SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

the urban politician Apr 26, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 4216418)
Just imagine the futre of CREATE if a McCain-Palin administraton was inplace of the current one.

http://newzblog.files.wordpress.com/...n-mccain21.jpg

I'll veto the first piece of PORK that crosses my desk and make it famous!

denizen467 Apr 28, 2009 5:55 AM

Has there been any mention that any portion of the infrastructure stimulus funds might go to rebuilding Red Line viaducts? I am thinking particularly of Edgewater, Rogers Park, and north and south of there, though there might be crumbling viaducts elsewhere too. It would seem to me that redoing viaducts would be one of the most shovel-ready (or otherwise fast-track) projects there could be (more so than high-speed rail). Some of those bastards are in seriously dangerous-looking shape - and some are kind of impeding major arterials (Hollywood; Loyola; etc.).

For that matter, Metra definitely has some antiquated viaducts too; have those ever come up as priority issues (whether this year or in years past)?

ardecila Apr 28, 2009 6:19 AM

It's my understanding that one of Metra's highest priority issues is rebuilding the UP-N viaduct through the North Side, along with the major capacity upgrade on the UP-NW line. The SouthEast Service and STAR Line, although they have gotten a lot of press, are far in the future. CMAP is smart enough to realize that those two projects have little potential, and CMAP is able to rank regional transportation projects by order of urgency, which IIRC impacts their ability to receive funding from the Feds.

VivaLFuego Apr 28, 2009 2:42 PM

CTA viaducts is a tough call - routine maintenance to keep them safe is done regardless, but complete reconstruction would require a significant amount of design work and planning that would have to be coordinated in some sort of strategic/holistic fashion through the entire corridor, because many viaduct reconstructions would entail de facto station reconstructions.

Despite their ugly appearance, I'm not aware that any/many of the North Main viaducts are in actual unsafe structural condition.

lawfin Apr 28, 2009 4:25 PM

^^^Jarvis CTA stop appears to be in horrible shape. Structurally it may be sound, but it looks like a bomb hit it. I am sure they did not bring the Olympic committee there to see that station

Nowhereman1280 Apr 28, 2009 6:59 PM

^^^ A lot of the viaducts along the embankment look like that. Berwin, Sheridan/Devon, Hollywood, Jarvis, Foster, and others all come to mind. I remember reading somewhere that, despite their appearance, they were way over-built engineered when they were first built in anticipation of heavier trains or something so they can deteriorate a lot before the weight and vibrations of the El would cause them to become structurally unsound.

I don't know why they don't just keep them all freshly painted like they do at Bryn Mawr. Bryn Mawr viaduct is just as bad as Sheridan/Devon, Jarvis, and others, its just much more difficult to see because they keep it freshly painted. All the other ones appear to have been completely painted in the past, but the paint has been allowed to crack and flake off. Anyone know why they stopped paining them?

Mr Downtown Apr 28, 2009 7:37 PM

I hear occasional rumblings about reconstruction of the fill section north of Wilson. A lot of the concrete retaining walls are spalling or collapsing in places. The overpass span beams may be fine, but the seats and abutments have problems and the clearances are obviously from another era. One interesting problem is that no one knows what was used for fill, so there may be remediation problems. I wonder if they could just wrap it all up inside new retaining walls to avoid that.

denizen467 Apr 29, 2009 5:08 AM

Even if they are structurally sound, many of them look like total decrepit embarrassing crap. The extra bracing that was often added between columns really inspires confidence. And who knows when a chunk of stone might fall off?

They one-off did Main Street and Church Street on the Purple Line in the last couple years (without needing to do station work); I would think at least a couple more viaducts could be done without much further ado. That's the medicine that has been called for, I believe: stimulus jobs + transit improvements, soon.

Chicago3rd Apr 30, 2009 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4215875)
Looks like earmarks are still important to members of Congress. I found this tidbit of Rep. Quigley's earmark requests:


Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line - Ogden Streetcar)

Recipient: CTA located at 567 W. Lake, Chicago, IL 60661
Request: $12,150,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's New Starts account.
Request: $3,000,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Alternatives Analysis account.
Description: The construction of the Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line - Ogden Streetcar) will help to manage the growing need for more public transit options. It will also help to prevent overcrowding, provide more efficient transit options to destinations throughout the city, and quicken commute times. Additionally, this project will connect CTA Red and Brown Lines near North/Clybourn with the existing CTA track and structure near Lake/Paulina. The project will also connect the existing CTA Orange Line near Ashland with the existing Pink Line Cermak Branch near 18th Street. Finally, the project will add new CTA and Metra transfer stations along new and existing CTA tracks to the northwest, west, southwest, and south of Chicago's Central area.

Paratransit Vehicles

Recipient: Pace, located at 550 W. Algonquin, Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Request: $960,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Bus and Bus Facilities account.
Description: Pace provides federally mandated ADA paratransit service to the disabled in Chicago. This funding will help Chicago acquire enough vehicles to serve the area. With a complete fleet, the total operating cost of the Chicago paratransit service would decrease significantly.

Union Pacific Northwest Line (UP-NW) Enhancement Project

Recipient: Metra, located at 547 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60661
Request: $5,000,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Small Starts account.
Description: Funding for improvements to the UP-NW line will provide more and faster service on the branch, as well as attract new riders in a growing area and reduce station access times for existing area riders. The project also includes upgrading signals on the main line of UP-NW to allow more express trains to downtown and improved suburb-to-suburb and reverse-commute services. In addition, the two new rail yards will allow for more train capacity and more efficient maintenance.

Great to see! (p.s. It is the Constitutional Right for the House to spend. The House has the purse and is in controll of the purse strings. So why wouldn't it be allowed to direct specific funding towards projects each Congress person feels is important to their jurisdictions?) Kirk has proposed money that is directed at specific projects....has made them public...so the projects can be accounted for.

Via Chicago Apr 30, 2009 4:30 PM

WTF?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,4506178.story
Quote:

By Jon Hilkevitch and Richard Wronski | Tribune reporters
April 30, 2009
About $1 billion worth of mass transit improvements recently approved under the state's mini-capital bill may be in jeopardy, but Chicago-area transit agencies are not yet shelving projects, officials said Wednesday.

Gov. Pat Quinn put a freeze on the transit projects -- but not on road and bridge repairs -- by holding back on the bonding necessary to finance the transit piece, said state Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

ChicagoChicago Apr 30, 2009 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 4225071)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Mr Downtown Apr 30, 2009 6:30 PM

If you read the rest of the story, there's more to this than we yet know.

Katie Ridgway, a spokeswoman for Quinn, responded Wednesday by saying that "there is nothing on hold, and it's the governor's intention that transit projects will get started this construction season." She would not comment further on the issue.


My best guess would be that Gov. Quinn thought there was something fishy about the bond counsel or placement, not the projects themselves.

Chicago3rd Apr 30, 2009 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 4225071)

My email went out to the governor already and I have forwarded the article to all my friends and the social/Church groups I belong to....suggesting they write to Quinn Right now.

He is just seeing what he can get away with.......a trial ballon. If we don't slap him down now....he will let his Bagofpoop real self be seen.

Chicago3rd Apr 30, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 4225299)
If you read the rest of the story, there's more to this than we yet know.

Katie Ridgway, a spokeswoman for Quinn, responded Wednesday by saying that "there is nothing on hold, and it's the governor's intention that transit projects will get started this construction season." She would not comment further on the issue.


My best guess would be that Gov. Quinn thought there was something fishy about the bond counsel or placement, not the projects themselves.

Quinn's PR person is telling us a lie...because we are being told that Quinn's very own COF and BC are telling the transit agencies to halt plans! Who would you believe....PR person hired to take the heat and lie and twist the truth or the people working for Quinn who are in charge of funding????

ALSO the transit agencies are moving ahead....see....a second source is now saying that there is an issue, but they are telling their people to continue forward.....

"He said the three transit agencies were ordered to not commit any money and to stop all planning for the projects."
Well if it is just something fishy about the bond counsel or placement...not the projects themselves...why stop making plans????

Why would Sandavol be lying? (maybe there is a reason?).

whyhuhwhy Apr 30, 2009 8:24 PM

Reading all of the above makes me whoozy on how much money we are borrowing and spending lately as a government. I mean it it truly unprecedented. You know things have gotten out of control when I see the word "billion" and don't even think twice about it. I can't wait to see some new projects but one day the bill is going to come in the mail. The problem is we are not spending real money, we are taking on NEW debt. I was just watching on the news that at the end of this year every 30 year old in America will have spent and will owe $132,000 in debt via the local and federal government spending, an increase of over 4X from last year. That's real money that we now owe countries like China. If you look back in history it is a new record not only in nominal dollars but also in percentage increase. :haha: Gosh these infrastructure projects better be good!

ardecila Apr 30, 2009 8:50 PM

Think about in a different way, though. Even if tha $132,000 figure is correct, it's not a one-time payment. Think about how much you pay to the federal government over a lifetime of taxes. The median salary in Chicago is roughly $60,000... at that wage, one pays about $11,000 in income taxes every year. $132,000 is a figure that can be paid in about 12 years.

Also, it's misleading to look at what the "average" person will owe... it's a misleading figure that doesn't take into account the disproportionate amount of taxes paid by the top 10%.

VivaLFuego Apr 30, 2009 10:13 PM

...not even getting into the fact that, either directly or through funds, many Americans are themselves the holders of public debt.

Chicago3rd May 1, 2009 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyhuhwhy (Post 4225579)
Reading all of the above makes me whoozy on how much money we are borrowing and spending lately as a government. I mean it it truly unprecedented.

Factually speaking this is incorrect. If you state stuff like this you should show us data to back it up. Try looking up government spending GDP percent. Also looking into the little thing called WWII. Also check out the GDP from 1920's (pre-depression) through to the 1930's (we called it the great depression). It jumped from about 12% up to 20% average and WWII as high as 52%. 46% for 2009. So what you said is NOT TRULY UNPRECEDENTED.

Government Spending As Percent Of GDP
Year $ %
1920 88.4 12.83
1921 73.6 14.32
1922 73.4 12.67
1923 85.4 11.27
1924 86.9 11.49
1925 90.6 11.44
1926 96.9 11.12
1927 95.5 11.75
1928 97.4 11.76
1929 103.6 11.29
1930 91.2 13.22
1931 76.5 15.93
1932 58.7 21.19
1933 56.4 22.38
1934 66 19.40
1935 73.3 20.17
1936 83.8 20.00
1937 91.9 18.74
1938 86.1 20.53
1939 92.2 20.66
1940 101.4 20.14
1941 126.7 19.22
1942 161.9 28.15
1943 198.6 46.68
1944 219.8 50.02
1945 223.1 52.97
1946 222.3 35.86
1947 244.2 23.64
1948 269.2 20.46
1949 267.3 23.46
1950 293.8 23.94

2000-2010
2000 9817 33.01
2001 10128 33.91
2002 10469.6 35.32
2003 10960.8 35.86
2004 11685.9 35.32
2005 12421.9 35.44
2006 13178.4 35.69
2007 13807.5 35.53
2008 14280.7 37.07
2009 14291 44.72
2010 14902 41.29

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...state=US&col=c

Chicago3rd May 1, 2009 12:48 AM

People living in Chicago chose not to live on a sheep farm and survive only by the grace of Mother Nature and what we can plant, harvest, and hunt. We are civilized and chose to live in a civil society and we HAVE ALWAYS spent or given away PUBLIC money and property to make our living standard rise. We do NOT want to live in a feudal system that so many libertarians want us all to live in.

This CTA money has been bought, paid for and is used by the people of Chicago.

whyhuhwhy May 1, 2009 1:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd (Post 4226036)
Factually speaking this is incorrect. If you state stuff like this you should show us data to back it up. Try looking up government spending GDP percent. Also looking into the little thing called WWII. Also check out the GDP from 1920's (pre-depression) through to the 1930's (we called it the great depression). It jumped from about 12% up to 20% average and WWII as high as 52%. 46% for 2009. So what you said is NOT TRULY UNPRECEDENTED.

Government Spending As Percent Of GDP
Year $ %
1920 88.4 12.83
1921 73.6 14.32
1922 73.4 12.67
1923 85.4 11.27
1924 86.9 11.49
1925 90.6 11.44
1926 96.9 11.12
1927 95.5 11.75
1928 97.4 11.76
1929 103.6 11.29
1930 91.2 13.22
1931 76.5 15.93
1932 58.7 21.19
1933 56.4 22.38
1934 66 19.40
1935 73.3 20.17
1936 83.8 20.00
1937 91.9 18.74
1938 86.1 20.53
1939 92.2 20.66
1940 101.4 20.14
1941 126.7 19.22
1942 161.9 28.15
1943 198.6 46.68
1944 219.8 50.02
1945 223.1 52.97
1946 222.3 35.86
1947 244.2 23.64
1948 269.2 20.46
1949 267.3 23.46
1950 293.8 23.94

2000-2010
2000 9817 33.01
2001 10128 33.91
2002 10469.6 35.32
2003 10960.8 35.86
2004 11685.9 35.32
2005 12421.9 35.44
2006 13178.4 35.69
2007 13807.5 35.53
2008 14280.7 37.07
2009 14291 44.72
2010 14902 41.29

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...state=US&col=c

I do not find it comforting that you had to use WORLD WAR II as the one time in our history where we spent more, that's for sure! Unprecedented sounds about right. Thanks for the data. I knew we were spending a lot but I didn't realize we were closing in on WORLD WAR II-style spending when there isn't even a world war! LOL.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.