:tup:

Wait, you mean people other than registered sex offenders on their way to court use public transit?

What haven't you told us, Shawn??!!

Wow, I never realized that Skokie is straight up racist and classist, not even trying to veil their discriminatory opinions. They are basically saying "I don't want the yellow line because 'inner city' (aka black) people might get a job here and commute out. Everyone knows that means that they will rob our children." Thanks for being completely ignorant Skokie.

Shouldn't the cta's first priority be to expand to non service areas of Chicago first ? and then expand into the burbs?

^CTA is not a city agency. It's an independent municipal corporation whose service area includes about three dozen Cook County suburbs. The constant funding problems and friction between city and suburbs about "our transit system" and "their transit system" has prompted CTA in recent years to see the inner suburbs as a particularly important constituency.

^ All the more reason why Chicagoland badly needs a unified mass transit agency, on the order of NYC's Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

CTA/Metra/Pace all wrapped in one.

:previous:

Thought that was the goal of the RTA

http://www.rtachicago.com/images/welcometorta.gif
http://www.rtachicago.com/CMS400Min/...sm-logo(2).gifhttp://www.rtachicago.com/CMS400Min/...sm-blue(2).gifhttp://www.rtachicago.com/CMS400Min/...sm-logo(2).gif

http://www.rtachicago.com/

^ Seems like RTA has failed.

The State needs to want to do this. So far all we've seen is mere piddling, piffling, and misdirection--a theme that defines how Illinois & Chicago leaders and their citizens have generally tended to address their mass transit problems.

Maybe SNCF can come in and run it. :)

You think all is sweetness and light between the MTA and NYCTA?

It's the eternal battle between basing service levels on who's paying for it and basing service on who's using it. It's a constant battle, worldwide, and in each city the pendulum first swings one way, toward having a big unified agency, and then swings the other way, toward breaking it up into smaller operating agencies. Thirty years later, it swings back the other way.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...2989765.column
If this still entails demolishing entire city blocks in Forest Park, Oak Park, Chicago, etc...Im truly dead set against this.

I'm no transportation planner or a financial wunderkind, but does this sound like an efficient use of money if a billion dollar overhaul is just a few years down the road?

About the interim resurfacing - I'm not sure whether it's good or bad. $45.1 million is about the same as the recent Edens resurfacing, both in total cost and in cost per mile. Fixing potholes is nice, but the cost to society in terms of additional congestion might vastly exceed the benefits of the project, especially if it is followed by a more total rebuild soon after. Then again, it seems that the more costly rebuild project will only start west of Central, whereas the cheaper resurfacing will cover the entire highway, including the parts within city limits... so the two projects would be complementary, not redundant.

I doubt it. From Mannheim to 1st Ave, there's already enough room to add lanes between the two frontage streets (Harrison and Bataan) but the grassy slopes would be turned into retaining walls. The only demolitions would be around exit ramps, where additional space would be needed. My guess is that some exits would be removed permanently and the remaining ones would be rebuilt with a higher capacity, possibly as SPUIs.

Through Forest Park and Oak Park, I'm assuming IDOT plans to take over some railroad land, either from CTA or CSX. CTA reserved space for express tracks back in the 50s, but has never used it. CSX owns the freight tracks (known as the Altenheim Subdivision) but virtually nobody uses them now that Canadian National has shifted their trains to the EJ&E in the outer suburbs.

Without too much costly construction, the freight line could be turned into a set of express and possibly HOT lanes between Central and Des Plaines. Really, all you'd have to do is rip up the rails and ties, level the gravel, and pour concrete over the top, as well as installing ramps at both ends.

I guarantee you that any demolition that takes place will be a few isolated parcels, and on the small scale that's being discussed, any historic structures can be re-located. The apartment blocks in Oak Park (which I assume are what you have in mind) are in no danger.

I think your are on the money ardecila. The CSX rail is suddenly in play now that CN is moving their freight to the EJE. In fact the CREATE planners have cancelled all of the improvements scheduled for this track length section under the original CREATE plan. HOV lanes would be perfecvt for that stretch of road.

In the past, Chicago successfully fought off the feds trying to ram HOV lanes down our collective throats (particularly for the Kennedy reconstruction and a lesser extent the Stevenson reconstruction, but I assume the question came up for every other highway project as well), with the argument that it doesn't make sense to subsidize the cannibalization parallel rail transit service.

That said, I'd be fine if the added lanes are HOT lanes so they generate some revenue.

Yea, thats the general area Im thinking of. How do you see them adding another lane without taking that land, though? A lot of OP business located along the expressway were feeling pressure the last time this was brought up several years ago, some to the extent that they relocated. I dont see how anything has changed.

I hope you are right. The Oak Park Conservatory is one of my favorite parts of Oak Park and I've heard it mentioned that this would have to be demolished if the expressway is widened.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/...6a1fb6c429.jpg
From "Men In Black" on flickr.

I know the expansion needs to be done; Austin to Manheim is such a bottle neck, but places like this are simply irreplaceable.

It generally seems doable without wanton acquisition assuming all parties (IDOT, USDOT, etc.) agree to exceptions to design standards through Oak Park. The one area of concern that I have trouble envisioning is right at Oak Park Avenue, where it's tricky to visualize how two lanes could be added without property acquisition on at least one side of the ROW, unless, again, the design standards are relaxed such that the expressway has no shoulders for a short stretch. Even with such design exceptions to save buildings, I'm not sure of the impact on ramp geometry for the interchange at Harlem 1/2 mile to the west - I assume the project would also seek to do anything possible to eliminate the left side ramps.

Since the project is still in preliminary engineering, it's unlikely major construction could start within the next 4 years anyway, and as others have pointed out, resurfacing from Austin to the Circle is warranted regardless and not part of the widening/reconstruction in the western portion. The flipside as ardec shrewdly notes is the cost imposed by any construction in terms of congestion and lost travel time - such impact will really depend on how they phase the construction. The pavement west of Harlem is in pretty rough shape and probably couldn't make it more than a few years anyway. Besides, using vaguely-planned-but-indefinite-and-unfunded-future-reconstruction as an excuse to defer maintenance usually results in negative outcomes, viz. many CTA stations (remember when Wilson was going to be rebuilt in the early 1990s, when Howard was going to be rebuilt in the mid-1980s, when Randolph/Wabash and State/Lake were going to be rebuilt any number of times over the past 25 years, etc.).

Anyone else notice how multiple agencies are conducting multiple planning studies in the same corridor? Whose project "wins" when it comes time for funding?

Ridiculous. For that same $1+ Billion we could have the Blue Line extended way west of the current terminus. This widening will not do a damn thing to solve the congestion issue, it will only move a higher traffic volume further east where it will slam into circle interchange and cause even larger delays than what already occurs. Of course then come the cries to reconfigure Circle and spend another near $1 billion. Circle cannot occupy any larger of a footprint than it all ready has and any reconfigurations will require very costly relocation of bridges and construction of expensive flyover ramps.

I really hope demolitions in Oak Park can be kept to a minimum. I don't want to see one more inch of that community raped further by that open scar known as the Ike. I am not warm to the idea of possibility using the CSX right of way either, as this will shrink or eliminate a option for moving trains through our region, and freight traffic is still expected to grow significantly. We might really need those tracks in the future.

Actually, I think that once this is completed any cry for re-engineering of the Circle interchange could be deflected into a serious conversation about the Crosstown Expressway and/or transit line.

Someone posting on Chicagobus.org has seen the new 5000 cars being delivered at the Skokie shops - hopefully we'll see them being tested soon!

The rail line is now in play. That's what has changed. Land acquisition from residents and small businesses is a very tricky game in today's courts, and it could lead to years of delay and millions in legal fees.

A major corporation like CSX, on the other hand, owns and must maintain a rail line that they don't use, and now nobody else will pay them to use it, either - CN was the only significant user of the line. It's a far better deal for CSX to just sell the line for cash - I would expect a major corporation to make rational decisions like this, unlike homeowners and small businesses who have emotional connections to their property. It's great in the long run - IDOT doesn't have to pay to reconstruct the complex rail bridge over the expressway just east of Des Plaines, and the rail line north of the Ike can be turned into a great trail linking Franklin Park and Oak Park/Forest Park.

Trust me, if there is an avenue by which IDOT can gain additional land without taking homes and businesses, they will make that choice.

Someone on that page mentioned that all the bells and whistles have been cut - these will basically just be 3200s with longitudinal seating. However, some other dude posted some grainy videos that show an incredibly smooth and quiet accel/deceleration - it reminded me of the DC Metro or Boston or something. I hope they perform that well on our crappy tracks. I also hope they go for a different paint scheme - or at least, some KIND of paint scheme. The stainless steel is about as timeless as it gets, but even it is beginning to get old. I'm actually happy when I see an ad-wrapped railcar, since it's so much more exciting and joyous than a standard one.

the Circle is in serious need of repair, though. After the I-35W collapse in Minneapolis, Popular Mechanics ran an article listing the ten most dilapidated pieces of infrastructure in the US, and the Circle not only made the list, but headlined it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...n/4257814.html

A picture of the 5000s posted by sprout78 at Chicagobus.org:

http://i36.tinypic.com/15x95dd.jpg

It certainly is, and its already handling traffic amounts exceeding the design capacity. Any more traffic volume heading to it will require a complete re-engineering of it during a rebuild, and with the land constraints that will probably mean a very expensive stack interchange with high flyover ramps. I"m sure it would look cool if something like that was built, but it will be very pricey.




Reminder....

Circle Line Alternatives Analysis Study - Screen 2 Analysis


Screen 3 Open House Presentations

The Chicago Transit Authority invites the public to open houses on preliminary Screen 3 findings and recommendation of a locally preferred alternative, which will conclude the Alternatives Analysis study for the Circle Line. Previously in Screen 1 and Screen 2 of the Alternatives Analysis study, CTA presented an assessment of transit improvement options which included a selection of transit vehicle types and potential corridors for a Circle Line.

The Screen 3 public open houses are scheduled as follows:

UIC Molecular Biology Research Building
900 S. Ashland Avenue
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Bucktown/Wicker Park Public Library
1701 N. Milwaukee Avenue
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Benito Juarez Community Academy
2150 S. Laflin Street
Thursday, October 1, 2009
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Presentation will begin at 6:15pm. All venues are accessible to people with disabilities.
-------------------------------



I will be going to the meeting tonight and will report back the additional info.

Display boards for "Screen 3" of the Circle Line "Alternatives Analysis" are posted, with a "Locally Preferred Alternative":

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...lay_Boards.pdf

^Hmmm. The Circle Line becomes the U Line.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2u5al41.png

that's going to be phase 2.

http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/image...hasingPlan.jpg

no direct linking, copy and paste.

I realize you jest on this point, but if I'm not mistaken, they can't use federal funds to adversely affect school property, much less use eminent domain. It's a protected use.

Clearly, Old Orchard Mall is a more logical terminus than Niles North. It might not seems like a big deal, but that extra walk in not very pedestrian friendly conditions isn't good.

One particular city I'm aware of that is studying a major transit expansion is evaluating an interesting notion I like a lot, if it is politically doable. Funding would be based on percentage of projected benefits regardless of where the transit service actually was. Turns out econometric analysis shows much of the benefit of transit actually accrues in places where there isn't much direct service.

Not sure what to say about this Circle Line LPA... I guess it squares with that "phasing plan" that CTA made under Frank Kruesi, but it doesn't feel significant enough, and it will just ADD congestion to the North Main Line. Is it supposed to run north to Howard? If so, then maybe it should just become a full-time extension of the Purple Line. Calling it "Circle Line" isn't even correct, anymore, since it won't make a circle.

And honestly? Who is going to make a big U? North Side riders could easily transfer from Brown or Red to Pink in the Loop and get to the IMD faster than with this half-assed alternative. This probably won't save any time for South Siders, either, and they already must make one transfer to get to the IMD. It really only benefits people coming up the Orange Line and heading to the West Side - not a huge percentage of riders, I guarantee.

I guess my last point is that we can't count on the FTA's continued largesse. If Obama were to be replaced by a Republican, the likelihood of later phases of the Circle Line drops considerably. Then again, at the glacial pace that CTA moves on these expansion projects, we might not even get the benefit of Obama on this half-assed line.

Conceptually interesting but seems politically impossible given the number of model assumptions required to estimate user benefits. Heck, even with structured funding, service boards here aren't politically able to continuously scale service levels according to available funding, which was part of the original intention of tying structured funding to a revenue source that is a proxy for economic activity and thus transit demand (sales tax). I simply can't fathom a political situation, in back-patting horse-trading Chicago of all places, that would allow an agency to establish service levels based on the outputs of nebulous economic models, considering agencies can't even allocate service or set service levels by any technical means at the systemwide scale to begin with. Policy decisions in our political context are made by somehow compromising the many irrationally-derived gut feelings of many stakeholders, rather than based on considered expert analysis of real-world data - so creating an even more technical framework for funding and service allocation feels like a non-starter in my opinion.

I imagine a big part of the thinking was cost, both in terms of land acquisition (under the mistaken hope that Skokie would happily cooperate with the project, considering Westfield is not cooperating and such acquisition would probably mean initiating eminent domain or massively overpaying) and simply minimizing route length at any opportunity to meet cost-effectiveness guidelines, as I'm pretty sure this is already a marginal extension based on demand modeling to begin with (single-track, etc.). Again, at this point I hope the project just dies, since Skokie has demonstrated it's clearly not ready to be serious about this. They can feel free to try again in 10-15 years when they're ready to do some legwork in enabling an option they'd want, rather than just complain.

whatever they do with the Circle Line, they definitely need a stop for Madison/united Center.

That being said, i hope they eventually choose the Ashland alignment, funneling the circle line into the State Street subway. Makes much more sense in my book. Another track split off the main line would cause more backups, ala the Brown Line split, and that section of the L is overcongested as it is.

^^ You bring up a HUGE point that I missed - there ABSOLUTELY needs to be a United Center station. There's really no excuse for its absence - I plan to write an angry comment card to that effect. If they want any riders at all on this half-assed thing, build a place for Bulls and Hawks fans to get off for the game.

CTA should also build a full junction near Ashland/Archer, so inbound Orange Line trains can go from Midway to the Dearborn Street Subway or the Lake Street Line - this would come in handy during track closures and such.

I'm glad I didn't go to the Circle Line meeting (I was planning to go, but then decided to go have some delicious pupusas at the El Salvador restaurant on Archer with a friend of mine). I don't know if I could have held in my intial reaction when I saw these online, which was to boo and hiss.

Seven years of "planning" and their only official proposal is to build a little chunk of elevated track and further postpone the largest part of what would actually make this a "Circle" Line? If they could make decisions, they could take advantage of the slack real estate market and buy some land, or preserve corridors.

I also thought it was just plain weird to expand the boundaries, regardless of feedback. It was interesting to see an actual map from the CTA with a Kimball-Jefferson Park proposal, though.

This whole thing has just turned into nonsense. I'm really disheartened.

Between a United Center stop versus a Blue Line transfer station at Van Buren, I would guess offhand that the latter provides much more bang-for-the-buck in terms of annual user benefits and improved regional accessibility. I suppose in theory one could build both, but it seems like overkill considering how sparsely built the area is at the moment. As someone who goes to a lot of Blackhawks games, I don't feel like United Center is particularly poorly served by public transit - it's not as great as Wrigley or the Cell obviously, but the #19 and #20 are fine for trips from downtown, and the Green and Blue lines aren't exactly the longest walk - or at least not long enough to warrant dropping ~$30+ million on a new station at Madison.

Now, if Wirtz and Reinsdorf announced plans to redevelop their fields of parking into a mixed-use neighborhood in conjunction with a new L stop, that would change things, but since they have zero intention of doing so...

"Environmental Review" (which, for intents and purposes, means "neighborhood veto power") tends to doom new elevated lines, while cost dooms new subway lines. In the current environment, an outcome like this was probably inevitable - there's simply no way to build the northwestern portion of the "Circle" unless an elected official rams through an elevated line (to meet cost effectiveness) or spends political capital with a massive earmark for a subway. Remember, even the 2nd Ave Subway was so expensive as to be of marginal 'cost-effectiveness', and the WMATA extension to Dulles would have died until enough politicians got involved to clarify that the rules in place wouldn't be strictly adhered to and the line would be built regardless. Considering that all of the CTA New Starts are more heavily dependent upon federal funds and less dependent on local funds than most other major transit construction projects nationwide (such as LA, Denver, Houston, NYC) since there is no local funding source in place for expansion let alone enough for maintenance, the sad truth is that the projects are thus even more at the mercy of federal cost-effectiveness requirements.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3277050.story

It's Phase 2 and the next easiest/expensive after restoring the Paulina Connector.

Phase 3 is going to take a MASSIVE wad of cash since it has to be subway, involves totally reworking North/Clybourn into a major transfer station, and rerouting the Northside Main through it. It's going to need a patron saint (or two) to secure funding.

Back up, where did you see that? Direct me to this map please. :)

Yea, the Alternatives Analysis recommends putting a Kimball-Jefferson Park Corridor into long-term plans for the CTA, as well as a few BRT corridors and a "Pink Line-Midway Connection".

Viva - I don't dispute that the Pink/Blue transfer station would be a better use of money, but I'd rather see CTA cut Roosevelt than Madison. The UC is a hefty walk from the Medical Center station or Ashland/Lake - putting a closer station would make transit much more convenient and possibly decrease the profitability of those parking lots.

Roosevelt, on the other hand, would be adjacent to one of the largest empty tracts in the city, with no hope of redevelopment due to the IMD's shitty planning - and it's only 2 blocks from Polk. The only advantage is the transfer to the #12, but that's not a reason to build a station when one already exists 2 blocks away.

This new Circle Line proposal looks like crap. Forget the whole thing.

It's a worthless line, as is the Yellow Line extension.

Why are we building train lines in parts of town that have no chance whatsoever of becoming denser? What do you think, that those Alderman way out on the west and southwest sides will let a damn thing get built if it's not 50% affordable with a ground level institute for the poor and blind included? That, of course, without mentioning that developers don't want to go out there anyhow because of the scary "black and mexican gangsters" who will certainly terrorize their new neighborhoods.

Shoot, they're building strip malls next to some stops.

Why don't we focus on building transit where people actually will appreciate its existence. You know, like that subway under Carrol Ave which gives city residents equal convenient access to west loop jobs that suburbanites currently enjoy. That sounds like a good idea. That busway taking people to Streeterville/Navy Pier--another good idea.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Chicago doesn't need to expand its rail system radially any further, nor will this Circle Line in its current configuration accomplish much other than be a prime example of worthless investment for generations to come.

Extend the brown line from Kimball to Jefferson Park and build the Clinton Street subway... I'd be quite happy for those two projects to happen. Extensions of the red, orange, and yellow, while I certainly support, take a back seat in particular to my interest in seeing the brown line extended to connect with the blue line (and maybe actually run brown line trains to O'Hare). It seems to me the only option for the 2 mile extension would be tunneling to Jefferson Park. The neighborhood is too tightly formed to make room for either an at-grade or elevated westward extension of the line. Stations at Pulaski and Elston would make sense between Kimball and Jefferson Park.

^ Oops, I meant "Clinton Ave" subway, not Carroll Ave

I agree. When I first came to this site I was pretty enthusiastic about every major project and I basically have only become so about a few now. Namely the Clinton Ave. subway and CREATE, and to a lesser extent some form of WLTC (or Union reconfiguration) and Carroll Ave transit. All the others are a bonus or even potential boondoggles.

Page 8 of this.

Or page 16 of this.

The Circle interchange is going to have to be reconstructed soon regardless. Have you driven on it lately? It is literally falling apart.

As for the Eisenhower, this is a project that needs to be done. There should not be true bottlenecks of any kind on either highways or trains in a region that is a primary transportation hub like Chicago. You should be for fixing all bottlenecks, including CREATE. As it stands right now people just guzzle fuel sitting in line waiting on either side of that 4 to 3 to 4 lane ridiculous bottleneck that is the Eisenhower. There is a ton of unused rail tracks around that area too as other people have mentioned.

Very dissapointing map of the "Circle" line. No one is going to use that thing if it is just a U. They need to do it and do it right which means going all out. Hey at least they are talking about it. Now let's get the Olympics and start getting some funding for Transit. BTW the post earlier about connecting the Brown to the Blue through Jefferson Park sound like a fantastic idea.

Mobile Garden
 

Check out this website detailing "Mobile Garden," a project spearheaded by Joseph Baldwin that seeks to add "a garden on a flatcar that is attached to and travels with the regular transit service."



Facebook page

^OK. . . without having the time to read through the - what I can only assume is ridiculous - material. . . this seems to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen. . . on par with those nano-tube nutcases who want to build a space elevator. . .

. . .

Retarded. It will end up one big ashtray.