Yes, the concept would be to turn east and take the tracks roughly along 75th all the way over to the Red Line. Remember the 79th bus is the busiest route in the city.

Along with all three Wabash stations which are giant eyesores and pitifully dilapidated.

The plan to combine Randolph/Wabash and Madison/Wabash into one new Washington/Wabash station makes the most sense. Adams can probably skate by for a while with a good cleaning, some new paint, and replacement of the wood platform deck.

^^ Whenever the Wabash stations are rebuilt, it wont be all 3, they will consolidate to 2 stations just like they did on the Wells street station rebuilds. The 2 new stations will have longer platforms, and multiple stairwell entrances, most likely a Randloph/Washington and then a Madison/Monroe or Monroe/Adams alignment.

The most recent plans I've seen (as of a couple years ago) have a Washington/Wabash station connected to the Garland Building. I'd be curious to know how many people transfer between Millenium Station and the L at Randolph, as this is one of the few locations where there is very good connectivity between the two systems, and anecdotally during rush hour there are a decent number of commuters headed between the two. Moving the station a block south would lose that, but maybe it would ultimately be a negligible loss.

I believe Adams/Wabash is covered by the preservation consent agreement that requires it to be saved.

^^ Why? What is there left to preserve at Adams/Wabash? It's such a chimera of various additions that it doesn't seem worth saving. The most distinctive features, the Plexiglas roofs, were added in the 1980s.

The station that merits preservation is Madison/Wabash, or at least the Inner Loop stationhouse at the aforementioned stop.

From http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/adams-wabash.html

An agreement with the US Department of the Interior and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office protected the Loop Elevated structure but only required two stations to be retained. One station, Quincy, was to be restored to near-original condition. The other, Adams/Wabash, was to be retained and rehabilitated but significantly modernized. All of the other stations would be rebuilt and some relocated.

Word to the wise: never, ever sign a consent {decree,agreement}

Thanks for emphasizing that point - I'm curious enough to trek down to 79th and drive it myself to see that part of the city.

Given how busy the 79th bus is, I hope a rail alignment 4 blocks north would still be practicable for riders there.

Whatever the fate of the 'superstation' is, I'd love to see the stainless steel CTA shield on Randolph/Wabash saved and restored. According to chicago-l.org is used to have neon glowing behind it. How bad ass is that?

^^^ Yeah that sign is a total BAMF. I am obsessed with it and nearly everyone I point it out too goes "wow that's cool, I never even noticed it before".

Anyone know when the 35th street Metra stop is supposed to be completed? I'm sure its in here somewhere I'm lazy today.

Does anybody know why the Oak Park stations on the Green Line weren't made ADA-accessible in the 1990s rehab? Also, Garfield and 87th weren't made ADA-accessible in the recent Dan Ryan rehab.

It struck me that these are notable omissions in what should be an entirely accessible system. The fact that many stations still lack elevators adds a large degree of confusion when using the system for handicapped riders.

Ordinarily, I'm not an ADA hawk (I certainly am aware of the annoying constraints it places on building design) but a recent trip to DC showed me the value that a completely-accessible system holds, as I saw quite a few wheelchair-bound riders during the week I was there, whereas I rarely see them on the L.

^Probably because they weren't part of the rehab project, which primarily involved rebuilding the 1890s structure. The Oak Park stations were only built when the L was relocated to the embankment in 1962.

Jackson Viaduct at Union Station
Reconstruction Project
Canal to Chicago River

http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com...=1102595586227


The Chicago Department of Transportation is rebuilding the Jackson Boulevard viaduct between Canal Street and the Chicago River. The viaduct spans Unions Station's south passenger platforms and 16 tracks.

The work will entail building new piers, superstructure, roadway, sidewalk, as well as repairing the Jackson bridge and sidewalk. New lighting and upgraded signals will also be included.


Traffic Impacts

Jackson viaduct -- Closed from Canal to Wacker

Jackson Detour: Clinton (south) to Harrison (east) to Franklin (north), back to Jackson

Canal Intersection with Jackson -- reduced to two lanes for two months in fall of 2009.

Pedestrian Impacts

Pedestrian access to Union Station will be maintained from both the east and west. Pedestrians can cross the Jackson bridge to access the east side of Union Station.

Besides a rebuilt bridge/sidewalk, does anyone know what the positive impact on commuters will be?

Speaking of CDOT, I saw their Anticipated Contracts list for 2009. There's some good stuff on here... lots of stuff that I'm looking forward to as an infrastructure geek. This is, of course, a highly tentative list, and it presumes that the city will get enough funds for the entire list, which is doubtful. Also, these are projects that the city is bidding this year. Even if contractors are selected, construction may not finish by the end of this year, or even begin. I expect some of the smaller projects to be completed, however.

Lake/Ogden CTA Column Relocation (I'm hoping this will be like the job they did on the Brown Line at Wacker Drive - a huge truss installed to remove obstructing columns in the middle of Ogden)
LaSalle Street Intermodal Transfer Center
Morgan Green Line CTA Station
Congress Parkway Streetscape - Michigan to Wells
US-41 Relocation - Contracts II/III (this is the major arterial road that will be built through the South Works site)
Wacker Drive Reconstruction - Randolph-Adams/Adams-Congress (split into two megaprojects to get varying bids)
130th/Torrence Grade Separations (a major project in CREATE)
35th Street Pedestrian Bridge (on the lakefront. this one has been postponed many times - a good indicator of how tentative this list is)

The remaining 90% of the list is resurfacing and much-needed streetscape improvements on major streets, some in the central area. There are also quite a few bridge replacement/renovation projects, like the one BVic posted above.

The Full List

What's the LaSalle project?

And the Wacker project really needs to go to Harrison, and include all those crazy ramps linking Lower-to-Eisenhower, Upper/Lower-to-Harrison, Eisenhower-to-Upper and Lower, et cetera, no? Or are they waiting to know whether/how a Wacker extension southwards would be built?

I'm pretty sure the Wacker project does include the Congress ramps.

The LaSalle project is a transfer area for CTA buses at Congress/Financial:

http://i44.tinypic.com/mhxcg.jpg

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City. The plan right now is to build a Wells-Wentworth connector. A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.

Smooth pun. I guess it sailed right into River City.

I think this would instantly massively increase the appeal of office or other buildings at Franklin Point. Not only because of direct access from/onto Wacker, but you'd open up the possibility of sexy new addresses from "600 South Wacker" thru as much as "799 South Wacker". If the area is already too residential to attain any office-building critical mass, then hotels would likely find some benefit from this so they can market themselves to outsiders as not being in the Loop's boondocks.

I'm curious what people think about
(1) whether a Franklin Point developer would find this beneficial (assuming zoning increase or some other way of making up for losing buildable site area to the roadway, in addition to of course being paid for selling the roadway land).
(2) whether the city itself would consider it worth building the extension (whether this time around or in a future phase) to effectively enlarge the developable area of the most desirable part of the Loop. Certainly there will be no Loop land constraint problems for a long while, but a decision on an extension would have to occur sooner, before Franklin Point begins any development.

I guess a lot of this enthusiasm is dampened when you consider the western views would be of the McCormick-sized post office across the river - not exactly pretty to look at or down upon.

Couldn't they build the same connection on the Congress/Wells/Franklin/Harrison block? (The block that's already filled with the Congress-Wacker ramps.) The ramps could be rebuilt to tie in with this connector.

You lose the ability to have "700 S Wacker Drive" addresses, but you avoid having to take a big chunk of land from the Franklin Point site, and instead use only public land.

Or was there some agreement already in force for air rights development over those ramps that would make this impossible?

Right, but that would require coordination with the current Wacker Drive project. I believe the intent is to replace the existing roadway with an identical one, except with better streetscaping and higher vertical clearances to allow larger trucks onto Lower Wacker (fulfilling the road's original intention). If this is the case, then the terminus of Wacker will still be on Harrison one block west of Wells after the project is done.

Red Line Extension!
 

Okay... I went to the Red Line Alternatives Analysis meeting tonight. The alignment (the Locally Preferred Alternative) was chosen: along the UP railroad from 95th to 130th. After some refinement, CTA will take this plan to the Feds in the fall for negotiation and begin working on the Environmental Impact Statement and early design.

CTA has not decided whether the line will be built on the east or west side of the UP tracks. There are preliminary alignments for either choice, but the projected cost is $1.1 billion either way. The line will be almost all elevated, but the UP railroad will remain at-grade. This irritates me... most projects of this type in other cities allow for both the transit and the railroad to be grade-separated, since the Federal funding process allows cities to receive money for this grade-separation that would not otherwise be available. CTA and UP also need to be separated by 50 feet, making for a rather inefficient use of space in a dense city. To be honest, I was hoping for something like DC's Red Line where rail and transit are right next to each other.

There will be a station at 115th, which is close to the major intersection of 115th/Michigan, and the City is working with a developer for a mixed-use complex with a grocery and residential here that will have a transit connection. I'm sure it will be half-assed and strip-mallish, like the thing they built at Howard.

A major park and ride is planned at the 130th terminal similar to the garage at Cumberland. Like Kimball, O'Hare, and Midway, 130th will have 3 tracks. Since the station would abut the South Shore Line, CTA is negotiating with South Shore to build a transfer station. North of the station will be a rather large new train yard to replace the existing one at 95th.

FINALLY, CTA has developed a rainy-day plan in case the Feds are stingy: a shortened line extension to 115th, with the remainder of the line to 130th deferred to a later project. It increases the cost-effectiveness rating of the extension by 23%, since it dramatically reduces the cost without a huge loss in projected ridership. This shortened version would not include the new yard, which CTA claims the Red Line needs. They will probably use this as leverage to get the Feds to fund the entire project (besides, there's a South Sider running the show in DC - what are the chances this thing doesn't get funded?)

Detailed Map of East and West Alignments

103rd Station (not the final design)
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2773/103rd.jpg

:worship: for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

^^ The tracks serve only freight right now, but Metra has a proposal for a new SouthEast Service that would use these tracks. If that comes to fruition, then Metra would plan a joint station next to one of CTA's stations, like what exists at Jefferson Park.

The crossings are not included in CREATE because they do not cause significant road congestion, so they aren't urgent enough to make the cut. However, with major pedestrian generators like L stations right next door, they will become a safety problem fast IMO.

^ Thanks for all the info, ardecila. I'm glad they chose a route that doesn't run in the median of an expressway, and actually runs through neighborhoods.

This is a great opportunity for the city to promote TOD, especially along the planned route of this train. Did you get any sense that the CTA and the Planning Dept have been talking to eachother about this? If I'm correct, part of 103rd st is a designated "Pedestrian Street", although I"m not sure if it's the portion that would be served by this new L stop.

Ald Manny Flores appears to be pretty progressive with the TOD thing. He collaborated to form an organization known as Green Economy Chicago. Here is a recent posting by them:

^ You know, I would love to see Ald Flores actually try to bring this up and try to get an ordinance passed. Since all it takes is one Alderman to back these things, why not do something that would benefit the city, as opposed to wasting everybody's time banning foie gras and street drummers, and now with Ald Ed Burke pushing to require red light camera ticketeers to go to driving school.

This should be added here also...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7751889.story

High-speed rail: Biden praises Midwest plan to enhance passenger train system

Federal officials laud Midwest pitch for upgrade funds
By Mike Dorning and Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporters
June 4, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Obama administration officials offered encouraging signs Wednesday that a proposed Midwest high-speed rail network based around a Chicago hub has an inside track on a significant piece of $8 billion to be distributed among 10 major U.S. projects.

Vice President Joe Biden lauded the Midwest proposal, which envisions passenger trains speeding through the region at 110 m.p.h., as "one of the most comprehensive plans that have been put forward so far."

The full 3,000-mile Midwest corridor system stretching over nine states would cost $9.6 billion to construct over 10 years, according to the latest estimate.

But "for $3.4 billion, you can get a big chunk of this plan done," Biden said in a conference call with reporters.



The administration gathered eight governors, including Gov. Pat Quinn, for a roundtable at the White House on Wednesday. Interviewed at the White House afterward, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Illinois congressman, noted that Obama and his chief of staff, Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have taken an intense interest in the rail initiative. He suggested that that would work in favor of substantial financial support for a Midwest network.

Obama and Emanuel made funding for high-speed rail a priority in negotiations over the economic stimulus package. In addition to the $8 billion secured in the economic stimulus, the White House has asked for another $5 billion over the next five years.

"This is the president's initiative," LaHood said. "I mean he and Rahm personally saw to it that Congress included $8 billion for high-speed rail. And I don't want to answer to the president why we're not doing something in the Midwest."

According to transportation experts, the Midwest bid also will merit support because of Chicago's central role in the nation's rail and other transportation networks.

"Based on the conversations I had with the governors today, I think [the Midwest] will have as good a proposal as any that we will receive," LaHood said. "Everyone will have a reasonable chance."

At a meeting earlier in the day to strategize on funding with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Quinn announced plans for a July summit of Midwest governors to address high-speed rail in Chicago. He said he and the other governors will coordinate plans and try to muster enthusiasm among mayors, members of Congress and business.

"The point is, the more people who are invested in this, the better," Quinn said. He added that a successful Olympic bid for Chicago could add political immediacy to the regional project.

Regardless of how much money the Midwest project receives in the first round of funding, the initial phase of work in and around Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit would concentrate on eliminating slow zones, where Amtrak passenger trains often travel as slow as 10 m.p.h. because of freight train interference and antiquated tracks and signals.

The goal would be to increase those speeds to 30 to 50 m.p.h. initially and faster later, operating in accordance with the philosophy of rail experts that the key to going fast is to not go slow.

The Federal Railroad Administration will issue guidelines for applications by June 17, and Biden said grants will start rolling this summer.

The first category of grants will focus on improving existing rail systems and putting people to work under the economic recovery plan, the vice president said. The strategy appears to benefit the Midwest proposal.

The second round will go toward building sections of corridors and aiding high-speed rail programs such as California's plan, which will feature trains moving at up to 220 m.p.h. between Sacramento and San Diego.

Mike Dorning reported from Washington and Jon Hilkevitch from Chicago. mdorning@tribune.com

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

That is how the Pulaski Orange Line station is. Right next to a single fright track. A couple of the crossing gates are actually between the two CTA viaducts carrying the inbound and outbound tracks. The trains on the fright track are slow and infrequent, so safety really isn't that much of an issue at Pulaski.

Ardecila, was there any mention of eminent domain or takings of residential property along the route? I think its a little ridiculous to keep that 50' distance if we have to condemn private property when the line could easily be constructed on the existing right of way. Is the reason a federal restriction, or does Union Pacific intend to triple track the route at some point in the future? The line seems to have enough buffer space along the whole route to avoid eminent domain along most of the route, but it seems some may be inevitable.

Other than that, the route is fantastic. Its equidistant between Metra Lines, so it provides supplemental rather than duplicate service, and the prospect of new transfer stations between the South East Service and South Shore is pretty exciting. The 130th St transfer would be heavily used by Indiana Sox fans coming in by way of the South Shore.

I know about Pulaski - and I thought it was weird when I first saw it - but that track is a short line railroad that exists only to serve some nearby industrial clients with a few cars occasionally. As you said, safety there is not the issue that it would be next to a main-line railroad like this stretch of UP tracks.

Takings will depend on whether an alignment east or west of the UP tracks is chosen. The east alignment requires quite a bit of takings, while the west requires less. Despite the takings, I actually think the east alignment is more favorable, since it puts a station on the near side of the UP tracks at 115th. (That might be a bad thing, however, if a large bus turnaround is built separating the station from the Michigan/115th intersection)

The 50' separation was chosen based on an combination of FRA regulations and negotiations with UP. I think UP is worried about the impact of SouthEast Service on their freight operations, and if SouthEast Service is built, they would push for a third track. They also want room to store construction equipment or build sidings.

However, the presentation boards suggested that CTA could be moved closer to UP if CTA builds a 2'6" crash wall to prevent structural damage to the viaduct in the event of a freight crash. UP is not in favor of this, obviously, and they have better legal help than the residents of Roseland to fight takings.

What was the response of the audience at the Red Line presentation? Did the crowd at the meeting seem supportive of the plan and the alignment?

There was a segment on 848 on Chicago Public Radio about Roseland residents organizing to promote the Red Line extension. There are definitely people who are passionate about this. I'm wondering how people reacted to the proposed alignment.

Yeah that's about as queer as it gets. Seems it would be mre logically, cheaper and frankly more aesthetically pleasing to just put everything in a trench. I guess I just like trench rapid transit though, it more like a subway to me and it makes for some pretty cool looking stations.

I believe the CTA conducted a survey finding that something like 94% of people favored the UP alignment over the Halsted alignment. (The idea of an elevated rail viaduct in the center of a major road is off-putting to most people, me included). At the meeting, with the 'official' announcement of the UP alignment as the LPA, virtually everybody in the room clapped.

Roseland is a community that feels largely ignored, both historically and in the recent wave of streetscaping and civic improvements that have swept the city under Daley. They are understandably very excited about a new rapid transit line running through their neighborhood. There is also a definite need for this extension: I got to see 95th on my way to the meeting, during rush hour to boot, and it was my first time there. To see such traffic at a non-downtown station was pretty cool.

Busy Bee: I understand about the trench, and initially I was hoping for that as well. But the more I look at it, the more I see only a huge pricetag. Building anything subterranean, especially in Chicago's soil, requires huge and expensive infrastructure to deal with the problem of water - pumping it, redirecting it, moving sewers and power lines, etc. Because of our soft clay soil, it's even arguable that bored tunnels would be cheaper than the construction of a trench, which would require expensive and time-consuming sheet piling along its entire length. A tunnel would just require a bunch of guys with power knives to cut away the clay, then some concrete rings to stabilize the tunnel.

Doesn't seem too smart they have one option where the 130th St station is a couple hundred yards west of the South Shore line (when the other option has it adjacent).

$1.1 billion? I just can't fathom the cost of these projects. Reconstructing the entire Dan Ryan Expressway, including adding lanes on the south end, didn't cost that much.

It seems like quite a bit, but it's on par with other current heavy rail projects. The Silver Line in DC is 23 miles, $5.2 billion, or $226 million/mile. Chicago's Red Line extension is 5.3 miles, $1.1 billion, or $220 million/mile.

Both lines run largely in unused right-of-way, so they are a good rough comparison, as opposed to say the Second Avenue Subway.

It's not like there are a ton of these projects to establish comparison - actually, I would not be surprised if CTA is merely taking the cost/mile figure from the DC project. CTA hasn't actually bid the project yet, and I don't know how the $1.1 billion figure stands in relation to construction cost inflation. You of all people should understand that. This could be $1.1 billion only after factoring in several years' inflation due to the duration of the Federal process.

For everyone's benefit, is there anyone here (Viva???) that can spell out what exactly costs $220 million a mile for a new rail line on unused ROW not requiring major demolition or utility removal? The skeptic in me is dying to call bullshit.

My understanding is that the $1.1 billion is:
(a) fully burdened, i.e. including design/engineering and construction management costs, and
(b) estimated in year-of-expenditure (YOE) i.e. projecting future inflation/fluctuations in construction cost.

It's hard to compare construction costs amongst projects unless you know for certain that you are comparing apples to apples (in regards to (a) & (b)). Naturally, most journalists don't include such useful information when discussing how much such and such transportation project costs. The Dan Ryan project was apparently $975 million in total expenditure, but it's unclear if that is fully burdened including design/engineering costs and so on.

Off-hand, ardec's comparison to the Silver Line is a good one.

One thing I'm not sure of is whether the $1.1 billion includes (c) railcar purchases to actually operate the line. Obviously, this would be a huge cost component. Busy Bee, a major cost component in rapid transit construction is the traction power and signal infrastructure that needs to be installed - this also explains why starter commuter rail systems can often be brought online so cheaply.

FYI (from an email out of Reilly's office, no less):

^ GREAT news.

I know Viva will be excited. Where are you, Viva? Lets hear it

What is the cost/incremental rider of this expansion? I need to download the documents I guess.

American mass transit prices are the highest in the world... In Seoul the recent 61km train link to the new airport is coming in at about $50 million a mile, and a third of that is in tunel... The recently opened line 9 (25.5km) has cost about $100 million per mile, all in deep tunnel.1 But then it's a private enterprise, something apparently unimaginable in America--with major participation by Macquire (England), and Veolia (France). Same with the new Bundang line (18.5km), around $50 million per mile, all underground, private 30-year concession.2,3

1 http://english.seoul.go.kr/today/new...9872_3675.html

2 http://info.korail.com/ROOT/cambo-vi...d=757&lang=eng

3 http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_v...etro_line.html

Asian countries do not have union labor - a big factor that lowers construction costs and allows their transportation networks to expand much more quickly than ours.

Chicago also has a problem with cronyism, where contractors with political connections tend to get the biggest civil projects.

Finally, restrictions on construction send costs through the roof, as construction on certain projects only takes place at night to pose minimal slowdowns to traffic.

There are many other factors too, but those are the biggest ones. I too am frustrated by the high cost of civil projects (and therefore the huge political challenge in finding money for them).

Isn't Macquarie Australian?

Anyway, some of these drivers of higher domestic transit costs have already been mentioned:
1. "Buy America" requirements for minimum percentage of domestic materials and labor including all final assembly (this subsequently impacts the relative ability to take advantage of economies of scale, in contrast to similar requirements for road projects i.e. Veolia has a large office in Chicago, but not much in the way of tunnel engineering/construction expertise staffed here).
2. Very high regulatory costs in the planning and environmental impact stages - both in terms of time, labor, and resulting project modifications, which in turn increase design costs and often construction costs based on mitigating those impacts.
3. The obvious one, union construction labor costs.

A big part of the 'problem' or 'cause' is really just a combination of the domestic political culture and some specific federal regulations. If it's to change, those would be the targets - definitely not a lowly local transit operator or even a metropolitan planning agency.

Macquire might be Australian, right.

The larger issue: just one more of the inner contradictions of modern left-wing politics: "we want more mass transit, and more government regulations. Green transit, and environmental regulations that strangle transit development." :koko:

Correct, Macquarie is Australian. Their US headquarters is in Chicago (Sears Tower).

I'd say the largest hurdles for mass transit costs are labor and right-of-way costs.

I think the engineering consultants are a big part of the unbelievable costs of US transit projects. Pretty much every project of any size will be a consortium with PB at the lead. With virtually no competition to keep them lean, they gold-plate everything from the alternatives analysis to the catenary.

The New Starts and NEPA processes themselves are at the core of the problem. They require huge expenses on consultants, and in many cases give too much voice to NIMBYs. We are the only place in the world where a planned transit line must first spend at least 10 years percolating through an incredibly detailed process: the MIS, Alternatives Analysis, Preliminary Engineering, and EIS project, with months of public comments at every stage - before even being given final consideration for funding (FFGA).

This is a textbook case of bureaucracy gone haywire. New Starts was implemented with the explicit purpose of making it more difficult to build transit lines. All of this for a (these days) meager 50% federal share.