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)

Busy Bee Jan 3, 2007 3:59 AM

In response to the Grand reno, I just hope they move away from that tacky sage green and red tile scheme that was first used at Roosevelt. It's too busy, looks silly and won't age well. If they want bold why not a modern approach... a swath of bright color like yellows, greens or orange with the rest of the tile or paint a more muted warm gray or white(cleanliness)? This complimented with the stainless steel and black accents would look more on par with world class systems like the Underground, U-Bahn, the Paris Metro or that kick ass new line in Santiago, Chile.


http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...3493ojcopy.jpg

Santiago

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...nderground.jpg

London

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...7kobe18sta.jpg

Kobe

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...5ba13ab5_o.jpg

?, Japan

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...einstrasse.jpg

Berlin

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...orto/o_149.jpg

Berlin

A new U-Bahn station under construction in Berlin. Note bold wall paneling, while CTA stations are obviously more cramped and dramatically less spacious than this project, there is no reason similar design treatments could not occur here in Chicago:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...o/P1010049.jpg

Berlin

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q..._sublevels.jpg

Vienna


If you aren't going to do something minimal, slick and modern, at least go all out and do something wonderful and beautiful like this station in New York:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q.../img_57786.jpg

NYC


Although I do like the neo-historical entrances of State Street and the Chicago station, you've got to admit these would look fantastic in Chicago:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...horto/0013.jpg

Bilbao

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...balaba64by.jpg

I believe this is Santiago


For over 60 million dollars, we should be getting something more like this, a personal favorite of mine, the copper clad Arts et Metiers station in Paris. Stunning:

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...orto/metro.jpg

Paris

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...orto/prs37.jpg

Paris

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q...1bf892e14a.jpg

Paris

honte Jan 3, 2007 4:30 AM

Thanks, Busy Bee, for providing the most depressing post in the entire thread! No, seriously, thanks a lot.

With all the design talent here, and the constant urge to be "world class," you have to wonder what the hell the problem is. Get with it, people!

VivaLFuego Jan 3, 2007 2:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 2543327)
Thanks, Busy Bee, for providing the most depressing post in the entire thread! No, seriously, thanks a lot.

With all the design talent here, and the constant urge to be "world class," you have to wonder what the hell the problem is. Get with it, people!

Tell it to the city and CDOT, spend some actual money on transit infrastructure, not only on bike lanes, over/underpasses, etc.

Marcu Jan 3, 2007 5:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiArchie (Post 2542561)
Well lets not just think the the General Contractors are bilking the CTA, or that the CTA is too incompentent. There is alot of costs that you never really see. The cost of using union trades with overtime pay, temporary barricades, the cost of working underground, i.e. moisture issues, moving materials, age of the last renovation.

I know it's all too easy to call the CTA names or just expect anything the City does is full of graf but there are some real costs that can be pushed aside.

I understand your point, but I just can't see how the numbers add up. Also, I think at this point it is not unreasonable to place the burden on the CTA and city contractors to show us where the costs are coming from.

honte Jan 3, 2007 8:43 PM

^ Really. I've thought about this too - if we can dig miles and miles of giant sewer lines, how hard could it be to provide new subways? Sure, it's more complicated due to proximity to the surface and downtown buildings, but it must not be more challenging than Deep Tunnel. Is there a major difference, or just spending priorities?

VivaLFuego Jan 3, 2007 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2544139)
I understand your point, but I just can't see how the numbers add up. Also, I think at this point it is not unreasonable to place the burden on the CTA and city contractors to show us where the costs are coming from.

All the contracts, specs, and procurement files for government agencies (CDOT and CTA included) are publicly available via the Freedom of Information Act, so if you're so concerned about impropriety why don't you have a look at them instead of merely waxing righteously indignant with general accusations backed up with no specifics?

honte Jan 4, 2007 12:53 AM

^ Yes, this is true... but I don't think just because FOIA is around, all citizens should be expected to go digging every time something comes up. It would be nice to see the real figures for these kinds of projects printed in a business journal (say, Crains) on a regular basis. It would help demonstrate the transparency of the process and alleviate some of these kinds of public misgivings.

Plus, I don't know about the transit side, but the permits department as an example is absolutely horrendous for pulling old data. I can't express how frustrated that department makes me... rude, slow, and totally disrespectful - and often they don't give you what you're looking for.

texcolo Jan 4, 2007 1:06 AM

Should Chicago scrap the Loop???
 
I visited Chicago for the first time back in September, and was extremely impressed with everything except for the condition of the public transportation. Great coverage, but poor condition, since it's over 100 years old what should I expect, right?

http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gall...0/accident.jpg

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im...-wabash01t.jpg

Anyways, should Chicago scrap the El Loop for better conditioned subways?

bnk Jan 4, 2007 1:12 AM

:previous:

That would be pure blasphemy.

Improve speed, track condition, and efficiency yes.

Scrap the EL, unthinkable.

LA21st Jan 4, 2007 1:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2543884)
Tell it to the city and CDOT, spend some actual money on transit infrastructure, not only on bike lanes, over/underpasses, etc.

Funny you should say that. The CDOT commissioner takes the el to work every day and barely drives anywhere. Many CDOT people take the el/bus and most of the others take metra.

I think the problem is at City Hall, or IDOT. It is not at CDOT. The Transit division is hiring more people at CDOT, fyi. Not alot, but it is starting to grow.:)

LA21st Jan 4, 2007 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 2544649)
:previous:

That would be pure blasphemy.

Improve speed, track condition, and efficiency yes.

Scrap the EL, unthinkable.

Agreed. Modernize the stations and such but never tear it down. NEVER. That would be like ripping a part out of Chicago's heart. Just thinking about it makes me sad, and Im not even a native.

honte Jan 4, 2007 2:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texcolo (Post 2544637)
Anyways, should Chicago scrap the El Loop for better conditioned subways?

It once was foolishly considered to do this in the 1970s... I think just about every Chicagoan is glad they never did it.

There is one question that's been on my mind, however; perhaps some of the transit buffs here can answer it for me: Is it possible to modernize the Loop elevated without destroying its historic charm? Sure, Quincey station is an example of a well-done station house, but what about the elevated structure itself? I am always saddened to see the beautiful riveted steel replaced by concrete, such as on the Douglas line.

texcolo Jan 4, 2007 2:14 AM

How much does the CTA spend on keeping the Loop up and running???

I gotta big kick out of riding it, but just think about the maintainence costs, the affect of street life below, the accessability for the handicapped and elderly, the safety issues, the age of the steel and rivets holding it together...

mikeelm Jan 4, 2007 2:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 2544747)
It once was foolishly considered to do this in the 1970s... I think just about every Chicagoan is glad they never did it.

There is one question that's been on my mind, however; perhaps some of the transit buffs here can answer it for me: Is it possible to modernize the Loop elevated without destroying its historic charm? Sure, Quincey station is an example of a well-done station house, but what about the elevated structure itself? I am always saddened to see the beautiful riveted steel replaced by concrete, such as on the Douglas line.

I Think it would of been nicer to have put it all underground.

Marcu Jan 4, 2007 2:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2544423)
All the contracts, specs, and procurement files for government agencies (CDOT and CTA included) are publicly available via the Freedom of Information Act, so if you're so concerned about impropriety why don't you have a look at them instead of merely waxing righteously indignant with general accusations backed up with no specifics?

CDOT and CTA would likely deny the requests until bidding has been complete or otherwise terminated as they are allowed to do a FOIA exemption. This being a message board, I was hoping someone would simply tell me what the project entails and the reasons why it costs as much as it does.

As for the personal attack, I simply choose not to be willfully blind for the sake of advancing a pro-transit political position. I guess it takes a certain sense of subtety to realize transparency and good governance on the part of the CTA would do more to advance mass transit in Chicago than almost anything else.

VivaLFuego Jan 4, 2007 4:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2544837)
CDOT and CTA would likely deny the requests until bidding has been complete or otherwise terminated as they are allowed to do a FOIA exemption. This being a message board, I was hoping someone would simply tell me what the project entails and the reasons why it costs as much as it does.

As for the personal attack, I simply choose not to be willfully blind for the sake of advancing a pro-transit political position. I guess it takes a certain sense of subtety to realize transparency and good governance on the part of the CTA would do more to advance mass transit in Chicago than almost anything else.

Obviously the Grand files wouldn't be public yet, but any other completed or in-progress projects would be; but you always come off as so indignant about how incompetent and corrupt our various government entities are without actually backing it up with any facts of when there was impropriety in contract award, etc. I'm not saying there should be lack of transparency, but you only appear to sow a sense of general mistrust when you don't seem to have any actual facts to back up the alleged incompetence and impropriety of CTA, CDOT, the City, etc.

As you can tell, I'm a transit lifer so I take it personally when you hurl such accusations at my colleagues.

More on topic, I think their estimates were sound based on past experience; the Chicago Ave. Red Line rehab cost close to $20 million, and it was bid out around 1999. Inflationary increases, especially in construction, for similar services would put Grand at closer to $30 million. Possible reasons for the high bids I can think of: 1) the contractors are already stretched thin, so adding the staffing required to meet whatever time frame the city required was exorbitantly expensive, therefore meaning they'll need to bid it out again at a later date or maybe 2) the scope of work was bigger than Chicago and inclded excavation to allow for a direct transfer to the eventual River Line, in which case I hope they find the money to keep the ball rolling.

VivaLFuego Jan 4, 2007 4:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 2544747)
It once was foolishly considered to do this in the 1970s... I think just about every Chicagoan is glad they never did it.

There is one question that's been on my mind, however; perhaps some of the transit buffs here can answer it for me: Is it possible to modernize the Loop elevated without destroying its historic charm? Sure, Quincey station is an example of a well-done station house, but what about the elevated structure itself? I am always saddened to see the beautiful riveted steel replaced by concrete, such as on the Douglas line.

Sure. It has already been largely modernized, the same way the Green Line was. -Basically- the extent of the structual modernization is 1) reconstructing the foundations (caissons) for the structural supports as needed and 2) renewing the flange angles, which are the angled pieces riveted on to the main crossbeams and supports to create an I-beam (as these were made before huge I-beams came pre-fabbed). The flange angles are the piece of the structure that wears the most for obvious reasons (it's transfering all the load), and are also susceptible to rust if the riveting wasn't done well. Most of the steel structure has a very long life span if its treated well and kept from rusting out, but obviously sometimes is unsalvageable so pieces must be replaced. From a track perspective, basically you can replace the wooden ties with plastic composite ties, have the rails clipped on instead of spiked down, and continuously weld the rail. All this can be done, it just costs money and is disruptive to service (replacing ties on an L structure is a bit more complicated than replacing ties on ballast, for which there are machines that do it automatically). My understanding is that in terms of structural renewal of the old elevated structure throughout the city, basically the entire system has been fairly modernized (including the Loop, South Side Main, Milwaukee L and most of the Ravenswood) with the exception of the North Side Main Line (i.e. the Red Line), with the portion south of Belmont to be renewed as part of the Brown Line project.

Hope this helps.

VivaLFuego Jan 4, 2007 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 2544716)
Funny you should say that. The CDOT commissioner takes the el to work every day and barely drives anywhere. Many CDOT people take the el/bus and most of the others take metra.

I think the problem is at City Hall, or IDOT. It is not at CDOT. The Transit division is hiring more people at CDOT, fyi. Not alot, but it is starting to grow.:)

Indeed.... CDOT has to what they're told, and I'm sure alot of politics go into devising the project lists and budgeting.

honte Jan 4, 2007 4:26 AM

^ Great info, VivaL! Thanks again.

Your analysis seems to indicate that the majority of the steel structure aside from the flange angles is usually in pretty good shape, correct?

Also, does this mean that we shouldn't be losing any more steel elevated structure beyond the Douglas branch? And, why didn't they use this method on the Douglas instead of replacing it with Miami-style concrete piers? I presume it was just too far gone?

VivaLFuego Jan 4, 2007 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honte (Post 2545008)
^ Great info, VivaL! Thanks again.

Your analysis seems to indicate that the majority of the steel structure aside from the flange angles is usually in pretty good shape, correct?

Also, does this mean that we shouldn't be losing any more steel elevated structure beyond the Douglas branch? And, why didn't they use this method on the Douglas instead of replacing it with Miami-style concrete piers? I presume it was just too far gone?

Basically. You'll note that they actually did manage to save the old steel L for the portion of the Douglas that runs North-South along Paulina, from Cullerton up to the Eisenhower. This portion of the branch had some significant work done around the early 80s (I think) when they did some renovations and rebuilt the stations there. The Paulina Connector (from the Eisenhower to the Lake st L) and the East-West portion of the Douglas were basically too far gone to salvage in any meaningful way, as I don't think they had gotten any structural maintenance (not even paint to slow the rust) for 50 years. I think the entire, or very nearly, elevated portion of the Douglas, west of Paulina, was 15-25mph slow zones when they started the rehab.

TransitEngr Jan 5, 2007 2:45 AM

Orange Line - Extension Ideas
 
I'm just floating this out there to get feedback from people.... (PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REPLY!!)

As most people know, the Orange Line MIGHT oneday be extended to Ford City Mall (the various way and routes are to be studied very soon by consultants but that is NOT the purpose of my posting).

My question is.....
If the Orange Line were extended to Ford City Mall, should there be consideration further on in the future to oneday extend the Orange Line to the new Chicago Fire Stadium? Do you think that would be a good, or bad idea, and if so, why?

the urban politician Jan 5, 2007 4:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitEngr (Post 2546762)
My question is.....
If the Orange Line were extended to Ford City Mall, should there be consideration further on in the future to oneday extend the Orange Line to the new Chicago Fire Stadium? Do you think that would be a good, or bad idea, and if so, why?

^ Bad idea. The Chicago Fire should have built their stadium near transit to begin with. Lord knows there's plenty of room along the Orange Line on the SW side.

I see no reason to waste city, state, and federal dollars to build a rail line all the way out there

SevenSevenThree Jan 5, 2007 4:26 AM

Quick question (whats new): Riding home for a while now on the Purple Line, Ive noticed what appears to be the lengthening of the Chicago Ave and the Sedgewick platforms. Is that what it is? Is the laying of wood permanant? Im asking because I knew these stations, or at least I thought, would be re-habbed but it seems like a wasted opportunity to do something really great. It looks cheap and is it the best material to use when there is better out there? Why must CTA make me hate them the way they do? Ugh! Maybe my expectation are too high or maybe they lack vision.

honte Jan 5, 2007 4:39 AM

^ Of all the old CTA stations, I think Chicago/Franklin Brown Line is one of the most charming. But, since they are probably going to mess the whole thing up, yes, they should do something spectacular.

Oh by the way, since I've been complaining about stations lately, I thought I should mention that I think the new Cicero station on the Blue (err Pink) Line is pretty darn cool for a budget station. Just saw it for the first time a few weeks ago.

texcolo Jan 5, 2007 5:53 AM

OK... maybe I kept getting off at the wrong stations in the loop and getting the wrong impression...

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im...p/quincy12.jpg

http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/im...p/quincy14.jpg

:D

Latoso Jan 5, 2007 9:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitEngr
]If the Orange Line were extended to Ford City Mall, should there be consideration further on in the future to oneday extend the Orange Line to the new Chicago Fire Stadium? Do you think that would be a good, or bad idea, and if so, why?

Yes it should be built as I've been advocating since before the stadiums construction. Here are some old maps I drew up showing what I proposed and a satellite image of the area:

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/2...ossible2dl.jpg

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3...ngereallw4.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 2546951)
^ Bad idea. The Chicago Fire should have built their stadium near transit to begin with. Lord knows there's plenty of room along the Orange Line on the SW side.

I see no reason to waste city, state, and federal dollars to build a rail line all the way out there

Way out there? You're nuts and obviously unfamiliar with the area. Bridgeview, Summit, Burbank, Oak Lawn and the surrounding area including Chicago neighborhoods Clearing and Garfield Ridge are much denser than most suburbs and denser than some outlying city neighborhoods. In fact the both ends of the Blue line, the Red and Purple as well as the Yellow line go much farther than my proposed extension, plus it would be relatively less expensive than most extensions because it uses existing railroad right-of-ways so I don't know where you think you're coming from.

VivaLFuego Jan 5, 2007 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SevenSevenThree (Post 2546971)
Quick question (whats new): Riding home for a while now on the Purple Line, Ive noticed what appears to be the lengthening of the Chicago Ave and the Sedgewick platforms. Is that what it is? Is the laying of wood permanant? Im asking because I knew these stations, or at least I thought, would be re-habbed but it seems like a wasted opportunity to do something really great. It looks cheap and is it the best material to use when there is better out there? Why must CTA make me hate them the way they do? Ugh! Maybe my expectation are too high or maybe they lack vision.

I believe what you're presently seeing is temporary; those extensions will be in use while the opposite ends of the platforms are closed to be rebuilt. The tipoff is that its unfinished wood they're laying down.

That said, the new stations will mostly be pretty bland. The cost-cutting revisions after the first bids came in too high basically took out any detailing and also took out the unique design that each station had (i.e. there will be a standard brown line look/aesthetic now). They'll be pretty nice when done, but purely functional. Such is the reality of Chicago transit.

the urban politician Jan 5, 2007 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latoso (Post 2547481)
Bridgeview, Summit, Burbank, Oak Lawn and the surrounding area including Chicago neighborhoods Clearing and Garfield Ridge are much denser than most suburbs and denser than some outlying city neighborhoods. In fact the both ends of the Blue line, the Red and Purple as well as the Yellow line go much farther than my proposed extension, plus it would be relatively less expensive than most extensions because it uses existing railroad right-of-ways so I don't know where you think you're coming from.

^ Granted, but considering the struggle we face year-in-year out just to get a drop in the bucket of transit funding, I would gather it would be wisest to start locating new developments (ie sports stadiums) near existing stops of the city's transit system. This is especially true along lines in the south and west sides, which are heavily underutilized. Now if getting funding for this extension isn't a problem, then I'm all for it. But if obtaining funds for this takes away from other projects (red line extension, circle line, downtown light rail system, etc) then it seems like a waste of precious transit money just because of a decision made by a soccer team.

nomarandlee Jan 5, 2007 5:46 PM

I agree with UP. If the Fire had found it a priority to think of their fans (especially in the city) they could have developed a stadium near transit in the first place. Instead they wanted parking lots (with which to take more revenue from I guess) and they wanted subsidies from Bridgeview to get their stadium built instead of putting in the city or near transit. Frankly, screw 'em unless they want to tear some of those lots up and make the area immediate around TOD. It is not like a 40k stadium that will be used 81 times a year anyway.

Latoso Jan 5, 2007 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 2547790)
^ Granted, but considering the struggle we face year-in-year out just to get a drop in the bucket of transit funding, I would gather it would be wisest to start locating new developments (ie sports stadiums) near existing stops of the city's transit system. This is especially true along lines in the south and west sides, which are heavily underutilized.

Now why would the Fire build a soccer stadium on the south or west sides? Black people don't like soccer! ;)

Norsider Jan 5, 2007 6:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitEngr (Post 2546762)
I'm just floating this out there to get feedback from people.... (PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REPLY!!)

As most people know, the Orange Line MIGHT oneday be extended to Ford City Mall (the various way and routes are to be studied very soon by consultants but that is NOT the purpose of my posting).

My question is.....
If the Orange Line were extended to Ford City Mall, should there be consideration further on in the future to oneday extend the Orange Line to the new Chicago Fire Stadium? Do you think that would be a good, or bad idea, and if so, why?

The last thing the CTA needs is longer (and therefore, more expensive in terms of cost per rider) train lines. What the CTA needs to do is stop trying to compete in the commuting business (where it is up against the far superior Metra system) and get back to doing to city transit should do - shuttle people around the city. Getting people to and from Ford City is not a priority when compared with getting people from Union Station to Navy Pier, Streeterville hotels to McCormick Place, and a hundred other quick trips that are currently impossible on our ill-conceived rapid transit system.

Chicago Shawn Jan 5, 2007 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norsider (Post 2548120)
The last thing the CTA needs is longer (and therefore, more expensive in terms of cost per rider) train lines. What the CTA needs to do is stop trying to compete in the commuting business (where it is up against the far superior Metra system) and get back to doing to city transit should do - shuttle people around the city. Getting people to and from Ford City is not a priority when compared with getting people from Union Station to Navy Pier, Streeterville hotels to McCormick Place, and a hundred other quick trips that are currently impossible on our ill-conceived rapid transit system.

I agree with you in principal, however this area is not served by Metra, except for the limited service Herritage Coridor line with one station in Summit. The rest of this area is served by PACE, and we all know how wonderful and frequent PaCE service is, but atleast its something. I actually rode the 379 route last night for the hell of it from Moraine Valley College to Midway, and eventhough it was 10:45 Pm when the bus pulled into Midway, it was still about half full, better than quite a few CTA buses running on the fringes of the city.

I belive there is a good oportunity here because the line would not be that expensive to build, and stations could even be built under the Overpass viaducts to save money by not including platform canopies. The parking lot at Bridgeview stadium could be used as a park 'n ride location durring the off season for transit riders or even remote long-term airport parking closer to home. Right now it just sits unused, I am sure staduim management would be open to more income generation. Also, perhaps some TOD could be built in the underutilized sections of Ford City's parking lots.

VivaLFuego Jan 5, 2007 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukecuj (Post 2548073)
Yea I remember when you proposed this well over a year ago and thought you were spot on about it being a logical extension using existing rail right of ways. It has the population density, work force density (industrial parks) and as I believe you stated originally the terminus at Harlem otherwise know as Chi Fire Stadium ( a major north south artery) provides enormous transfer options that don't currently exist.

The Ford City terminus would provide greater access to retail for everyone east on the line, but it wouldn't necessarily bring more riders from the west though.

There can and will be a massive park n ride facility at the Ford City station.

And it might seem petty, but I'm actually boycotting the Fire until they run a free shuttle between the stadium and the Orange line. I'm not gonna be held hostage to pay $15 to park. I used to be a good customer of theirs too.

Rail Claimore Jan 5, 2007 11:37 PM

I think they should just tear up Bedford Park and build new runways for Midway.

findo102000 Jan 5, 2007 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2548293)
There can and will be a massive park n ride facility at the Ford City station.

And it might seem petty, but I'm actually boycotting the Fire until they run a free shuttle between the stadium and the Orange line. I'm not gonna be held hostage to pay $15 to park. I used to be a good customer of theirs too.

well, pace does offer a shuttle from midway on game days...

VivaLFuego Jan 5, 2007 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by findo102000 (Post 2548534)
well, pace does offer a shuttle from midway on game days...

That's news to me, I couldn't find any promotion of it last season. I do see it mentioned on their site now though; that must be recent in the last several months. That's good, my boycott is officially over.

the urban politician Jan 6, 2007 4:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore (Post 2548504)
I think they should just tear up Bedford Park and build new runways for Midway.

^ I'd take that over pretty much everything else as well.

I've been to Ford City--I don't see why it deserves a transit shop. With its seas of parking everybody is pretty much going to drive there anyhow. I say bring more retail into the denser parts of the city so that nobody will even need to go to some outlying shopping mall

Latoso Jan 6, 2007 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore (Post 2548504)
I think they should just tear up Bedford Park and build new runways for Midway.

Yes, that's a great idea. Who needs heavily used railroad yards or factories that employ tens of thousands of people in good paying job?:koko:

Sometimes it seems that people who don't live in Chicago on this forum just assume that every suburb is shit and nothing good can be seen outside the city limits even if it's adjacent as is Bedford Park.

Rail Claimore Jan 6, 2007 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latoso (Post 2549308)
Yes, that's a great idea. Who needs heavily used railroad yards or factories that employ tens of thousands of people in good paying job?:koko:

Sometimes it seems that people who don't live in Chicago on this forum just assume that every suburb is shit and nothing good can be seen outside the city limits even if it's adjacent as is Bedford Park.

I was being sarcastic.

Latoso Jan 7, 2007 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore (Post 2549700)
I was being sarcastic.

My bad. It's hard to tell on these things when people are sarcastic. Especially because I've met deadly serious people who wanted to rip up Clearing and Garfield Ridge to expand Midway. Next time use a couple of these ";)"

brian_b Jan 7, 2007 2:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2548541)
That's news to me, I couldn't find any promotion of it last season. I do see it mentioned on their site now though; that must be recent in the last several months. That's good, my boycott is officially over.

I used this bus last season. It sucks (and it's a normal Pace fare, BTW). It takes forever (I think the average speed on those empty industrial park streets was 25 mph) and drops you off about 2 blocks away from the wrong side of the stadium. Plus, the Bridgeview cops that direct the vehicular traffic give priority to drivers, so be prepared to stand on the sidewalk for minutes at a time waiting for them to let you cross a parking lot entrance.

I went to lots of Fire games at Soldier Field. It was great, but I completely understand them not wanting to continue playing there. However, they picked a terrible location for the new stadium. For transit-oriented fans, that is. It's unlikely that I'll go to another game unless there's a direct Orange Line extension straight to the gates.

Norsider Jan 8, 2007 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn (Post 2548185)
I belive there is a good oportunity here because the line would not be that expensive to build, and stations could even be built under the Overpass viaducts to save money by not including platform canopies. The parking lot at Bridgeview stadium could be used as a park 'n ride location durring the off season for transit riders or even remote long-term airport parking closer to home. Right now it just sits unused, I am sure staduim management would be open to more income generation. Also, perhaps some TOD could be built in the underutilized sections of Ford City's parking lots.

The initial capital cost of this project is utterly irrelevant. It could cost ten dollars or 10 billion dollars. What is of importance is how much the line will cost to OPERATE. I can guarantee you that an extension to Ford city will be a overall money loser on a per rider basis. It will serve as a weight that will drag down the rest of the CTA system with it.

VivaLFuego Jan 8, 2007 3:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norsider (Post 2551791)
The initial capital cost of this project is utterly irrelevant. It could cost ten dollars or 10 billion dollars. What is of importance is how much the line will cost to OPERATE. I can guarantee you that an extension to Ford city will be a overall money loser on a per rider basis. It will serve as a weight that will drag down the rest of the CTA system with it.

The Alternatives Analysis should uncover whether or not this is true. If you're right, then I don't think the project would qualify for federal money. I'm not so sure you are, since there's decent trip generators there (a few thousand retail employees, the stores/theatre they work at, as well as Daley College), in addition a huge park n ride facility (all the other park n ride lots on the Orange line fill up by like 7am on a normal weekdays, especially those at the outer ends at Pulaski and Midway. There could be a thousand or more park n ride riders per day). Not to mention potential transfer traffic from the #79 and #67 buses (the 79 is the highest ridership bus in the system, FYI).

That said, I do know that the city is presently trying to acquire land for the extension, so I think some people are pretty serious about it happening.

BVictor1 Jan 8, 2007 12:15 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...i-newsroom-hed

Skokie Swift expansion inches closer

By Dan Gibbard and Andrew Schroedter
Tribune staff reporters
Published January 8, 2007, 12:02 AM CST


Talked about for four decades but with nothing accomplished, an expansion of the Skokie Swift rapid transit line could hardly have moved any slower.

But with the long-sought addition of a new downtown station on Oakton Street looking like a sure thing, Skokie officials believe the time might have come to extend the Swift, also known as the Chicago Transit Authority's Yellow Line, to a new train station near Old Orchard mall.

Any extension is still years away at best, but with CTA officials going to Skokie this week for a site survey, village leaders say they have never been more optimistic.

"It's long-range, but it's more in the realm of possibility than ever before, I think," said Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen, who estimated the cost of the Old Orchard extension at $100 million. "The success we've had in one area perhaps breeds a little bit of optimism that we can succeed in the second one."

The CTA's last expansion in the North Shore was in 1964, when it began running the Swift on the tracks of the old North Shore railroad, which went bust in the mid-1950s.

Proposals to extend the line go back to at least 1965, Tribune archives show, when the Skokie Valley Transportation Council, an ad hoc committee of North Shore towns, recommended an Old Orchard stop.

In 1985 a Tribune editorial warned that suburban traffic would worsen and asked, "Whatever happened to the plans to extend the Skokie Swift from Dempster Street to Old Orchard?"

Until recently, not much.

But in 2003 Skokie did a study that helped persuade the CTA to include the project in a request for federal "New Starts" funding earmarked for congestion-easing transit projects that year. Now the agency has launched a formal study process, and consultants will travel to the village to get a tour of what has changed since the '03 study.

"We've worked hard to push for support among congressional delegations and others to get on this list and to work to secure funding," said CTA spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler.

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who pushed for funding of the CTA study, spoke confidently.

"When the first project is complete [at Oakton Street], we'll go all the way to Old Orchard," she predicted. "I think this is going to be an enormous boost to the local economy."

For now, the Skokie Swift runs non-stop between Howard Street in Chicago and Dempster Street in Skokie, with about 2,500 riders a day boarding at Dempster. The $15 million stop at Oakton, near the Illinois Science + Technology Park, could debut as early as 2008.

Skokie planners have identified three possible sites for an Old Orchard station: on the west side of the Edens Expressway, where the old North Shore line used to run; just east of the expressway, next to Niles North High School; and in the mall's parking lot, near Bloomingdale's.

The line would probably need to be elevated or laid out in some way to keep the trains from crossing busy thoroughfares at street level, especially Dempster, said Steve Marciani, the village's planning supervisor.

Officials believe demand for the added stop is strong, as Skokie stores, hotels and businesses located north of Golf Road employ more than 11,000 people, he said.

The new line would whisk shoppers, employees and others to Westfield Shoppingtown Old Orchard, the Cook County courthouse and other nearby office and retail developments.

"The whole corridor is very busy," Van Dusen said. "A lot of employers have told us they would like it because they pick up their employees at Dempster."

At Old Orchard, the idea went over well among workers, managers and shoppers.

Carrie Dunham, manager at The Limited, said not having a viable rapid transit system makes it difficult for her to recruit workers who don't live nearby.

Many of her employees live in Chicago but would prefer working at The Limited store at Water Tower Place because they can ride the CTA to work, Dunham said.

"I think [the extension] is a good idea," she said. "We don't have public transportation out here. There's a bus, but it stops at a certain point and stops running at night."

The Yellow Line doesn't only shuttle people from Chicago to the suburbs. Philip Luu, 17, said he lives in Skokie but rides the Yellow Line to Chicago to hang out with friends and volunteer.

Because the train doesn't stop near his school, Luu, a senior at Niles North, takes a bus to Dempster, then rides the Swift to Howard. There, he switches to the Red Line, which carries him south into the city.

The Yellow Line extension would eliminate the bus leg of the journey, which Luu said he would welcome, especially in the winter or when buses are running late.

"That would really be nice," said Luu's friend Mohini Ghale, 18, of Skokie. "We'd have a straight line to the Red Line and to go downtown."

Skokie, meanwhile, "would like to see public transportation because it takes cars off the road," Van Dusen said. "Anything we can do to ease congestion is a good thing."

The extension's estimated cost would include engineering studies, equipment and land acquisition, Van Dusen said. The $100 million estimate is for an above-ground line, he said, and tunneling would bump it higher.

It's too early to worry about exactly how to fund the project, village officials said, but it's clear the federal and state governments would have to pick up the lion's share of the tab.

Before the CTA can secure federal funding, the agency must demonstrate that a formal process of planning and design has been followed.

Ziegler said the extension proposal is in its earliest stage, known as alternatives analysis. In this phase, engineers study "traffic generators"—where people live, where they go and how they get there—as well as possible routes, station locations, ridership estimates, costs and what other transportation options are available.

The analysis takes at least two years to complete and is one of four the CTA has in the works, along with proposed extensions of the Orange and Red Lines and creation of a new downtown Circle Line.

Dan Gibbard is a Tribune staff reporter; Andrew Schroedter is a freelance reporter.

dgibbard@tribune.com

jpIllInoIs Jan 8, 2007 12:31 PM

^
 
:cheers: It is good to see this project in the CTA priorities. $100M is not out of reach.

Norsider Jan 8, 2007 3:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego (Post 2552089)
The Alternatives Analysis should uncover whether or not this is true. If you're right, then I don't think the project would qualify for federal money. I'm not so sure you are, since there's decent trip generators there (a few thousand retail employees, the stores/theatre they work at, as well as Daley College), in addition a huge park n ride facility (all the other park n ride lots on the Orange line fill up by like 7am on a normal weekdays, especially those at the outer ends at Pulaski and Midway. There could be a thousand or more park n ride riders per day). Not to mention potential transfer traffic from the #79 and #67 buses (the 79 is the highest ridership bus in the system, FYI).

That said, I do know that the city is presently trying to acquire land for the extension, so I think some people are pretty serious about it happening.

The point is not that people might or might not want to ride the train, it's that longer lines cost exponentially more money to operate. Plus, in order to keep trains running on a steady schedule on a ten mile line, you need X trains. Extend the line to 20 miles and you will need 2X trains to adhere to the same schedule. Will you get double the riders? I think not.

SkokieSwift Jan 8, 2007 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 2552576)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...i-newsroom-hed

Skokie Swift expansion inches closer

By Dan Gibbard and Andrew Schroedter
Tribune staff reporters
Published January 8, 2007, 12:02 AM CST

Sweet. I hope they keep it east of the Edens, though.

orulz Jan 8, 2007 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1 (Post 2552576)
...Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen ... estimated the cost of the Old Orchard extension at $100 million.
...
The extension's estimated cost would include engineering studies, equipment and land acquisition, Van Dusen said. The $100 million estimate is for an above-ground line, he said, and tunneling would bump it higher.

$100 million?? The extension from Dempster to Old Orchard would be what, 1.6 miles? And isn't the old North Shore right-of-way still there and completely intact? Sure, build grade separations at Dempster and maybe at Old Orchard, but does that mean that the whole line needs to be elevated?

$100 million for a 1.6 mile extension with just one station seems high.

Wright Concept Jan 8, 2007 4:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 2552849)
$100 million?? The extension from Dempster to Old Orchard would be what, 1.6 miles? And isn't the old North Shore right-of-way still there and completely intact? Sure, build grade separations at Dempster and maybe at Old Orchard, but does that mean that the whole line needs to be elevated?

$100 million for a 1.6 mile extension with just one station seems high.

Actually that sounds about right, cause they'll need to extend the Dempster platforms to 4 cars and the add room for a second track in preparation for the grade crossing which from the sound of it could mean Dempster Street being raised and the trains running underneath. From there it's really easy to stay on the Right of way and just build the grade separations.

Marcu Jan 8, 2007 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 2552849)
$100 million?? The extension from Dempster to Old Orchard would be what, 1.6 miles? And isn't the old North Shore right-of-way still there and completely intact? Sure, build grade separations at Dempster and maybe at Old Orchard, but does that mean that the whole line needs to be elevated?

$100 million for a 1.6 mile extension with just one station seems high.

If bids for remodeling the Grand stop came in at $65mil this is a steal. However just as the Grand project, bids for this will probably come in higher.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.