SkyscraperPage Forum

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

chicagopcclcar1 Oct 27, 2016 5:55 PM

Reminder Notice About CTA Red Line Extension Meeting
 
CTA sent a reminder. E-Mail...

You're invited to a Public Hearing on the
Red Line Extension Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation Available for Public Review

CTA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are proposing to extend the Red Line 5.3 miles from 95th Street to 130th Street. Click here to learn more about the project.


Tuesday, November 1, 2016
5:30 to 7:30 PM
St. John Missionary Baptist Church
211 E. 115th Street, Chicago, IL 60628
This location is served by:
CTA Bus #34, #115, #119, and Metra Electric Kensington Station

This facility is accessible to people with disabilities.
This meeting will be conducted in an open house format.


CTA and FTA have prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on the technical analysis of impacts of the proposed project. The Draft EIS documents the benefits and impacts of the alternatives being considered, which include impacts to parks and wetlands. Click here to review the Draft EIS on the RLE Project website. Hard copies of the Draft EIS also are available for review through November 30, 2016. Click here to learn more about reviewing the Draft EIS.

Comments on the Draft EIS are being accepted until November 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM. Comments on the Draft EIS may be made verbally to a court reporter or in writing during the hearing. You also can submit comments via e-mail to RedExtension@transitchicago.com or by mail to Chicago Transit Authority, Strategic Planning, 10th Floor, Attn: Red Line Extension Project, 567 W. Lake Street, Chicago, IL 60661.

Do you require assistance?
If you require an interpreter, including sign language services, or other accommodations at this public hearing, contact Gerald Nichols, CTA Government and Community Relations, at least 5 days before the public hearing at 312-681-2710 or GNichols@transitchicago.com.

Para más informacion en Español, llame al 312-681-2710
Customer Information: 1-888-YOUR-CTA (1-888-968-7282)

Thank you for your continued interest.

RLE Project Team
Chicago Transit Authority



St.John Missionary Baptist Church is the same location where the CTA presented its findings years ago. Several community organizations were present then. It will be interesting to measure the community's interest and has it gained or lost interest through these years.

DH

LouisVanDerWright Oct 27, 2016 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7605282)
The white paper (mostly Ed Zotti) very explictly compares it to Docklands Light Rail in London, which I think is a somewhat better comparison than Metromover.

DLR actually serves as the main form of rail transit for a huge swath of East London and is actually well-used by commuters and residents and well-integrated with a large transit system. It's hard to dismiss DLR as a one-off gimmick like the Detroit or Miami systems, and it was used to solve a similar dilemma in London - how to extend frequent transit to a vast, developing area under the severe fiscal constraints of the Thatcher era.

What's totally unclear to me is how the study authors plan to squeeze a light metro system along much of the alignment. Carroll Street makes sense, but are they proposing to dig a tunnel under Clinton St? Or put some ugly aerial structure? DLR is mostly elevated and terribly ugly, but it was built through totally vacant areas in advance of development. The northern and southern extensions raise similar questions about alignment.


Yeah who would want to build ugly aerial structures to carry trains? Certainly not appropriate for Chicago of all places!



In all seriousness, I could see this actually happening since it obviously also caters to Related who, as we know, basically got a subway line built to their last giant railyards redevelopment in NYC. I don't give a rats ass if it's on an elevated viaduct or not, build it, we need something like this.

Also, it clearly caters to Sterling Bay who is planning a similarly massive redevelopment of the North Branch PMD. So really this is quite similar to the London example for much of it's route. It would obviously be better to have this run below grade, but we don't have the money to do it. I would be OK with it being at grade along canal, they may as well just shut that street down already, it's always a clusterfuck anyway. Just turn it into drop off lanes for Union (O'Hare style with waiting islands) and then LRT ROW along one side. Everywhere else on the route has existing ROW or could easily lose a traffic lane or could easily accomodate new ROW due to vacant land.

LouisVanDerWright Oct 27, 2016 6:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippis (Post 7603250)
I think it was a special event held by the CTA this past Oct. 15th and 16th.

Also, did anyone see this? From the CTA Facebook page:



http://www.trbimg.com/img-58054926/t...17/650/650x366

http://www.trbimg.com/img-58054926/t...17/650/650x366

This is dope and designed by Carol Ross Barney so it will turn out dope when actually built. I just wish they were adding a South Entrance to the station at Barry, I don't know why this station only has one entrance, adds an extra two block walk for like half the people who use the station, maybe more since no one lives directly N or E of there.

the urban politician Oct 27, 2016 6:23 PM

^ It would be nice for some TOD around that station. Big box stores, Walgreens, and parking right now..

chicagopcclcar1 Oct 27, 2016 6:31 PM

CTA 2400 Series Will Run For The WORLD SERIES
 
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1140525.jpg

World Series Special: Ride our historic 2400-series cars
Some fans heading to the Cubs World Series games at Wrigley Field will end up boarding a piece of Chicago history on their way to the historic games. For Games 3, 4 and 5 of the World Series, we’ll be operating will the “World Series Special” 2400-series train (built 1976-1978) on the Red Line leading up to first pitch.

Info & Schedule
The World Series Special train will run one round-trip before each games’ start time from Howard to 95th/Dan Ryan and back to Howard, making all regular stops along the route. Below is the tentative schedule for Friday, October 28 (note: this page will be updated as schedules are finalized). First pitch for the game is scheduled at 7:08pm.

Train will depart from Howard to 95th/Dan Ryan at approx. 3:45pm
Train will depart from 95th/Dan Ryan to Howard at approx. 4:50pm


http://www.transitchicago.com/worldseries/

emathias Oct 27, 2016 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7605282)
...
What's totally unclear to me is how the study authors plan to squeeze a light metro system along much of the alignment. Carroll Street makes sense, but are they proposing to dig a tunnel under Clinton St? Or put some ugly aerial structure? DLR is mostly elevated and terribly ugly, but it was built through totally vacant areas in advance of development. The northern and southern extensions raise similar questions about alignment.

It's a little odd to me that they want to use Carroll. I kind of get why, but if the rest of the system is going to be grade-separated, why not just bite the bullet and keep it all grade separated and run this under Ohio or even Chicago Ave. Carroll probably won't even save all that much money if it's done right. First, you can't really be at grade west of the river because of the Metra tracks really messing with scheduling right during the most important times of the day (rush hour). Second, you would have to be way too high to be elevated, again because of Metra tracks. Third, assuming it's a subway under Clinton, you have a pretty narrow route between those townhomes at Kinzie and Riverbend - that's probably not a dealbreaker, but it is a little extra complexity. Then if you're saving money with Carroll that means it's coming up to Carroll's street level just after crossing under the river, so you have a portal there somewhere under the Merchandise Mart, which hardly sounds like a cheap thing to construct under an operational building. Then it goes up an actual street - Wabash - and then onto a heavily-used, major street used by traffic to avoid surface crossing of Michigan Avenue with no decent transfer to the Red Line (2 blocks away - 1 north, 1 west). Not to mention that Carroll Street is less than 1/4 mile from Lake Street, hardly ideal spacing between transit features.

So, basically, they're "saving" having to make about 1.5 miles of tunnel and maybe 5 underground stations, but dramatically decreasing the usefulness of it and also negatively impacting traffic between Carroll/Wabash and Navy Pier.

In my opinion, if you're going to run it at street level on Carroll it would make a lot more sense to have it take Carroll until it turns into North Water Street and then have a swing-bridge over Ogden Slip under LSD to get it to Navy Pier or decide that within 1/4 mile is "good enough" and put stairs and elevators to cross Ogden Slip on foot for pedestrians going to Navy Pier. That should be even cheaper, would provide improved rail connections for Navy Pier, for the Spire site, and even for Lakeshore East because it'd be literally just across the river on Columbus Drive, and if Field Dr and McClurg Place ever got a linking pedestrian bridge, it'd be even better for the thousands of people who live in Lakeshore East. That would even cut the walking distance from Ogilvy to Millennium Park by about half if people could take a new train to North Water and Columbus or Michigan.

Alternately, I'd also be quite happy to see it just stay as a subway under Clinton, crossing the river at Grand then curving up to Ohio, running east with stops at Franklin (possibly with a new Grand/Ohio Brown Line station), State Street, St. Clair, McClurg and Navy Pier. The reason for Ohio is to avoid the mezzanine of the Grand Red Line station while still being close enough to have a direct transfer - Grand used to have an Ohio exit, actually.

They estimate that the cost of their "minimum operable segment" from Union Station to around Columbus, going at-grade on Carroll is in the neighborhood of $750 million, for a little under 2 miles of route.

For slightly over 2 miles of subway with 8 stations (Clinton/Adams, Clinton/Madison, Clinton/Lake, Clinton/Grand, Ohio/Franklin, Ohio/State, Ohio/St. Clair, Ohio/McClurg). If the entire route were done cut-and-cover, it would probably cost somewhere on the order of $950 million to make it a subway, and it would result in faster travel times, better connectivity to other rail lines, and better proximity to sites north of the river. I get $950 million by estimating that a cut-and-cover tunnel would run $175 million per mile, plus each station would add $75 million.

I think the biggest drawback is that an all-subway MOS would still need a portal and a place to store the trainsets, so it would probably be necessary to build it to Navy Pier and create a yard somewhere near the existing bus turn-around or water filtration plant, and adding maybe $125 million for the tunneling, $25 million for the portal, $75 million for a terminal station and $200 million for the yard, so another $425 million or so. The grade-level only extension from Columbus to Navy Pier probably adds $200 million to their $750 million but I don't know what their yards idea would be - perhaps on the surface lots near Columbus and Illinois - so an apples-to-apples comparison for cost is probably more like $950mm for surface along Carroll Street vs. $1.375 billion for the subway version, roughly 40% more expensive. But it would be a better line in a lot of ways.

UPChicago Oct 28, 2016 1:14 AM

Build it underground or don't build it at all imo

ardecila Oct 29, 2016 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright (Post 7605323)
I would be OK with it being at grade along canal, they may as well just shut that street down already, it's always a clusterfuck anyway. Just turn it into drop off lanes for Union (O'Hare style with waiting islands) and then LRT ROW along one side. Everywhere else on the route has existing ROW or could easily lose a traffic lane or could easily accomodate new ROW due to vacant land.

I don't think it can be at-grade on Canal. It draws power from a third-rail, so there would be major safety problems. West Loop has huge pedestrian traffic, unlike Albany Park or Wilmette where the L trains run at grade. Also would slow the train down quite a bit if it has to stop at every cross-street. I think it has to be elevated along Canal, unless the city coughs up for a tunnel...

streetline Oct 29, 2016 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7606986)
I don't think it can be at-grade on Canal. It draws power from a third-rail, so there would be major safety problems. West Loop has huge pedestrian traffic, unlike Albany Park or Wilmette where the L trains run at grade. Also would slow the train down quite a bit if it has to stop at every cross-street. I think it has to be elevated along Canal, unless the city coughs up for a tunnel...

Isn't Canal already on a viaduct? You'd think they could make room down there rather than digging a fresh tunnel.

I think the general idea of more grade separated transit through the extended downtown, with connections up to Clybourne, and down along the Metra Electric, is great. But I want to see a lot more details before I get really excited (whether for or against).

ardecila Oct 29, 2016 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by streetline (Post 7607082)
Isn't Canal already on a viaduct? You'd think they could make room down there rather than digging a fresh tunnel.

I think the general idea of more grade separated transit through the extended downtown, with connections up to Clybourne, and down along the Metra Electric, is great. But I want to see a lot more details before I get really excited (whether for or against).

Sorry, I meant Clinton.

At any rate, this study only offers a general (horizontal) alignment and certainly no specifics about vertical alignment. That's probably wise, you don't want residents and business owners crying foul over elevated viaducts or years of cut-and-cover subway disruption before you've even had a chance to do a study.

I assume significant parts of this will be underground, but who knows? Maybe Rahm will provide political cover to build elevated. Ideally the study would provide funding to create profile drawings of the whole corridor to see what kind of alignments are possible - at-grade, viaduct, berm, trench, subway, etc. There might be ways to change traffic patterns (i.e. dead-end streets or grade-separate intersections) to keep the trains without conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7605532)
Then it goes up an actual street - Wabash - and then onto a heavily-used, major street used by traffic to avoid surface crossing of Michigan Avenue with no decent transfer to the Red Line (2 blocks away - 1 north, 1 west).

This is a detail, but it may be possible to dig a diagonal tunnel between Grand/State and Illinois/Lower Wabash; the buildings (AMA and Palomar) are arranged in such a way to potentially allow this. That tunnel would be comparable to the transfer at Jackson. Or CTA could build a new mezzanine for Grand at Illinois, and then an east-west tunnel over to Wabash. Personally I think the Jackson tunnel is a little too long to be a comfortable transfer, but plenty of people seem to use it.

aaron38 Nov 1, 2016 8:04 PM

Time to Rethink Neighborhood Permit Parking Zones, City Clerk Says
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/

Via Chicago Nov 9, 2016 11:54 AM

so with the new political order, what are the chances the transit projects in the pipeline actually move forward? does the red line project have federal funds in hand?

CTA Gray Line Nov 9, 2016 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 7617562)
so with the new political order, what are the chances the transit projects in the pipeline actually move forward? does the red line project have federal funds in hand?

It does now, this might change with a new Sec. of Transportation (the Flyover too)....

CTA Gray Line Nov 9, 2016 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 7617592)
It does now, this might change with a new Sec. of Transportation (the Flyover too)....

As I've said before, the RLE is a reward for campaign contributors - with a Democratic political funding path all the way up. With Repubs pretty much against giving mass transit just about ÀNY funding at all; I'll bet there will be much closer scrutiny of the cost-to-benefit ratio of what they might consider funding.

I don't think 6 miles for 2+ Billion Dollars will pass the test without that Dem. political path -- there may be a chance for alternatives at a fraction of the cost.

Whoda-thunk-it??

ardecila Nov 9, 2016 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 7617562)
so with the new political order, what are the chances the transit projects in the pipeline actually move forward? does the red line project have federal funds in hand?

Depends. Like many other things, I don't think we can really predict the Trump administration to follow on previous Republicans like Bush and Reagan. I don't actually think President Trump will be hostile to transit - in fact, I think he'll be one of the most transit and rail-friendly republicans in decades.

On the flip side, I think President Trump will absolutely be hostile to Chicago. Illinois didn't vote for him, Mayor Emanuel took every opportunity to trash him, and we even formally removed his honorary street name. With his vindictive personality, I have no reason to think we'll get anything more than a big fat raspberry from the Trump administration when the CTA, CDOT, etc go to Washington looking for money. Or any other state/city agency, for that matter. Elections have consequences. :shrug:

Vlajos Nov 9, 2016 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7618367)
Depends. Like many other things, I don't think we can really predict the Trump administration to follow on previous Republicans like Bush and Reagan. I don't actually think President Trump will be hostile to transit - in fact, I think he'll be one of the most transit and rail-friendly republicans in decades.

On the flip side, I think President Trump will absolutely be hostile to Chicago. Illinois didn't vote for him, Mayor Emanuel took every opportunity to trash him, and we even formally removed his honorary street name. With his vindictive personality, I have no reason to think we'll get anything more than a big fat raspberry from the Trump administration when the CTA, CDOT, etc go to Washington looking for money. Or any other state/city agency, for that matter.

The biggest infrastructure project in ages will be sucking up our tax dollars soon. The wall between the US and Mexico. Or Mexico is going to reimburse the cost, I can't remember.

CTA Gray Line Nov 10, 2016 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos (Post 7618377)
The biggest infrastructure project in ages will be sucking up our tax dollars soon. The wall between the US and Mexico. Or Mexico is going to reimburse the cost, I can't remember.

Somebody pop the popcorn, I'll bring the beer!

the urban politician Nov 10, 2016 2:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7618367)

On the flip side, I think President Trump will absolutely be hostile to Chicago. Illinois didn't vote for him, Mayor Emanuel took every opportunity to trash him, and we even formally removed his honorary street name. With his vindictive personality, I have no reason to think we'll get anything more than a big fat raspberry from the Trump administration when the CTA, CDOT, etc go to Washington looking for money. Or any other state/city agency, for that matter. Elections have consequences. :shrug:

These things are largely determined by Congress. Plus, remember that all major cities voted against him, including his own home city.

ardecila Nov 10, 2016 2:46 PM

^ No, they're not. Congress sets the overall funding levels but USDOT staff (Trump appointees) determine which projects receive funding. In theory it's supposed to be based on the merits of each project, but the merits are hard to measure (every project is different) and the whole process gets politicized anyway. Congressmen and private lobbyists attempt to lobby USDOT, etc.

During the Bush administration, USDOT tried to hold up the DC Metro's Silver Line to Dulles, purely because the Bush team didn't like the idea of a big new transit project right in the DC area.

CTA Gray Line Nov 11, 2016 12:13 PM

City races to get $1.1 billion for CTA while obamas still in power
 
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...still-in-power


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.