oh. well. i can't say i have an answer to that, not being knowledgeable enough to rebut it but not being dismissive enough of suburban transit to agree with it.

The article also says that these suburbs don't have a PRAYER in stopping this project (thank God).

Not that I like that STAR line project, but anything that helps relieve Chicago's freight rail bottleneck is ultimately good for the local economy

Its key for the national ecconomy too. It takes a train 48 hours on average to reach the Chicago area from the west coast and takes another 48 hours to get through the bottleneck. Some frieght is rerouted through other cities, but Chicago is where the majority of trans-continential railroad routes pass through, and since we don't build new rail lines anymore and abondonded others, using what we have left to the fullest extent possibile is what is in store for the future.

I loathe these whinny suburbanites. DON"T MOVE NEXT TO RAILROAD DUMBSHITS! Has entitement really gotten this out of control, or is a bigger segment of the population just plain stupid these days?

The problem is the court system has over the years moved form a system of correcting wrongs and making parties whole to something people use to simply annoy the crap out of others and waste their money in the hopes of reaching a settlement or a payout.

Suits like this usually get dismissed fairly quickly on summary judgment, but the mere fact that they're filed raises the cost of almost everything companies do. I guess it's a matter of balancing the right to seek a court remedy with the high costs involved.

I'm sure that CN would be happy to cooperate with Barrington's construction of a grade separation to prevent traffic congestion from trains.

I was watching WGN this afternoon and their reporter said there were talks going on this morning between the big wigs at the state level, city level, and transit officials. Mayor Daley was part of the talks this morning, but then he left early, leaving some of his people there to continue in the meeting. According to the WGN reporter, he left over frustrations with the way the talks were going. He wants both a short term & long term fix and apparently the talks this morning weren't addressing both.

Why dont the douchbags who represent Illinois in congress do something at the Hill. :hell: :hell:

sorry folks low blood sugar

I haven't really spent much time on the transit thread, so maybe I'm being redundent

I read a letter to the editor today in the Suntimes, and I read the most ridiculous thing I've ever read concerning transit. The person (who lived in a far northwest suburb, I believe) proposed that the city actually just get rid of the El in the Loop. She said if we want to become a major player (like New York) we need to just cut up the el tracks and remove them. She didn't propose any kind of replacement idea, but mentioned that new york had done the same thing a couple of their downtown areas.

My initial reaction: the el tracks are one of those things that make chicago chicago. Even if she's right and the tracks suck and a more pleasing and efficient plan can be implemented, I'm willing to live with "mediocrity" because I love riding the train in the loop.

But as I thought about it more, I can't help but wonder what it'd be like if we did get rid of it and replaced with a subway that runs in a similar fashion. Once we got over the change and the ridiculously expensive cost of replacement, could chicago be a better place?

This is pretty infuriating:

Daley + Blago + Madigan + their egos + a small space = NUCLEAR MELTDOWN

It's simple physics

Do yourselves a favor and don't read the comments following the story. I think my IQ just dropped 10 points.

Actually, I'm getting involved with the anti-CN coalition purely to introduce some logic into this process (my main idea is splitting the cost of improvements between municipalities and CN.)

The freight tracks in Chicago were all grade-separated 80-100 years ago to remove the trains from the busy streets below. Today, grade-separation is usually a matter of moving the crossing roads onto over or underpasses. Road overpasses create unsightly views and underpasses have drainage issues. They're both relatively inexpensive solutions, though.

Has anybody done any cost-benefit studies of grade-separation by modifying the rail tracks? I think a open-cut arrangement like the one in Winnetka is desirable. At several points in Barrington, the land drops off and the railroad becomes higher than grade level, so it wouldn't involve as much excavation as it seems. This is of course extremely unrealistic, but it's what I'd like to see happen in a perfect world. Sound-barrier technology also exists that is reasonably-priced, and could be implemented relatively quickly.

So far, the Barrington coalition's strategy is purely aimed at stalling CN and putting off the approval of the EJ&E purchase by requiring CN to perform an Environmental Impact Statement. All this will do is postpone the increase in rail traffic, and the problems with road traffic will be even worse as more development happens in the surrounding area.

Rather than creating bad blood with CN by angrily delaying them at every turn, why not work cooperatively with them on mitigation projects?

Palatine did some studies on putting Palatine Rd under the UP NW line in 2004 I believe. At evening rush it can back up a lot when the Metra trains are 5 minutes apart. Arlington Heights might have done something similar for Arlington Heights road.

The results of the Palatine survey were that it wasn't worth the cost and effort, but I don't remember how far off the numbers were.
I'll see if I can dig up the study.

I thought this comment was pretty good..


I suggest these so-called leaders have their meeting in an el train endlessly circling the loop until they have a solution. There will be no bathroom breaks. (Isn't that what some riders use the little one seat booth at the end of the cars for?)
No food or beverages. Every time the el goes round the loop once each "leader" will pay $2 out of his own pocket.

I also suggest voter vote these idiots out of office. And if no one is running against use your vote for a right in protest cause the uncontested candidates will win no matter what you do.

Posted by: MACK | Nov 14, 2007 2:46:22 PM

Thanks. I don't think high costs will be a very big deterrent to many people when weighed against the spectre of... gasp... moderately-heavy traffic! Remember, we're Barrington - we're used to wasteful spending. :haha:

Cary recently (within the last 20 years) built a nice underpass on Cary-Algonquin Road, which is nowhere near as highly-traveled as Northwest Highway, Palatine Road, Arlington Heights Road, Lake-Cook Road, or Highway 59.

Franklin Park also has built a new underpass on Grand Avenue as part of CREATE.

The chances of Barrington building an underpass at Hwy 14/Northwest Hwy are very good, considering the road's tremendous volume of traffic. The other grade crossings, probably not.

I remember when Cary-Algonquin road used to have an overpass over Northwest Highway and then had a grade crossing at the top of the embankmet. I thought the underpass came about because of the need to replace the crumbeling two lane bridge, moreso than because of traffic volume.

Grand Avenue was desperately needed because the trains at that location are passing between yards and often stop across the roadway if there is a backlog or delay in switching.

Did I hear correctly on the radio yesterday morning that the tax increase proposed by some to fund the CTA that the governor is against would only mean Chicagoans paying an extra 25 cents for every $100 spent, and residents in the 6 county region would only be paying an extra 50 cents for every $100 spent? That's what someone was saying that was in support of the tax increase as opposed to raising fares which would obviously hit riders much harder than the measely 25 cent tax increase on $100 spent.

Sounds about right - it's a quarter of a percent increase in the RTA tax. That would be the bill Julie Hamos introduced. It is pretty much dead because Blago wants casinos instead and refuses to allow any tax increases. I think there is also a Republican proposal to raise the gas tax and give some of the money to the RTA and the remainder would be used for roads projects downstate. But again, Blago refuses to even consider it.

Blago calls out Madigan for not bringing the sales tax plan to a vote in the Senate, but then pledges to veto that same tax plan should the Senate pass it.

IL government is full of shit.

I think the gas-tax plan would have some momentum if not for the governor's attitude. As it stands, I don't think any plan for transit-funding can secure a veto-proof majority, so the governor can basically dictate his terms and the 51-65% of legislators have to comply if they want to get anything passed at all.

I don't get it. Blago doesn't want to burden poor people with a sales tax, but at the same time it is the poor people who rely the most on transit.

So if he drops the ball on transit, he still ends up burdening them. Makes no sense

I kind of liked the idea of redirecting the gas-tax in the 6 CHicagoland counties to go to the CTA.

He's acting like a little child because the legislature shot down (hard) the gross receipts tax he was pushing earlier this year to fund his health care initiatives.

^ Yes. They not only shot it down but embarassed him in the process (deservingly too since the GRT was one of the worst ideas to come out of Springfield in recent memory). Maybe Blago can get some "testicular verility" (his words not mine) and show some leadership on this issue.

This discussion is from 2 weeks ago, but I have since learned information that caused me to change my original response to this post (my original response: local Woodlawn groups worried about crime fought to tear the el down and now the area is "vibrant" with 200K and 300K condos):

basically, the Woodlawn groups (who were church based in a crime ridden area) should have learned from the experiences of another church-based group in a crime-ridden area, New Bethel Life, in West Garfield Park, that, instead of fighting for the Lake St. Green Line El to be dismantled, instead built around it: an arts center, a community center at Lake St. & Pulaski (i.e. right next to the El), senior housing, residential housing that they are now trying to sell at affordable rates and market price, retail development etc. etc. Instead of seeking to get rid of the El, they actually fought for more El stations. I don't know the crime rates in West Garfield Park currently, but they can't be any worse than the areas south of 63rd st. So, basically, (and in contrast to what I argued before) the myopic hostility to transit lines in Woodlawn was extremely short-sighted, leaving those areas with oddly situated housing on what should be a retail thoroughfare, and no little to no public transportation, in contrast to West Garfield Park, which has sought out TOD options and retail development.

anyway, apologies for beating a dead horse. i just wanted to clarify my stance.

^ Glad you came around on that issue. I suppose we'd expect nothing less from the U. of C. ;)

In general, I never support reduction in urban infrastructure.

More nonsense.....

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/barringt...507-s1.article
Barrington leaders speak out against Canadian National's plans

November 15, 2007
By TONY A. SOLANO
Staff Writer

Barrington trustees spoke adamantly at Monday's meeting about the negative impact the purchase of the EJ & E Railroad by the Canadian National Railway could bring to the area.

Barrington trustees spoke adamantly at Monday's meeting about the negative impact the purchase of the EJ & E Railroad by the Canadian National Railway could bring to the area.

Did I read that right "abandon tracks along the city’s lakefront and in the South Loop."

That would be nice :banana: :yes: :banana:

More sheer idiocy from my neighbors... my god. Absolutely NOBODY is talking solutions, only griping about the problems and campaigning against the increase in trains - as if they have any power to stop it.

Seriously, all we can do is plan around the increase in traffic, and make our town better and safer in the process.

I was working with this idea over the weekend, and I'm posting it in response to a comment in the Boom Rundown thread.

I've thought about it too.

The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5...ontlinelb3.jpg

[QUOTE]The Lakefront Line - built in several phases. Part I involves the dedication of two tracks along the Metra Electric line to regular CTA trains, and the construction of stations every 1/2 mile. Part II is a tunnel bored from South Water Street Station beneath Stetson and under the river, north up Columbus/Fairbanks/DeWitt, west on Delaware, and then up Rush Street and Division to meet and join the Red Line tracks at an expanded Clark/Division Station. Part III goes north from Clark/Division along LaSalle, Clark, and Broadway to meet the Red Line tracks at Wilson. (This third part is sort of a wish-list item, but Part II is serious)[QUOTE]

This should be on the agenda. But instead we'll be talking about propping up the existing El system for the foreseeable future... As someone who lives on the north side but works in hyde park though, I can say I'd ride this every day and happily so.

Obviously, it would be great for the olympics too. Maybe once Obama become prez he'll help shepherd through some federal funds for this kind of project.

Looks pretty good. I would run the "Lakefront Line" a block further east south of the river, so that it's accessible from Lakeshore East (station would be under the stairs south of Aqua). I know this would require a new tunnel through Grant Park rather than running along the existing South Shore tracks, but 1) I'm not sure there's extra capacity on those tracks and 2) it can't be that tough to dig a trench through the park, as Columbus should be an easy road to close (given that I don't feel it's existence is necessary, anyway).

I would, however, run this line west along Chicago Avenue to meet up with the existing Blue Line, rather than north along the lake, at least for the first phase. I know that there are parts of Lakeview/Lincoln Park near Lake Shore Drive that are pretty far east of the Red and Brown lines, but these are well-developed neighborhoods and I know a lot of people who take the bus downtown just fine.

Running it west to meet the Blue Line provides the huge benefit of allowing transit between the part of downtown north of the river and the airport without going into the Loop, and allows commuting to this neighborhood without going into the Loop. The whole North Michigan Ave / Streeterville / River North area is really a second downtown in Chicago, much like Midtown in New York, albeit conjoined with the Loop across the river. Having transit lines that go directly into this area from other parts of the city (other than the north lakefront) without a transfer in the Loop could do wonders for the efficiency and convenience of the whole system.

Eventually, this could be extended west along Chicago Avenue, past the Blue Line, and then begin to run under Grand Avenue when it crosses Chicago at about California. End result would be to fill a big gap in transit coverage on the West / Northwest side as the Green Line and Blue Line become further and further apart.

Whatever happened to the Circle Line? That was supposed to connect the Red/Brown lines and the Blue line under North Avenue, right?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ck=1&cset=true

For some, I-PASS costs less upfront
Jon Hilkevitch
November 26, 2007

Q: "What, if anything, is the city of Chicago's plan for the Kinzie Street bridge over the Chicago River in the downtown? This eyesore is permanently stuck in the up position and it appears to be of no purpose anymore. Will it stay up forever?"

--------
The answer continues on page 2

^ what a tease. subscribers only :(

^ It doesn't say too much, actually, except that there are no plans to remove it (obviously, since landmarking is happening), and that it is still under private ownership.

However, quotes like the one above about the "eyesores" are really evidence that the city made a very wise decision to protect some (not enough) of these bridges before the eyesore camp (probably new-condo dwellers?) gets a strong enough voice.

WGN's top news story this evening was something about a possible solution to the RTA funding problem that is getting support from some of the state's top politicians, including the governor. I'm not sure exactly where the money is coming from as the WGN report didn't seem particularly clear to me on the first viewing. There was something about taking money from the state's budget that covers things such as welfare & other programs, and redirecting it to the RTA. They interviewed Julie Hamos, D - Evanston, quickly during the news piece and she commented that she felt downstate politicians might not be in support of it as it would mean taking their money that funds these state programs and instead using it for regional purposes up here. I don't think she actually came out in opposition, just that she thought it might have difficulties getting support from downstaters.

^^^ I hate downstate, we should totally kick them out of Illinois come next constitutional referendum...

When they're in a decaying state, I don't think it's unreasonable for many people to consider them eyesores....it takes a certain type to envision the structure as it once was, or to fully grasp or appreciate its significance. Not an argument for removal, but more an argument for eventual rehabilitation. Perhaps it's nit-picking, but I think it's worth pointing out, as the argument of preserving these as beautiful structures (be it an old bridge, St. Stephen's Church in Hyde Park, etc.) won't gain much traction outside of a very narrow architecture/preservation-minded sector. A rusted/rotting/crumbling historic structure is quite likely an eyesore, but that doesn't mean that at minimum there aren't many or all elements worth preserving or saving (see: Ogden viaduct. What ever happened to those relief sculptures, speaking of cool old bridges?)

Q: Why the hell do people, scarily including Hilkevitch, keep calling this the Kinzie Street Bridge? I have fond memories of driving across the Kinzie Street Bridge - many of them from last week, like when I was driving behind the Merchandise Mart headed towards Halsted.

Kinzie Street has a fine bridge and it's not stuck in the up position, thank you very much. At a minimum they need to call it the Carroll Street Bridge or something.

CDOT has them in storage. One was on display in the State Street bridgehouse when that was a bridge museum/art gallery in the late 90s.

CTA solution on track?
Madigan accepts Blagojevich, GOP funding plan

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) backed off their longstanding push to increase sales taxes in Cook and the collar counties by a quarter percent to fund mass-transit.

Saying it is not his “preferred solution,” Madigan indicated he would support a plan by Gov. Blagojevich and House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) to redirect $385 million in state sales taxes on fuel to the Regional Transportation Authority.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/6...112607.article

Haha - there are two discussions on the C&NW Kinzie Street Bridge right now. The one in the Transit thread focuses on the preservation merits of the bridge, and the discussion in the General Developments thread focuses on the transit usage of the bridge. I guess they should be flip-flopped?

Check this out. Timing is everything I just read that page this morning.

SSDD

^ Wow, obscure. I'll have to get over to St. Iggy to have a look. I figured they were sitting somewhere collecting dust and forgotten.

This lakefront line is redundant. You COULD reach Hyde Park from the North Side with the Metra Electric with one transfer at Washington/Lake (through the Pedway) IF we had a Universal Fare Card AND the Metra ran the Electric trains during non-peak hours as often as they run them during peak hours. I don't see the point in creating another duplicative train route along the Electric tracks coupled with an expensive subway project under the river just to provide service between the North side and Hyde Park. And in any case, the UFC + increased Metra service is lot more likely than a huge new capital project that hasn't even been approved for alternative analysis by the Feds. The tragedy of the city's train system is that a lot of the components are already in place. it just needs a bit of tweaking in certain areas to make it viable for and accessible to multiple areas (e.g. making the Metra Electric, and other Metra lines more than just peak-hour commuter lines).

No offense, but the Circle Line is a poor example. It will serve both some existing fairly high-density areas (Wicker Park, Ukranian Villiage, Pilsen) as well as some areas that are increasing fairly rapidly in density (the area around the United Center, the Medical Campus), and make it more possible to help spread the density around. Additionally, the areas served by the Circle Line are going to become more dense over the next 20 years even if we don't build the Circle Line. Rather than myopically only building in the (now even more expensive to build in) dense areas, building in areas that have the inertia to become dense is important. 40 years ago, it was proposed to build a subway from the West Loop to Streeterville and also branching south to McCormick Place through what is now the Central Station area. At the time, most of those places had moderate and/or decreasing density, but planners saw that those areas would become very dense in the future. Unfortunately, they chickened out. Well, what happened in the last 40 years? Where is our biggest need for a rail line?

You already mentioned it - from the West Loop to Streeterville/Gold Coast, followed closely by a line from Streeterville/Gold Coast to the McCormick Place area. Given the density already in those areas and scheduled to continue, not building the original Central Area Distributor subway (under Monroe from the West Loop to Grant Park and then north around the Watertower and South to McCormick) was <I>stupid</I> and short-sighted. Not building it now is because it would cost 5 times as much, but not building the Circle Line would be equally stupid. Chicago needs both.

The better example is the stupid billion-dollar Star Line.

The biggest problem with Chicago transit today, though, is the refusal of the city to force high-density development within 3/8 of a mile of all existing "L" stops. If they did that, not only would it help all areas economically with "L" lines, but it would dramatically increase "L" ridership.

a-to-the-men.

In fact, without encouraging specifically more employment density along the Circle Line route, it would never reach a critical mass of ridership to justify the investment (I'm thinking, particularly in the far West Loop/Ashland area, get some actual mid-rise and high-rise office towers there).

The "saving time on cross-town trips" was always a spotty argument, seeing as the Circle Line is only a couple stops out from the downtown transfer points and the extra transfer negates any in-vehicle time savings.

As it is, the only employment district for which the Circle Line would improve access is the Medical District, which already has a presentable transit mode share (i.e. the Circle Line wouldn't generate that many new transit trips on account of the IMD, rather just siphoning them from other existing services). And for trips to the Loop, well, we've already got our radial system for that.

The Mid-City line is the time-saver. The Circle Line is a genesis for expanding the downtown core. Unless the city is on board with the latter, it's DOA.

I just checked out the new Montrose & Sedgwick stations today and I must say they're quite nice. I particularly like the Sedgwick station since they incorporated the old brick stationhouse into the new design. It's my understanding they're also doing this at the Damen stop which I think is great (and maybe one additional stop as well?). I do have one little nitpick for both stops though. At Montrose I don't like that the canopy is way at the other end of the platform from where people will be entering. If it's raining, riders will have to walk all the way down the platform to reach the canopy for cover. And at Sedgwick, the heating area isn't positioned all that well. The heat coils up above are too far forward from the little enclosure that's been created. If you want to feel the heat, you have to step forward away from the enclosure which defeats the purpose because you get hit by gusty winds. And if you step back into the enclosure to avoid the winds, you're too far back to feel any warmth from the heat coils. Two nitpicks... but otherwise I must say I like the new stations. :)

transit plan failed.

fuck this state.

:maddown:

:yuck:

Wow, this blows. I thought it would actually pass this time.