^A rather breathtaking victimization narrative:

The city has always been quick to destroy infrastructure in African American neighborhoods. Woodlawn’s rows upon rows of vacant lots attest to that. Housing, retail, and just about anything else that the city could get its hands on started coming down shortly after the riots in Woodlawn over the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. On the West Side, where most of the rioting at that time took place, the blocks pockmarked with vacant lots bear a striking resemblance to streets in Woodlawn.

Arthur Brazier understood that there is a deep satisfaction that racist white politicians and voters get in taking away resources from African American communities.

I noticed that tone in the article as well. The author really pushing buttons, he must know his audience.

I'm sorry, what?? This type of perspective is breathtakingly shameful. Lack of opportunity or rescission of the same is not about victimization, especially when the status quo in Chicago has clearly shown apathy or even downright hatred towards people of color for decades. The notion that only a handful of people would use any part of a future extension is completely disregarding any potential future development that is already planned for the immediate vicinity. Transit planning is for the future, and should NOT be representative of current usage models - not sure why this is such a difficult idea to understand.

^Clearly it must have been the "deep satisfaction that racist white politicians and voters get in taking away resources from African American communities" that prompted complete reconstruction of the Green Line in 1996-97, a line that runs parallel to another rail line only a half-mile away, and whose ridership is so low that 30 CTA bus lines each carry more people.

Think for a moment about the unusual worldview one has to have to make the actions taken by a black minister and his large congregation, in 1990, entirely the fault of white people.

I wasn't conscious of these issues in 1990, so it's hard to say which version of events is correct.

Despite the accusations of racism that the author lobbed, I don't think the blog post makes Brazier look very good... it essentially makes him out to be an Uncle Tom who sells out the community and removes a vital lifeline in order to build his own monument. His congregants drive everywhere, they probably wouldn't be caught dead on the L, unlike the poorer residents of Woodlawn.

The arguments about white racism are not even really germane to the discussion. Daley (broadly) came to power by building a coalition of white ethnics and Latino immigrants. At least in the early days of the administration, he probably didn't understand nuances within the black community, so when an influential minister came to him with a request, he just assumed that said minister spoke for the entire community.

This is hardly unique, many white leaders rely on black middlemen (often ministers) to give them counsel about a complicated reality within the overall black community, even when those middlemen offer a skewed or limited perspective.

It doesn't make him look good though it is partially accurate, however it is much more nuanced then this, given Brazier Sr. passed away 6-7 years ago or so.

I would attend services when I was in college 15-18 years back with a close friend who still goes- and his church which is a magnificent congregation- but he would say in Bible Studies that he believed in his heart of hearts that the L brought a negative element to the neighborhood and it was his mission as a Community Leader to makes his church a true anchor for the Woodlawn neighborhood and have members reinvest back into the community. He would tell of stories of him talking about when he'd work for the Post Office riding the L to Moody Bible Institute for his Theology Doctorate and reflecting on the importance of the L and what transportation meant to his congregation but he wasn't going to settle for a lower class design.

As the two of us were Architecture majors we were surprised by that and asked him politely and showed him ideas like what they've done in Berlin with an elevated structure with ground floor retail underneath what 63rd Street could look like, his eyes beamed and said paraphrasing "If the city or CTA had presented an idea like this to him with some thought and not the steel erector set that it is now and rendered, I would have supported it."

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/dorchester.html

http://www.chicago-l.org/articles/woodlawn1.html

^ Huh? So it's either high class urban design or parking lots and strip malls?

Utter BS.

It's arbitrary shit like this that prevents meaningful, market rate investment in the south side. You have effectively destroyed the urban streetscape that is now in such high demand.

I know I'm going to get shit for this, but it's high time that people of a different vocation than clergy be the strongest voice for many communities down there. Clergy have had their 100 year run and all they do is beg some imaginary being to fix everything (so far hasn't worked). There needs to be a practical, real world approach to addressing disinvestment. And having some self-centered asshat demolish a critical piece of infrastructure is FAR from it. Very sad.

Guess what folks? The church is still there and will not leave anytime soon and given the Museum is planned to be near this church could make an argument that the proximity to the ACOG and University of Chicago Campuses are key reasons of it's placement there. (Of course this is for argument sake not to start a flame war)

With an older Civil Rights advocate like Brazier, respect is more important than anything else because he has a point because if there was some creativity from the on-set to come up with a design/plan with the community given the end point and its importance you can alleviate the pitfalls early on, rather than the lump it or leave it approach that many city bureaucrats try to enforce. I would argue as I've seen in my own backyard in LA, I did this on a regular basis in LA to help pass a $120B funding measure while dealing with similar issues, the core is get the conversation going and have respect for the communities you serve and don't feed community leaders and neighbors a bunch of bullshit.

Having many different backgrounds and voices is what makes a community work and that is missing however now the time has come to move forward from that point. BTW has there been a lot of new development around the Green Line modernization south of 35th Street, 20 years later? Besides that issue at Woodlawn there are other sites along the way that could have been slated for a series of developments but has not had the investment. Could these perceptions of the design of the structure and the noise they generate play a part?

This is still going to be true IF a Green Line extension is to move forward is to think constructively and creatively to solve the problem. So you have a petition, that's a start but given that is coming, be smart about it hire a few minority architects to come up with design charettes that take place at the Church and you will see hearts and minds change. There are loads of improvements that can be accomplished in that area from at the start a thorough modernization of that ratty ass 63rd Street Metra Station with a transit center and hub.

Well, the petition calls for said structures to be harmonized with the design of the Obama Center. Not sure what that means, given that the library looks like a Mayan pyramid, but there you have it.

I don't know what CTA is legally obligated to do regarding the stored construction materials. Certainly it would save a LOT of money to re-use them, even if the end result looks a lot like the original structure that was so hated by Brazier. The foundations are still in the ground, too. Given the realities of city and state funding, I'm not sure CTA can afford not to take every cost savings they can get. On the other hand, I'm not sure what condition those materials are in after sitting through 25 years of Chicago weather...

I've been impressed that CTA partnered with Theaster Gates for the 95th St station, and he is re-imagining the old 55th stationhouse in conjunction with U of C, so there is an attempt to listen and include black voices in the discussion under the Emanuel administration. One of Rahm's favorite things is to impress South Siders with flashy transportation projects.

I doubt it. Green Line north of 63rd is elevated, but runs on a private alignment. It's exactly like all the L structures on the North Side, which don't put a crimp on development. The reasons for disinvestment have nothing to do with the design of transit structures. Woodlawn is already becoming desirable because of its proximity to U of C and spillover from Hyde Park. The L won't push Woodlawn or any other neighborhood over the hump, but it can be an impetus to develop more densely as it unlocks TOD zoning. The redevelopment doesn't have to be all single-family homes.

Now take that approach here with this extension and I think the younger (well relatively speaking for 67 now) Byron Brazier will be pragmatic to those ideas and find a way to make it work.

Just curious, what factors do you see as reason(s) why this type of TOD zoning has not occurred or developed for the Green Line on the South and even Western Legs on Lake Street from Cicero to maybe California?

Concerns about crime, rent, economic stability largely make it very difficult to finance new construction unless you can get significant Government assistance.

The city has racked up tens of millions of dollars from this new program allowing density bonuses to developers downtown. I think those monies are supposed to go towards supporting commercial real estate and businesses (rightfully so). But I wonder if a mixed use building, particularly one owned by a member of the community as opposed to some north side investors, would qualify? If so you can unlock a lot of money to make the development of 3-5 story apartment buildings with ground level storefronts financially feasible. People often forget that a rental property is as much of a business as any other.

Question, are there any plans to fully electrify Metro in the near future? I visited a few weeks ago and used the UP-North line a few times and it seemed like it could greatly benefit from it.

^ You mean the 19th century noise and belching smoke? There are various small and large improvements anticipated across Metra and the city's subway/elevated system in the near and mid term future, but unfortunately that isn't one of them, other than maybe on one of the southeast lines. There are a lot of headwinds against electrification, with local winter weather being one of them.

Note that I've stayed out of the discussion, but will answer your question about the steel lying on the ground at Calumet Ave. The city asked the federal authorities for permission to use unspent monies from the Dorchester project to tear down the "L" between Cottage Grove and Dorchester. I know the response because I worked as a volunteer in the campaign to save the "L". Mr. Gordon Linton, secretary of transportation, said he never could authorize spending transportation monies to tear down a transportation facility. Turning to the question of monies all ready spent, Mr. Linton said the federal authority would forgive the debt if the new steel was salvaged and saved and was used in future projects. The only use that I know of is, some of the Dorchester steel was used in building a new "L" structure over W. Roosevelt Blvd on the then Douglas Park line.

I'll relent.....when asked about the meaningless petition.....I said...HELL NO!!! If they were truly wanting to get "L" service they should have placed the library in Washington Park where there's PLENTY OF ROOM. The community there, Washington Park, needs the help. But that would make the whole deal bad because there ISN'T A SOLUTION for the PROBLEMS OF minority areas. Its been like that since 1865! And that's "telling it like it is."

Most of you have not been to Woodlawn in how many years??? You don't have a good picture of what Woodlawn is today. I go through there in a daily basis. The only vacant area are the business area along 63rd St. The residential are 75 percent occupied. But as a photographer, my interest is in the "L"....not the surrounding real estate, most of it is owned by U of C.

The July CTA Board Meeting, posted on the CTA Website. You look for it. In the public commentary, the community representative took the board to task for giving the U o C permission to use the Garfield Station....the 1893 one, despite for decades the community asked for the chance to use that building. YES...U of C has land holdings west of Washington Park.

A poster in another forum brought up THE FAMED Rev. Brazier and I responded that I was in on the fight to save 63rd.....I asked him to stop spreading The rumor that Brazier brought the "L" down...."U of C led the fight", I responded. "The others were just mouthpieces."

He responded, "I believe you on the details. The point still remains--the line was shut down, and the people who wanted it gone are just as "powerful" as they ever were. Whoever "they" are, they will prevent the raising of capital, and barring that the spending of any capital raised."

David Harrison

The winter weather is just another excuse from an "ye-olde-railroading" agency that just has no interest in electrification. They inherited the IC just like the diesel lines and had it not been electric operation Metra would be all diesel right now. The overblown weather concern is just a ruse anyway as it's not as if Chicago is the only ice-prone cold climate with OCS in the world. Not only that there is more than one method of dealing with it from a lead pantograph "scraper" to dropping the voltage which raises the amp resistance if I understand it correctly which heats up the wire and melts ice that can develop.

yeah the winter weather excuse is bullshit

Anyways, I found the UP-N line really convenient for my needs, and given the density and popularity of the neighborhoods it serves it seems like a prime candidate for upgrades that enable more subway like frequent service.

Seems a shame its not being considered.

Electrification isn't needed for one train an hour. Stringing wires (at enormous cost) doesn't bring in more taxes, rewrite union contracts, purchase more cars, or run more trains. It's not the first improvement you'd make, it's about the 38th, something you'd do if you had unlimited money or free electric power. The only reason the IC was ever electrified was to lessen the smoke along the lakefront from the locomotives. Five years later, the diesel-electric locomotive was invented, making wires over the tracks pretty pointless.

The first thing to speed up Metra would be to halve headways. That's not huge for everyday commuters who always catch the same run, but for casual users in the region it effective cuts their trip time by half or two-thirds. Shorter signal blocks, cab signals or PTC, third tracks for express trains, high platforms, eliminating grade crossings, higher-speed turnouts, custom gearing ratios, multiple-unit powered cars, step-on crews . . . there's a lot of things any expert would look to do before electrification even came up.

What it would do is allow UP-N and Metra Electric to be tied together and run both at rapid-transit frequencies. I agree, there are plenty of other things that need money first. But being able to tie UP-N and Metra Electric together as a rapid-transit line via a subway under River North would be amazing.

In 1905 or so (I posted a URL to a PDF about it on here a long time ago), some civic group proposed electrifying and then through-routing all the commuter-rail lines via subways under the Loop. Obviously that never happened, but it would have been quite useful today.

Though published by the City Club, the 1914 through-routing scheme was the work of Bion J. Arnold, a famous transit expert of the day. Over the years, I've posted it several times:

http://i.imgur.com/BOU12EI.gif

Here's the full report.

But, of course, now we're talking about a half-billion-dollar tunnel—not necessarily electrification. Dual-mode diesel-electric locomotives could run through a tunnel just fine, without needing to string wires over 60 miles of UP-N tracks.

When the Metra Electric overhead needs to be replaced (it's now 92 years old), we'll have a tough decision to make as to whether it's even worth keeping.

My suggestion is that all of those things would be part of a system wide revamp, similar to what Caltrain is doing in the Bay Area.

Electrification, level boarding, frequent service, lower staffing per train, etc

They're all interconnected.

Caltrain is one line. Metra is a much, much bigger system.

And Caltrain is nowhere near electrification. It may happen, but is a long ways off.

Yeah, electrification is vastly better, but it would cost megabillions to convert Metra to catenary or third rail.

The lack of through running is really unfortunate.

I was wondering if cap and trade carbon credits could be useful for the Metra if those ever came into being in Illinois.

I've seen $13-$20/ton quoted for various markets.

In Germany, diesel passenger train traffic averages 48g/km per passenger, on average. It's probably higher for commuter rail than longer-distance rail but I'll just be conservative and round up to 50 grams.

Say the average Metra rider would us it to go 25 km. There are roughly 72 million non-Electric Metra riders per year. That's about 1.8 billion passenger miles and at 50 grams per passenger mile we'd end up with about 90,000 metric tonnes of CO2. So Metra's train-related credits might be worth between about $1.2 and $1.8 million per year. Not exactly enough to finance conversion to 100% electric, lol!

Does a new project like re-extending the Green Line to Stony Island have to go through CMAP; unless it is being wholly funded locally (the City), with no outside Government help.

To seek State and/or Federal Funding it must be submitted to, and accepted by -- CMAPs' Regional Transportation Plan as a Major Capital Project (there is a lot more involved than a Petition)

It's an interesting read. Some of their motivations at the time were similar to ours today, others were different.

Interesting stats: In 1913 165 people died in streetcar accidents!

Page 11 has an illustration of exactly linking UP-N and ME – it illustrates a 40-minute Evanston to Hyde Park trip. Page 17 notes that the proliferation of the automobile is at least partly due to poor “steam service” (what it calls commuter rail service). Page 46 has an impressive cutaway view of New York’s Grand Central Terminal. Page 50 describes subway systems as necessitated by the reluctance of London and Paris to build proper through-routes for their steam railroads. It says of the London Underground, “With its disorder, waning popularity and financial failure, it is a conspicuous example of a colossal and unsatisfactory makeshift in modern urban development.” It contrasts that with Berlin’s push for through-routes. Page 70 has a nice map of Chicago Steam Railroads at the time. Page 89 lays out that the plan to through-route the “Steam Railroads” is a proposal as a better solution than subways – something to do *instead of* building subways.

This little "poem" was early in the report:

Speed is room.

If you ride on the street cars you must live near your work.
If you ride on the “Elevated” lines you can range farther.
If you ride on the steam lines you may choose your home from an area three times greater than if you ride on the “Elevated” lines and seven times greater than if you ride on the street cars.”

It was an interesting plan, but with no direct connections between the northern/southern and western railroads, it would still not amount to a regional transit system like the RER. To do that, you'd either need to link them differently and create transfer stations, or bring everything to Union Station and build a six-track station there with wide platforms like Paris' Chatelet-Les Halles.

Maybe with those alignments you could create a transfer station in the River West area with connections to all suburban lines, but then it would poorly connect with the surface (streetcar, now bus) and elevated lines.

^Actually, with as few trains as we run in this region, we could route all the suburban lines through a single Clark (or LaSalle) Street tunnel, just as Philadelphia or Munich did.

Chicago would absolutely benefit with a setup like Philly's Market East/Jefferson or Suburban Station.

Does anyone have an estimate of the COST of any of these things (especially since both the City and the State are role-playing "Titanic" in full IMAX)!!

Yeah, we can create throughroutes along Canal without too much trouble, so one under Clark might be workable. Or we could through-route on the east side where Metra Electric goes. Ideally that would go up through streeterville and then west under Chicago or NOrth, but really if you wanted to keep things cheap you could totally just go along Carroll Street and then have one tunnel under the river and connect to one (or even two) of the many Metra lines that join and cross right there in the Fulton area. That would still be expensive, but less than tunneling under the Loop. If that happened, then pushing for an EW subway through the heart of the Loop to link those two lines (a la the 1968 plan) would be more justifiable.

I would think that using Canal and the ME alignment to create two through-route corridors could be done for maybe $2 billion. Maybe less, even. And then if you made some of the lines run at least every 20 minutes from 6am to 11pm every day, added a few infill stations in the City, you'd practically double the amount of metro-style "rapid transit" available in Chicago. It'd become much more like the RER in Paris. $2 billion is a lot of money, but to effectively double your system it seems like a bargain.

Something like this grotesque stab:
http://mathiasen.com/RTALoop.png

I suspect one tunnel 60 feet under Clark and Grand would be easier and cheaper than threading two along the edges of the CBD. It certainly would be much more useful, offering connections to CTA rail and directly serving the office core.

Except that the office core is rapidly centering around the River and not the Loop core. Edging the two of them yields a far broader service area, better enabling a much bigger area to locate offices.

But it just reinforces the current problem: that the only commuters who matter are the ones from northern suburbs and the BNSF towns. Rock Island and Metra Electric riders get shafted yet again, put off their trains way over in the park, a long walk from the offices.

If you managed it right, you could create some crosses at 16th Street.

Or, better, actually do the Monroe Subway between the Medical District and Streeterville (since we're talking about unlimited infrastructure budgets anyway).

And also when you coordinate the operation correctly and make the right pairs of operation and connect to the River North and Streeterville area.

The Gerber Building at the Wilson station should be open this fall.
http://www.uptownupdate.com/2017/07/...back-time.html

This is pie in the sky, but you're right- connecting regional rail lines and providing downtown circulation are two separate problems.

I sorta side with Mr. D, though... given a limited budget and the turf-war realities of Chicago transit, I'd rather build one regional rail tunnel and a downtown circulator, rather than two regional tunnels. Ideally they could be designed as complements to each other, with easy transfers and maybe a free ride on the circulator with regional fare. However, the circulator needs to be run like urban transit and fully integrated into the CTA system to be truly effective. Trying to distribute people around the downtown using regional rail is too blunt of a tool, especially given the operating mentality of Metra. They might manage to run a regional rail tunnel with a small handful of stops a la Philadelphia, but running actual urban transit is beyond them.

From the CTA's twitter: the Wilson Red Line stop is almost done

Looking great!

08/24/17

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...689954/enhance

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...690045/enhance

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9616d9d54f...und-c43bht.jpg
Giant Clam

Maybe it's just this angle, but I think the sharp and angular outer parts of the sculpture (I'll call it that) are not well harmonized with the gentle, curvy, undulating inner parts. The lighting emphasis on the tips may be exacerbating this. I kind of fear we're about to see a half century of urbanism books published occasionally using the phrase "poor man's Calatrava" (and this has little to do with budget). Still, I'm grateful for the attempt at making a contemporary station and it will undoubtedly enhance the experience of visitors and commuters alike.

Like most Cta architecture I rarely come close to loving it, even while reminding myself to remember the dilapidated mess it is usually replacing. As far as this station goes, at least one can't say it's boring.

The Wabash/Randolph station will close September 3rd...

Washington/Wabash has wings.

I wish Chicago's subway station renovations would take cues from some of Barcelona's renovated stations.

Not that I love the CTA style of "Disney-meets-the-IRT", but the repetitive designs make it a lot easier for project managers to track and control costs. The renovation of Clark/Division included a new western mezzanine, but the rest of the project was functionally the same as Grand/State, Chicago/State, Lake, etc. Granite floors, ceramic tile ceilings, wall panels, etc.

Subway stations, fortunately, are out-of-sight, out-of-mind. For elevated stations, politicians and community leaders always want something distinctive which can ramp up costs in a major way.

new wilson rehab was needed, but still wish some of the interior stone work/staircase had been preserved. i have to admit im not a huge fan of the current "medium sercurity prison inmate intake" industrial feel of the current schemes.

Or pretty much any first world city outside the shores of the US, hell even most developing countries...

I know it's a bit hyperbolic but I think much can be derived about a society that puts so little creative thought into their public infrastructure.

How would that work? The Gerber Building was entirely cleared out and rebuilt from the inside out. The area where the original entrance used to be along Broadway is now slated to be retail space. The interior finishes at the old entrance were traditional, but they were in very bad shape after decades of deferred maintenance and water damage, and the ceiling headroom on the stairs didn't meet modern standards.

I am a little disappointed with the ceilings, but the CTA's granite floors with stainless accents are actually really elegant. They've also gotten pretty good at using architectural lighting to highlight design features and turn stations into night-time beacons.