve those areas. It seems instead that the Circle Line will create transit options for entertainment-tourism purposes rather than just merely the daily commute. It allows the everyday commuter to reach areas of the city that otherwise would have been accessible only with a trip downtown and then back out again. I agree that for those commuting to work everyday, the Circle Line is only of minimal importance and that Daley's Carroll Avenue Plan (which, I believe, is also needed) is much more useful. But Chicago's transformation from industrial city to financial/legal/technological service industry city has also transformed Chicago from backwood Midwestern stockyard city to tourism city. To make the city more accessible to its Euro-toting tourist-shoppers, it should make its transit look more like this:

http://subway.umka.org/map-paris.html

than this:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_sd_2005-map.htm

so, in short, the city needs both Carroll Avenue and the Circle Line (and, for that matter, the Cicero Avenue Mid-City Transitway Line).

Or like this.

I think we actually need two circle lines - an inner one that roughly follows the currently proposed route and an outer one that extends the brown line to the Blue line and then follows Cicero down to at least Midway and cuts back to the Red line.

I think that transit should serve existing development, especially where it would generate a lot of rides, all things considered. I'm not going to get into the whole CTA crisis, but you all know what I"m talking about.

We have office towers sprouting up north of the River, another major hospital coming, more residential & hotel development, and of course tourist attractions (MCA, Navy Pier, etc) which, combined, justify a transit line.

On the flip side, I'm not sure how a new transit line in a less populated area will really spur development if the city doesn't have much of a comprehensive TOD strategy.

Agreed. Now we just need a few more billion on top of the 5-8 we already are pleading for.

It's been repeated many times - money for expansion comes from the Feds. Money for operating comes from locally-collected sales taxes, ticket sales, and other sources (including, unfortunately, state bailouts).

The Feds also fund major renovation projects (like the Brown Line) that involve large amounts of construction, and increase capacity.

Guys, I'll put it to you this way: if we ever want to see something that remotely resembles the L network we've dreamed up, then CTA needs to find a way to lower construction costs. It's as simple as that. Hire foreign labor, relax the weird ADA interpretations, and stop building huge expensive new stations when small, conservative ones will do. As the cost of our transit proposals goes down, their likelihood goes up.

Let's see - assuming CTA can cobble up the land that's needed for the Carroll Busway, construction shouldn't require more than 40 or 50 million. Cincinnati is building a streetcar line with 4 miles of track, overhead wire, 18 stops, 6 streetcars, and a maintenance facility for $88 million (and that includes a 20% safety factor!). The sheer cost of new construction in Chicago is appalling.

Anyone know how soon the Montrose & Addison brown line stations will be reopening? They closed down in early December last year and reconstruction was suppose to take 12 months. I would assume we're just 3 weeks away, but I haven't heard if everything is on schedule. I'm also curious if there is any word as to when the Damen stop will be closing down? Will it be as soon as Montrose reopens? When it does I'll have to start using the Western stop (fortunately it's only an extra 2 block walk compared to the Damen stop for me).

Yup, everything is on schedule. Everything you mentioned will happen.

Nov. 8th CTA Press Release

Great News. Cheaper flights and more money for expansion.
 

O'HARE | Limits set to expire as planned: FAA

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/6...-FAA11.article

"The report is wrong," said FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Cory. "We have had no change. The rule has always stated that the caps are in place until Oct. 31, 2008, [and] they're scheduled to be lifted in October of 2008 as planned."

The bids coming in suggest there's a very high probability of antitrust behavior. There definitely needs to be an investigation.

The largest (most expensive) hurdle is going to be the river crossing. The clearance of the existing rail bridge is too low to allow river traffic to clear when in the down position. They are either going to have to demo the existing structure and build a new bridge (Like they had to do at Kinzie) with higher clearance or go under the river.

The politicians who fund such things are the only ones with the power to allow such cost-saving measures in construction.

Yeah....$40-50 mil is way low....costs to procure the vehicles alone will probably be close to that much. The bridge would probably be another $50-100 million (since the old one has to be removed). Station facilities would likely run in the ballpark of $10 mil each for the easy ones, anything requiring excavation or significant utility relocation could be more. Then there's integration with the existing traffic control (signal) systems. Upgrades to maintenance facilities to deal with the new vehicles. Systemwide signage (don't scoff, this is expensive....several million $). Plus, much of the construction has to take place without interuption to the local surroundings....such mitigation factors (for noise, dust, and traffic impacts) will be expensive in their own right, not to mention make the project schedule longer and therefore more expensive. Including overhead costs for architectural services and construction management, I don't see how the thing could possibly come in under $200mil. Likely it would cost in the $300m range for BRT. LRT would be more because of the power delivery infrastructure and signalling costs; would probably require a new substation and of course higher-voltage utility lines.

^ I am nearly positive that this Kinzie bridge was included in the City's landmark designation of old rail bridges not long ago. :tup: So, it probably will have to be worked around when the circulator comes into play.

There would be no room to go around on the western side without demolishing that set of older townhouses, Fulton House, or Riverbend.

As the owner of a unit in Riverbend I don't endorse the latter.;)

Well, rehabbing the bridge would probably be somewhat similar in cost to removing it and performing all-new construction. Given costs for other bridges along the river, something close to $40 mil for design and construction for that bridge seems reasonable; bridges along the north branch no longer have to lift, correct?

The cost of the new North Avenue bridge is estimated at 20ish million. Assuming it overruns (like almost all projects do) say 25-30 million to replace the rail bridge. That also assumes approval can be secured to remove the existing structure.

Edit: Yes no lifting required anymore. The bridge at Grand is now bolted together and I think they only managed it to lift for the inspection by praying to Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, and sacrificing a small goat.

They have signs up in the Damen station now with information. I hadn't been on the brown line for a couple weeks. Thanks for pointing out the press release though. :)

I had a nice pleasant surprise today while riding the brown line from Lakeview back to Lincoln Square. We didn't have to slow down to go through the Southport construction zone! My little trip only required a slow down through the Addison construction. Otherwise both Montrose & Southport we flew through. I was quite happy! :banana: I'll be even happier if they can run trains just as quickly through the construction zones at Damen & Irving Park as they consistently maintained through the Montrose construction. My fingers are crossed.

I heard $21mil for construction only....I would assume design/engineering/management was on the on the order of $5-10million. The Kinzie site is much smaller with less room for staging. I think $40 mil is a reasonable estimate.

There will be 15mph slow zones in place at Damen and Irving Park for a couple months while the foundations and structural steel are repaired...same story as the other Brown Line stations. However, I believe the ties and running rail on the Ravenswood El north of Clark Junction are pretty old (~20 years), it would be a shame if that all starts getting slow zoned just as the station reconstruction is wrapping up. It would be nice to have a state capital program to move stuff like that along so we don't wind up with another O'hare Blue Line fiasco.

...Daley said, speaking from the seventh floor of the State Street Macy's, where he joined Martha Stewart for the ceremonial lighting of the store's 45-foot Christmas tree.:ahhh:

I could not find the puke smile avatar.

Hey at least he got the Frango Mints back, but only the Frango Mints and not the rest of the candy that Macy's will sell.

Oh well.

I suppose this could go under general dev too
 

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27100

Barrington, other suburbs oppose railroad's plan
Nov. 12, 2007
By Bob Tita

Far northwest suburban towns are lining up to oppose Canadian National Railway Co.’s purchase of a lightly used rail line to relieve train traffic congestion in Chicago and close-in suburbs.

The suburban route is key to the railroad’s plan to abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop, where freight trains have long been seen by Mayor Richard M. Daley and developers as an impediment to further gentrification.

---------

Good old commerce clause.

New vehicles? What's wrong with the buses we have? Just pull buses from the cross-Loop routes that are being replaced by the Transitway, and give them a different paint scheme.

As for stations - why are caissons or even major foundations required to build a simple platform? Obviously, several of the platforms will need stairs and elevators up to the upper streets, and the platforms will have to be separated into paid/unpaid areas - so some turnstiles and fences. In the West Loop and Streeterville portions of the route, only Curitiba-style waiting pods are needed.

Can you please explain to me why Cincinnati is able to build 4 miles of new streetcar track, overhead wire, purchase 8 streetcars, build 18 stations, a maintenance facility, and install the TSP systems on stoplights all for $88 million? How is a basic BRT line on an already-existing right-of-way more expensive than building a streetcar? Something really isn't clicking here, if the Cincinnati price is accurate.

I've never been more embarassed to live in Barrington. The traffic problems we have are a result of a poorly-planned road system, not freight trains. If CN can avoid running trains between 6-9am and 5-7pm, there will be very little impact. Everybody here is eager to point the finger at people from other towns, and at outside corporations for all of Barrington's problems.

If I had known about the meeting in advance, I would most assuredly have gone and voiced my opinion.

If you're not even getting nice new BRT vehicles (e.g. this), then why bother? Put in some paint stripes for some bus-only lanes and some signage to disallow turns at certain intersections during rush hour, glorify a few bus shelters, and call it a day with the existing 124, 125, and 157.

Stairs and platforms would require some sort of foundation work, or they would start to crack and buckle before too long. Turnstiles are very expensive, if anything you could consider leaving them out and using the honor system like most LRT systems. The vending machine installations would still run several hundred K per station.

$88 million seems to be the number thrown around by the rail activists there, a group that unfortunately have a long history of both low-balling the cost and high-balling the ridership projections for rail projects in order to get them built. Do you have a breakdown or substantiation of that cost estimate?

Also, the Carroll ROW exists, but it's hardly in shape at the moment to handle BRT traffic.

And don't forget design/management costs with any of this; 25% soft costs is a reasonable overhead burden.

Yeah, I was going to post that when I saw it in the Daily Herald this morning. The new NIMBY group is named Barrington Communities Against CN Rail Congestion

I loved the divaness of this line: "I believe that this has become our communities' worst threat ever," said Dave Nelson, Cuba Township supervisor.

What threat? I live less than a thousand feet from the Union Pacific NW line, with Metra and freight running up and down it, and it's no big deal.
I hope these McMansion nimbys get smashed hard. And of course they don't care that shutting down the freight trains clogs the roads with trucks.

AWWWWWW, HONEY......

I mean I totally agree, I can't believe we're trying to screw over the Anderson family out in Barrington just for the sake of the regions economic health and freight traffic tie-ups through an urban area of 10,000,000 people. Shame on you CN!!

maybe this has already been covered, so I apologize if it has, but won't this impact Metra's STAR Line plans? or will Metra still be able to obtain a ROW?

Well, some of us secretly hope it dooms the STAR Line plan.

There are much smarter ways to serve suburb-to-suburb commuters than to start with poorly located railroad tracks and then look for some way to use them.