|
LaHood offers only wait-and-see for Chicago-area mass transit funding
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-cta-estimates
LaHood offers only wait-and-see for Chicago-area mass transit funding April 21, 2011|By Jon Hilkevitch, Rick Pearson and Patricia Callahan, TRIBUNE REPORTERS Chuck Berman, Chicago Tribune During a visit to Chicago on Thursday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood offered no federal commitments to help rebuild or expand the region's deteriorating transit system. That was a marked contrast to his last visit to the area about a month ago, when he brought $155 million for the expansion of O'Hare International Airport, "We'll work with the folks at the CTA or Metra or whatever in terms of what their needs are. And if we can be helpful to them, we will be helpful to them," LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Peoria, told the Tribune's editorial board. But LaHood focused much of his message on the Obama administration's efforts to build a national network of high-speed passenger trains. He vowed that opposition from the Republican governors of Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida and Republicans in Congress will not derail the plan to spend $53 billion over six years to create routes that would eventually be within reach of 80 percent of the U.S. population. So far, $10.5 billion has been appropriated to more than 30 states, including about $1.4 billion to Illinois for the 110 mph Amtrak route between Chicago and St. Louis. Asked what he would do to help reduce travel times for train and bus commuters in the Chicago area, which suffers from the worst congestion in the nation, LaHood said increased federal investment in local transit systems will hinge on the outcome of the debt-reduction debate in Washington and whether Republicans and Democrats come together this year to pass new transportation spending legislation. LaHood made no commitment to fulfill Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel's stated plan to line up federal funding in his first year in office to extend the south branch of the CTA Red Line from its current terminus at 95th Street another 5.5 miles to 130th Street. The project is estimated to cost more than $1.2 billion. Emanuel also set a high priority on modernizing antiquated CTA stations and old tracks on the North Side, which the CTA estimates would cost up to $4 billion. "We're always going to have money at DOT for airport expansion, for transit. We'll see what the mayor's vision is, and then we're going to see how it fits into our budget," LaHood said. |
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2629398.story
chicagotribune.com Illinois to start tracking bicycle 'dooring' collisions By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter 5:09 PM CDT, April 24, 2011 Dangerous collisions caused by the doors of parked vehicles opening into the path of bicyclists will for the first time be counted as crashes in Illinois, under a change ordered by Gov. Pat Quinn. The new rules, which officials said will be announced Monday and take effect immediately, require police departments across the state to record "dooring'' accidents on Illinois traffic crash forms. The dooring data will be incorporated into annual traffic accident summaries compiled by the Illinois Department of Transportation. Officials described the policy shift as a starting point to help reduce dooring crashes, which can result in injuries and deaths. Quinn sought the change after reading a March 21 Chicago Tribune story. The article reported on a long-standing IDOT policy to exclude dooring crashes from annual state traffic accident statistics because the motor vehicles involved in such collisions are not moving. "Anyone who rides a bike can tell you that dooring is a serious issue," Quinn said. "One of the best ways we can increase public safety is by making sure we've got the best and most comprehensive data possible. That's why we've made this change." The Active Transportation Alliance, a safety advocacy group that represents bicyclists, had appealed to IDOT officials, without success, since last year to collect dooring data as a means to understand the extent of the problem. IDOT officials expressed concerns that such a requirement would burden police with additional paperwork and that there were few complaints from the public about doorings. "We were never against collecting the data. There was never really any large effort to make us aware that doorings could be an issue," IDOT spokesman Guy Tridgell said. Alliance officials said dooring accidents are common, basing the conclusion on reports from bicyclists. But without a standardized statewide reporting system, there has been no way to accurately quantify the problem or pinpoint locations where such accidents frequently occur and where modifications to street layouts would help, alliance officials said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gotta say the knuckle dragging visigoths are out in force in the Trib's comment section over this article last I checked |
Hey! Don’t knock the Visigoths!
Some of those comments were pretty funny, though—an obvious case of reading comprehension classes not being so good back in the “good old days.” The knuckle-draggers have generated a fair amount of pushback, fortunately. My favorite comment said that all these doorings were happening because schools don’t teach traffic law anymore because they’re too busy teaching kids how to put on a condom. Crazy old conservative cootiness personified. Although these responses do make me wonder about how Emanuel’s (likely ambitious) bike plans will shake out, I think we can take some comfort in that a lot of these commenters probably live out in the ’burbs, and I don’t think we have quite the same power dynamics or physical issues that New York does, either. |
I don't recall this being put on this forum:
http://www.cnt.org/repository/NSNJ.pdf Almost half (49 percent) of Chicago’s population, 72 percent of its jobs and 66 percent of its businesses are located within a half-mile radius of a transit station, based on Local Employment Dynamics (LED) data from the 2000 U.S. Census and 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics. --------------------------------------- If this is the case then why oh why is Chicago's boarding / route mile so low....I mean it is something like 1/3 of boston's and half Philly's....I think it is even less than LA's. NYC us something like 5 times ridership per route mile. How can Chicago and CTA get the ridership / route mile increased to say Philly or Boston's level.....and perhaps equally importantly does they want to? |
3 reasons.
1)some of those stations are Metra stations, which don't have frequent service. 2)a half-mile is pushing it for walking distance, especially given Chicago's brutal winters. Stations are spaced every half-mile so that the maximum walking distance is a quarter-mile (spare me the geometry lecture, i know about taxicab geometry, etc) 3)distance is not the only factor. the environment around train stations needs to be designed to encourage pedestrianism. people working in unsafe neighborhoods may feel uncomfortable walking 5 or 6 blocks to an L station, especially when they get off work at 6pm in, say, late october and it's already night. |
I wonder if it also has something to do with the amount of trackage and stations that are not in job or population dense areas. the high percentage of population/jobs/etc near transit seems like it must be disproportionately located in and around the loop and the north side L lines. i'd guess those lines probably have much more comparable ridership/route mile numbers to other cities. on the other hand, there are definitely station areas in other parts of the city that proportionally contribute a lot more to track mileage than to population and jobs (and by extension, ridership). wish i had the energy to actually do a more formal analysis of this, perhaps another time.
|
Quote:
|
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3868843.story
chicagotribune.com Midwest bullet train network to cost $83.6 billion, study says But the potential benefits from a 220-mph system are far greater than those from a cheaper one, report adds By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter 8:34 PM CDT, April 27, 2011 A Midwest network of bullet trains that could travel at 220 mph and higher would cost $83.6 billion, but the benefits would be far greater than those from a less expensive system of trains topping out at 150 mph, according to a study to be released on Thursday. The study, commissioned by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association and Siemens Corp., argues that going slower than 220 mph makes little sense, both in terms of construction costs and the ability to deliver passengers to their destinations quickly. Building a passenger rail network topping out at 150 mph, which is still faster than the 110-mph maximum speed in the current high-speed rail plans for Illinois and nearby states, would cost $74.7 billion, according to the study, prepared by the Economic Development Research Group Inc. and AECOM, which designs transportation systems. The price tag for a 220-mph network might be out of reach, with some members of Congress trying to gut the Obama administration's plan to invest billions of taxpayer dollars in high-speed rail as a way to expand employment and the nation's transportation options. All of the plans for high-speed rail envision Chicago as the hub of a Midwestern network. The rail association's study recommends corridors to Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Detroit/Cleveland. Trains would operate at 220 mph on dedicated track with no grade crossings. Travel times would be three hours or less between Chicago and the farthest points of the network — up to 450 miles away — the study said. The cost of a 220-mph network versus a 150-mph one is 12 percent higher, but that would be offset by higher ridership and increased annual revenues, the study concluded. "The Midwest has been working on an upgrade plan for Amtrak services. But there should also be a plan beyond that — true high speed — in which rail becomes a game-changer," said Armin Kick, director of high-speed rail development at Siemens. "When you get trip times down to two or three hours, that allows for much more exchange between cities, and it becomes an economic driver. You really cannot achieve that with the plans being pursued now," Kick said. The Illinois Department of Transportation, prodded by the rail association, agreed to conduct a preliminary study on the feasibility of building a bullet train network. But IDOT has failed to get a grant from the Federal Railroad Administration for the study. IDOT officials did not address the findings of the rail association's study. But agency spokesman Josh Kauffman said ongoing construction on the 110-mph Chicago-to-St. Louis corridor "represents the beginnings of a system to connect the Midwest region," and that Gov. Pat Quinn supports "the longer-term vision of higher-speed trains where feasible." The association's study estimated 43 million riders a year from 13 cities and metro areas on the system, based on offering 25 daily departures on each of the corridors. User-generated revenue was estimated at more than $2.2 billion a year. The proposed 220-mph system would produce $13.8 billion in new business sales a year and 104,000 permanent new jobs when it is in full operation, the study estimated. |
Quote:
Not sure what you are asking? The article just got me thinking about why Chicago's L system has such a low ridership per route mile in comparison to other cities....despite it being the second most extensive network in the nation. Even the red line only gets about 10,500 riders per route mile and that is the most heavilys used line. What is it about Chicago or Chicagoans that make them use their rail system comparatively so sparingly? My guess is that it has to do with two primary drivers 1. The Loop centric nature of the hub-spoke model vs the more efficient dense network say of NYC and 2. Chicago's rather extensive bus network. Interestingly I have read article that indicate that the elasticity of demand for rail ridership is quite a bit larger than for bus ridership ie in response to a change in price of a substitute good say auto use via increased gas prices....rail demand increases at a quite a bit faster pace than demand for bus.....if I recall the differences in elasticity were approximately an order of magnitude. I think this was the article that referenced the elasticities: http://www.apta.com/resources/report...rease_2011.pdf |
Interesting Maps showing scaled distances to Chicago rail transit stations; could the distance to the rail station have an effect on ridership:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...he-Chicago-El/ |
^^^Cool maps!
IF Chicago could do my dream and add an Ahland and a Western Subway then the the north side at least would largely look somewhat similiar to that Paris map at least with over lap circles. That makes sense I guess I did a spread sheet a few years back that showed that Chicago's north side writ large is ~ 20,000K /sq mile the north lake front roughly defined as the northside neighborhoods abutting the lake / lincoln park and the next adjacent to the west if I recall come in at close to 30,000/ sq mile..... still not paris dense by exceptionally dense for NA and for the good 'ole USA in particuliar |
One of the big differences between Chicago and Paris, though, is that Paris doesn’t have a huge, centralized employment center at its core like the Loop, so it can support a complex network of underground lines through its core (it also helps that it doesn’t have a giant lake on one side). The last serious proposal for a new line on the north side—the Lakefront Subway from the 1980 plan. From chicago-l.org:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ridership on lines that only pick up people over the first half of the stops and only drop off people on the second half of the stops will never be able to match ridership on lines where people both arrive and depart throughout the line. The CTA mostly has lines where people get one in the first half and get off on the second half. Rare is the rider who gets on at Belmont on the Blue Line and gets off at Jefferson Park, or other similar examples. You do so more of that during non-peak times, but at peak times nearly everyone is getting one in the neighborhoods and getting off downtown. That constrains the maximum run load of a car to about the maximum number of people who could be on the car at any one time. However, if employment destinations were more evenly spread along the line, you'd get people getting on and getting off, and the run capacity could be far higher, which is more efficient. That's something that is mostly outside the purvey of the CTA, but something that perhaps the City could try to encourage. More small employment centers at various points along "L" lines - perhaps a few more office buildings within walking distance of the Jefferson Park station, a few more near Wilson, more west of McCormick Place (assuming the addition of a Green Line station near Cermak), continued encouragement of development near the junction of the Pink and Blue lines, more near Howard, maybe some near 63rd between Michigan and Stewart, near Cumberland, and near the Yellow Line's two stations, just to name a few. There are certainly places along the Orange Line that could benefit from dense commercial development, too. |
Quote:
I would even suggest that the CTA needs to run more frequent reverse service during rush hours as I reverse commute to Cumberland from Belmont or Logan Square every day and the train is invariably crowded. It's rare that I ever am able to find a seat. |
I think the hub-and-spoke system is preventing a lot of ridership, even though Chicago has a much more concentrated core than Paris. I live less than 1/8 of a mile from the Brown Line in Lincoln Square, but unless I'm going somewhere directly on the Brown line, I just hop a bus, bike, or yes, drive because the traffic out in the neighborhoods isn't bad enough to justify going all the way into the loop and back out.
|
^^^ Which is why Chicago has the largest bus system in the world... To be honest we don't really need neighborhood to neighborhood rail connections. We just need connections to major destinations that are fed by collector buses. As much as I would like a Diversey subway from Logan Square to Lincoln Park, it just doesn't make sense when the Diversey bus takes all of 15 minutes to travel that route and has much more frequent service than a train would.
|
Yeah, but I do think there needs to be at least one east-west connection across the North Side. During rush hours, every east-west street from Madison all the way up to Lake-Cook Road is jammed solid.
This is why the Yellow Line is such a valuable transit asset if it is extended, since it allows people to quickly exit the Edens and take a train to virtually anywhere on the North Lakefront. (I've always thought a few Red Line trains should extend to Skokie) It's also why the Brown Line extension to Jeff Park is such a good idea... I also mentioned my idea for an Irving Park LRT a few pages back, modeled after Eglinton in Toronto or Gold Line Eastside in LA. |
^^^ I agree that the Brown Line to Jeff Park makes sense simply because it offers service between two major destination areas, the O'Hare airport and office market and Lakeview/Lincoln Park/Gold Coast/ North Downtown. The construction of such a line would be justified solely by the massive number of people taking it to the airport.
|
Quote:
|
Well, the express buses weren't really "express" enough to make much of a dent in travel times. The buses moved faster, but they came less frequently, so the total time was often the same as the local. I took the 80/X80 every day a few summers ago; without Bus Tracker, you're gonna get on the first bus that comes.
If they bring them back, I hope they do it right, with stops every half-mile like an L line, frequent service, and prepaid boarding. On a side note, I really hope the redistricting puts the area around the Irving Park Blue Line station into a single ward. It should be a great spot for TOD but it's split between Laurino's 39th and Reboyras' 30th. Actually, a lot of L stations are split between wards, which is really pretty bad from a development perspective. |
Quote:
Just be glad that "crowded" on the CTA is still rarely as bad as New York and never, ever, as bad as most Asian subway or bus systems (ever ridden a bus in Beijing at rush hour?) |
In defense of Nowhereman’s call for higher reverse-commute frequencies on the Blue Line, it’s worth noting that a lot of downtown trains go all the way to Forest Park and are held there—although the number of passengers going to the Medical District might offset this, to me it seems like reversing trains at UIC-Halsted (or, in the longer-run, building a similar facility at the Medical District, as ardecila suggested a couple of pages ago) would be more effective than running trains every 3-4 minutes to Forest Park, which isn’t nearly as popular with reverse commuters as Cumberland, Rosemont and O’Hare.
Finally, as someone who has rode buses and trains during rush hour in Beijing, I have to say that the evening rush on the Hyde Park and South Shore-bound buses are almost there—sometimes it’s futile trying to board anywhere past Van Buren. I think in large part it’s a scheduling/reliability issues—buses getting delayed, leading to huge crunches but not so closely bunched that there’s another one behind, but I think capacity’s also getting pressed—even when they are bunched often both buses fill up. Off-peak can be standing-room only too (especially on a nice day like yesterday). Although you’re right about having all seats filled and a lot of standing passengers indicates good resource utilization, buses don’t always have the speed and reliability to offset the lack of comfort (if I didn’t have to transfer to the subway downtown I would have switched to Metra long ago). Back on the topic of trains, though, I think most of the problems with only having standing room on the El are made worse by commuter’s habits. People tend to bunch up by the doors, so even if passengers do spread through the whole car you have to fight especially hard to get out. Even though I was packed like a Sardine on Beijing’s Line 1, I never really came close to missing a stop due to the way people were packed—tight, but not clumpy. Maybe it’s just because my native heavy rail system is Boston’s T, but I for one look forward to longitudinal seating. |
Lake Shore Drive, or at least the northern half, is now at more than half L.E.D.-illuminated, and the switchover seems to be progressing fast. There are some stretches with sodium vapor on one side and LED on the other side, which might make for an interesting night photograph. If anyone wants to record a rare sight before it disappears into the history books, one of these nights might not be a bad idea; we even have respite from the rain.
I wonder how this all looks from the Hancock observatory? |
Finally!
http://theexpiredmeter.com/2011/04/c...-intersection/ April 28th, 2011 City Unveils Bold New Reconfiguration Plan For Damen-Elston-Fullerton Intersection Work For Proposed Elston Bypass Could Start In 2013 ... This plan to streamline a chaotic six-corner intersection into three distinct four corner intersections was chosen over competing plans to build an overpass or an underpass on Fullerton. While the other plans would require two to three years of construction and not necessarily solve all the problems with the status quo, this proposal would only require a year of road work. But, the proposed reroute would require the city to acquire and demolish select buildings and displace several businesses in the path of the proposed Elston bypass. This includes cutting into a building owned by Midtown Tennis Club at Damen & Elston, land owned by Vienna Beef at 2501 N. Damen, and completely demolishing the buildings currently housing Whirly Ball at 1880 W. Fullerton and Dunkin’ Donuts located at 1927 W. Fullerton. "Of course the businesses affected were disappointed,” said Chriss Wuellner of CDOT. “However, we will be able to provide relocation assistance." Waguespack plans to work with displaced businesses to try to relocate them within the ward or nearby. ... http://theexpiredmeter.com/wp-conten...aphic-crop.jpg |
Quote:
|
^at least the church's chicken is safe
|
Well, as steve vance pointed out, it's troubling that CDOT isn't really looking to fill in the gap on the Damen bike lane. To my mind, filling in obvious gaps like this is even more important than expanding the network. If Rahm wants to add mileage to the bike network, he can get a half-mile first start by telling CDOT to put in the bike lane.
It would also be cool to preserve the remaining odd pieces of the former Elston right-of-way as landscaped green space, a nod to the intersection's former configuration. Right now, it looks like they plan to sell it off to adjacent landowners. |
Does the Damen bike lane predate or postdate the parking meter sale? That might have something to do with the lack of lane.
Also, everyone can read Vance’s post here. |
Quote:
But, a meeting attendee asked the Benesch staff member standing near the traffic simulation animation if there was analysis done on 1 fewer lane (which would allow a bike lane to be added). Bus riders who board/alight here will probably appreciate the more spacious sidewalks. (I'll be uploading pictures of the public meeting documents later tonight.) |
Welcome to the forum! ;)
The plan doesn't show any metered spaces through the intersection zone. I don't know why that would interfere with attempts to put in a bike lane. If Street Views are to be believed, all street parking in the bike-lane gap is unmetered, and more than half of it is either yellow-curb or standing zone. (There's also an awesome shot of a cyclist flipping off the Street View camera) |
Will the new rerouted Elston and the old bypassed segment south of Fullerton both be called N. Elston Ave? I inquire because of addressing. Maybe the bypassed section becomes Elston Pl or something? Having two separate sections of N. Elston Ave in the same addressing range could tear a hole in Chicago's space-time continuum.
|
Standard practice in most jurisdictions would be to rename the stump as "Old Elston Avenue". Chicago's only done the "Old" thing twice... Once at Lake Shore Drive/Michigan, where the highrise-lined local street is technically called "Old Lake Shore Drive East", and once out at O'Hare, where airport construction forced Higgins Road onto a new path... but the city was not responsible for this renaming, it just entered city limits via annexation.
Chicago is more likely to do Elston Place, as you suggest. That address actually sounds kinda distinguished... |
^ In a similar vein, wasn't Wacker Place called South Water until just a decade or so ago? This was not a reroute or new construction; it was just a renaming. A confusing one, I would say. Anyone know the story?
|
Can I suggest that the left turn lane on southbound Damen, for vehicles waiting to enter the Fullerton intersection, be eliminated. (In fact, prohibit left turns there.) No one would ever use it (I'm assuming no businesses would be built that have driveways out onto that tiny segment of Damen), and the space could be used as an extra lane by eastbound Fullerton vehicles (especially semi trucks) seeking to make an essentially 315 degree left turn onto northwestbound Elston.
|
Quote:
Does anybody in this day and age actually expect a "Water Street" to run near a body of water? It might be confusing for foreign visitors, but who cares? Quote:
On a related note, I've always wondered why there aren't frontage roads connecting the disconnected offramps on the Kennedy into full diamond interchanges? Connecting the Diversey/California exits would seem to make a lot of sense, and it would relieve a lot of surface congestion. |
Quote:
I think "South Water" would be no more confusing than other street names in very old cities, especially on the east coast, where major geographic changes (including landfill) have shifted water boundaries by 10s or 100s of yards, etc. So that, by itself, doesn't bother me. But more broadly, I think both "North Water" and "South Water" are lousy street names, because they are generic and boring and because one could actually mistake them for northern and southern segments of a street called "Water". (Although I think the address of the Sheraton -- 301 Upper East North Water -- is pretty cool with all those coordinate adjectives.) So really it's my preference that North Water and South Water both get renamed. I actually have a bunch of streets whose names I dislike and want renamed. Chicago Avenue is one of them -- unless there's some historical reason for it, it's too generic and the resulting subway station names are confusing to tourists. Maybe it'll get renamed Obama Boulevard one day. Or Oprah Boulevard, since she used to live on it. |
An easy way to resolve the conflict without destroying the history would be to eliminate the space, i.e. "Northwater" and "Southwater" Streets.
Then it would reside in the murky gray area like Desplaines Street, which is written as either one word or two (Des Plaines) depending on who you ask. I think the short stretch of street between Wabash and Michigan has been Wacker Place since the 1920s when Wacker Drive was built. The first stage of Wacker went from Lake to Wabash IIRC, so the short stretch of South Water was renamed at that time in order to help route traffic from Michigan Avenue to the Wacker stub one block away. The section of Wacker from Wabash to Michigan was more complex, since it had to rise to the grade of the new Link Bridge on Michigan (2 levels above the water) so its construction took longer. It's funny how the stages of the Wacker reconstruction project mirrored those of Wacker's initial construction. |
East South Water was renamed Wacker Place in 1987, at the request of tenants of 65 E. South Water (and—cue the flashback music—the potential developer of the vacant lot next to the Chicago Motor Club Building). They were tired of people confusing them with South Water Market, whose name and even addresses had been moved to the area of West 14th Place near Racine when the produce market was relocated in 1925. Now that area is condos, and the street is again W. 14th Place.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I uploaded photos of the posters from the meeting to my Flickr.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/...1e57512b_t.jpg Crash history at Damen-Elston-Fullerton by Steven Vance, on Flickr RE: Parking meters There's enough parking in off-street parking that the city would not need to provide on-street parking. As a non-traffic engineer, I don't believe two through lanes on Damen are necessary as Damen is not a two-lane street north and south of the project area, but the engineers at the meeting said it was necessary for queuing capacity and to "make it work like it's supposed to." RE: Elston's name The staff, including CDOT workers, said that the tinny, old stretch of Elston Avenue would remain Elston Avenue and the new part of Elston Avenue would get a new name. This was to retain the addresses for the businesses and homes that are not being removed from Elston Avenue. RE: Removing southbound Damen left turn lane at Fullerton I don't see a purpose to removing this. What would it be replaced with? A concrete median? The northbound turn lane it's shared with (for left turns onto NW-bound Elston) is still needed. And the signal cycle would still include a phase for the northbound turn lane onto Fullerton. RE: Street names There's another list for street names, and that's the City Clerk of Chicago's Street Guide.
Thank you for reading my blog. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There are really comparatively few addresses on the stub street. How about calling the bypass "Elston" but assigning new address numbers there in a way that none of them duplicates a previously-existing address, so that during the transition period no piece of mail has an ambiguous address. In the last couple decades businesses and households changed area codes from 312 to 708 and survived, and then later again changed from 708 to 630/847 and survived, so a change to "Ye Olde Elston Lane" or whatever should not be a big deal. |
Quote:
Granted the old-town culture is what makes a lot of neighborhoods what they are; I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. Does that not matter? Chicago in a lot of the outlying suburbs is old town; that's what makes its cultural integrity intact. Different from Cali. Which is, as a driver, quite difficult to navigate. |
Quote:
After construction, what would land ownership and development potential in the area be like? There are going to be a lot of very oddly shaped vacant parcels... |
^^^ I would imagine they would want to replat any of the takings. I mean any lots that need to be demolished will have to be resized to make them marketable. I would imagine the reconfiguration of this intersection will really do a lot to open it up for redevelopment.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If any buildings are allowed to be built here, they may need driveways and off-street parking, making the newly-simple roadway design slightly more complex. I was thinking this plot could be made passive green space. Add a bunch of curb/sidewalk adjacent landscaping to serve as a visual distraction that would slow traffic. |
Quote:
|
Re: the Elston / Damen / Fullerton intersection
Count me as thinking this is a terrible idea. I know that intersection is tough but I see this as being worse at least at street level for neighborhood continuity and pedestrians......not that there are a lot of pedestrian hoofing it across the damen / fullerton intersection. This might be good for transporting cars and getting suburbanites who get off at fullerton to this part of the city but I think for most of the people who live arpound here this "solution" is worse than the problem..... Diced up isolated land dominated by increased traffic lanes does not make for a pleasant neighborhood We really focus too much on the car in this town.....Chicago is screwed in the transportation dept.....I've given up; it seems Chicago looks west for its transportation inspiration; not even as far west as LA....which is doing some really exciting things in the transport dept.....but but more like Dallas or Phx..... ugh |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev