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)

the urban politician Jan 21, 2017 2:29 PM

^ I'm not proposing we build new elevated trains in the downtown area. I think it is assumed that any new heavy rail, if ever built downtown, would have to be subway.

Mr Downtown Jan 21, 2017 4:16 PM

The Connector project would be nearly all elevated over the street.

It's interesting to see the conclusions big Southeast Asian cities have reached on the matter. For budget reasons, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and Taipei began with elevated light metro lines. All have switched to underground full metros for their recent lines. Singapore's new lines are all being put underground, even in outer reaches of the island. Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and Jakarta have heeded the lesson, and are going underground—despite shallow water tables—at least in their central areas.

chicagopcclcar1 Jan 21, 2017 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7685370)
The Connector project would be nearly all elevated over the street.


[IMG]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...P1030664_1.jpg[/IMG]

W. Lake Street between Pulaski and Cicero Aves.

Is your "Connector project" the CTA Circle Line? My interpretation of the CTA's Circle Line would call for using the State St. subway from Clybourn to Roosevelt, so that is not "nearly all elevated over the street." Plus, in Chicago, except on the downtown areas where the private owners give their permission and Lake St. west of Market St. (N. Wacker Dr.), illegally built.... the city's "L"s weren't built over streets. Chicago "L" are built on private lands. E. 63rd St. also received permission from property owners. Subways and expressway medians are city-owned.

Still out from plans is the stretch of the Circle Line from Lake and Paulina to Clybourn....elevated, subway, or whatever.

DH

Randomguy34 Jan 22, 2017 3:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicagopcclcar1 (Post 7685628)
W. Lake Street between Pulaski and Cicero Aves.

Just sayin, the Lake St branch is not the best representation of elevated trains over the street. Having been all over the east coast for school, the Lake St branch is a real outlier when it comes to elevated trains. The only reason why Lake st looks like crap is because the street was never zoned for businesses, and instead has always been zoned for manufacturing. If that wasn't the case dense housing would have been built along much of he street, just like in Boston, Philadelphia, as well as Brooklyn and The Bronx, all areas that have active businesses underneath their elevated lines.

Also, the connector project kept referencing the London Docklands Light Railway as a model to follow instead of other heavy rail systems, so the connector system would end up looking more like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._MMB_05_02.jpg

emathias Jan 22, 2017 4:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7685257)
...
Earsplitting noise is one massive factor in reducing safety and perception of safety, and more so for a foreign visitor. It creates many situations where you can't call for help, even to the person next to you, and you can't explain a situation to an attendant, if you can get the attention of an attendant -- especially if in broken English. ...

A former roommate of mine used to work in Midtown Manhattan and I'd call him sometimes during the day. Invariably, our conversation would be broken up by the sirens of emergency response vehicles - ambulances or fire trucks. Elevated lines aren't the only thing in urban environments that create enough noise to temporarily silence auditory communication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7685370)
The Connector project would be nearly all elevated over the street.
...

I haven't seen anything that indicates that this has been actually decided. In fact the planning documents I have seen indicate that while elevated lines would be cheaper than subways, the total costs would not be so great as to force a decision for elevated lines. I personally think that given the docuements I've seen, if Chicago actually discovered a way to fund something along the lines of the Circulator or similar routes, that subways would make far more sense for a variety of pragmatic reasons even if they cost somewhat more.

IrishIllini Jan 23, 2017 1:04 AM

I personally love that you can hear the L. I lived directly across the street from the houses the L ran behind in my first apartment and I never heard it unless my window was open. Even then it was a quick woosh and then back to silence.

ardecila Jan 23, 2017 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7685798)
Just sayin, the Lake St branch is not the best representation of elevated trains over the street. Having been all over the east coast for school, the Lake St branch is a real outlier when it comes to elevated trains. The only reason why Lake st looks like crap is because the street was never zoned for businesses, and instead has always been zoned for manufacturing. If that wasn't the case dense housing would have been built along much of he street, just like in Boston, Philadelphia, as well as Brooklyn and The Bronx, all areas that have active businesses underneath their elevated lines

Actually this isn't true. The industrial corridor along Lake took the place of a residential neighborhood. Lake Street was actually the city's original Main Street, and had lots of small scale development even when the surrounding areas were still undeveloped.

It was only after the L was built (around 1890) that property values started to drop, residents moved elsewhere and the old residential buildings were gradually bought up and replaced with low-slung warehouses. When the zoning ordinance was first created in the 50s, this process was already well underway and the ordinance only put this into law. Planners at that time assumed either the elevated line would get torn down, or that riders would transfer from buses, so they saw no need to concentrate housing around the stations.

Pink Jazz Jan 23, 2017 5:06 PM

With the future 7000-series cars, I wonder what will the line assignments be. Blue Line riders are probably hoping they don't get shorted again as they did with the 5000-series. While the base order of the 7000-series is to replace the 2600-series, I wonder if CTA will instead give the Blue Line some hand-me-down 5000-series cars from the Red, Purple, and Yellow Lines and make those lines all 7000-series. Note that there are plans to expand the Red Line, and since the requirement for the 7000s to be compatible with the 5000s was eliminated, this could indeed happen. Some of the 7000-series options are for fleet expansion and I believe these are for the Red Line extension (after the 3200-series replacement options for the Orange and Brown Lines).

The reason why the Blue Line didn't get 5000s was because the Red, Purple, and Yellow Lines share a yard (Howard Yard), and CTA wanted those three lines to have a common fleet, since occasionally trains assigned to one line may be substituted from one assigned to another (Purple Line occasionally borrows Red Line equipment, for example).

What I personally think should be done instead is to keep the 5000s on the Red, Purple, and Yellow Lines, but once all 7000s are delivered (if all options are exercised), give the Green and Pink Lines 7000s and use their 5000s to cover for the Red Line extension. The Green and Pink Lines should have about enough 5000s to cover for the Red Line extension, and just as CTA wants the Red, Purple, and Yellow to have a common fleet, the same is true for the Green and Pink, since those lines also sometimes borrow each other's equipment. So I think it would make sense to have the 5000s on the Red, Purple, and Yellow Lines, and the 7000s on the Blue, Orange, Brown, Green, and Pink Lines in the end.

emathias Jan 23, 2017 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7686573)
Actually this isn't true. The industrial corridor along Lake took the place of a residential neighborhood. Lake Street was actually the city's original Main Street, and had lots of small scale development even when the surrounding areas were still undeveloped.

It was only after the L was built (around 1890) that property values started to drop, residents moved elsewhere and the old residential buildings were gradually bought up and replaced with low-slung warehouses. When the zoning ordinance was first created in the 50s, this process was already well underway and the ordinance only put this into law. Planners at that time assumed either the elevated line would get torn down, or that riders would transfer from buses, so they saw no need to concentrate housing around the stations.

The Blue Line subway has a short starter spur headed west under Lake Street. People definitely though it would be at least partially subway eventually.

scalziand Jan 23, 2017 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7685259)
Conversely, in Manhattan, can you imagine an earsplitting elevated running through modern Wall Street or today's Upper East Side. Or if it did, whether the powers that be would just leave it that way forever. A new train line just opened up along Second Avenue this month. Its budget as a subway was stratospheric, and it would have been just a fraction of that if elevated. They did not make it elevated.

The Second Avenue Subway is replacing an El that was torn down 80 years ago.

chicagopcclcar1 Jan 23, 2017 8:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 7687144)
The Blue Line subway has a short starter spur headed west under Lake Street. People definitely though it would be at least partially subway eventually.

The "spur" you mentioned was planning done in 1938. In fact, the Federal plan was for a subway linking Lake ST. "L" just west of Halsted and the Logan Sq and Humbolt Park be connected to Lake St."L". The city turned that plan down. Then the Federals went on to plan two....a two track subway under Milwaukee Ave. The city agreed to that plan. In 1939, construction began on the two subways, Clybourn-Division-State and the Milwaukee-Lake-Dearborn but the second Initial Subway was halted during the War.

DH

orulz Jan 23, 2017 8:29 PM

Elevated lines in Chicago are basically open deck plate girder bridges which do absolutely nothing to dampen noise, and in a way amplify it, because vibrations are transmitted almost directly from the vehicle to the structure. Modern elevated lines are much, much quieter.

There probably is some way to dampen noise somewhat. Some composite crosstie material that dampens vibrations better than wood. Or some thinner material that leaves extra room for a buffer between the ties and the girders. They say that the L is significantly over engineered, so even a solution that added quite a bit of weight might still work. Maybe something that closes the deck. You'd then have to worry about drainage though. So not sure what can be done. It would probably be expensive no matter what.

chicagopcclcar1 Jan 23, 2017 8:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7685798)

Also, the connector project kept referencing the London Docklands Light Railway as a model to follow instead of other heavy rail systems, so the connector system would end up looking more like this:

I must disagree...although the Docklands Light Railway is mentioned in a proposed plan last year, if any plan used CTA thinking, it will use CTA vehicles and CTA engineering. True, Chicago "L"s are all built before 1910. To get a true picture of what in the twenty-first century "L" might look like we can use the latest elevated lines built in the last years...1990s plus.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1030772.jpg
Orange Line built along railroad right-of-ways,

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...030697.JPG.jpg
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...f/P1140913.jpg
Rehab project rebuilding the Pink Line (former 1895 Metropolitan Douglas Park "L".

DH

orulz Jan 24, 2017 2:51 AM

The 18th street connection and much of the orange line are examples of more modern elevated structures with ballasted, closed decks and concrete noise walls. They are also much, much quieter than the Lake Street or Loop elevated tracks. They are more visually obtrusive too since light can't pass through the structure, but I'm pretty sure fixing the noise would be worth it. I wonder if the Lake Street or Loop elevated structures are strong enough to support a retrofit to those standards.

ardecila Jan 24, 2017 6:27 AM

I wonder what the effect would be if they put in dampening ties and added sound walls without going to the extreme weight of a ballasted deck. Would that provide maybe 60% of noise reduction at less than half the cost of a ballasted deck?

Part of the reason DLR structures seem lighter and less obtrusive is because they don't have a ballasted deck or sound walls. It's just a concrete box girder with tracks embedded in the top.

chicagopcclcar1 Jan 24, 2017 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7688030)

Part of the reason DLR structures seem lighter and less obtrusive is because they don't have a ballasted deck or sound walls. It's just a concrete box girder with tracks embedded in the top.

I doubt that DLR runs at 55 mph like the CTA.

DH

Randomguy34 Jan 24, 2017 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicagopcclcar1 (Post 7688697)
I doubt that DLR runs at 55 mph like the CTA.

DH

DLR runs at 80 km/hr, so about 50 mph, which is very comparable

chicagopcclcar1 Jan 25, 2017 1:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34 (Post 7689024)
DLR runs at 80 km/hr, so about 50 mph, which is very comparable

I'm standing corrected. It looks puny, LOL....like a mini LRV.

DH

ardecila Jan 26, 2017 4:11 PM

^ And CTA's rolling stock looks puny compared to NYCTA or WMATA's 75'-long cars. It's all relative. But importantly, the short car length means DLR can make sharp turns in congested areas without having to tear down buildings. Maintenance yards can be more compact, etc. That could come in handy in a built-up area like downtown Chicago where underground construction is to be avoided.

chicagopcclcar1 Jan 26, 2017 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7690992)
^ And CTA's rolling stock looks puny compared to NYCTA or WMATA's 75'-long cars. It's all relative. But importantly, the short car length means DLR can make sharp turns in congested areas without having to tear down buildings. Maintenance yards can be more compact, etc. That could come in handy in a built-up area like downtown Chicago where underground construction is to be avoided.

Yes, but going to the shorter length would mean cars that are nonconforming to the CTA fleet and that goes against CTA practices. It works for the O'Hare people mover. I want to see NYCTA or WMATA go around the Loop "L". Are cars can do 70 MPH too.

Its all a dream anyways....given the costs NYC's Second Subway is the last we'll ever see of such projects.

DH

the urban politician Jan 26, 2017 7:27 PM

Imagine how much property values in Uptown, Edgewater, or Loyola would shoot through the roof if the CTA actually had express trains on the north main red line.

Mr Downtown Jan 26, 2017 8:17 PM

DH, it's not clear that CTA would play any rôle in the Connector project. It's still at such a preliminary-study stage that they haven't had any serious discussions with any operating agency, though they've been told that an actual transit agency will be required to talk with FTA.

I raised the question of incompatible rolling stock with the main consultant, who replied "I do not want to use existing 'L' car design with 19th century dimensions; want 10' car width if possible, much more efficient loading."

WrightCONCEPT Jan 27, 2017 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7691334)
DH, it's not clear that CTA would play any rôle in the Connector project. It's still at such a preliminary-study stage that they haven't had any serious discussions with any operating agency, though they've been told that an actual transit agency will be required to talk with FTA.

They will have to work with RTA so they can figure out
a) Fare that are possibly compatible with Metra, which will effect the ridership modeling and whatever farebox recovery that they maybe expecting.
b) How the fare of this will effect CTA ridership will it actually relieve loading in part of the L that are going over capacity?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7691334)
I raised the question of incompatible rolling stock with the main consultant, who replied "I do not want to use existing 'L' car design with 19th century dimensions; want 10' car width if possible, much more efficient loading."

The consultant actually said that? When the operating dimension of the L cars actually fits the tighter turning conditions that would work for the DLR and they want wider 10' trains which makes it virtually impossible to get a tight conditions. If they want better operating loading just add an extra door with seats along the walls which in fact will make it something that will HELP the CTA in future.

The CTA car dimensions are a base framework and in fact working off of that with a slight modification will make the cost of the work of the railcars cheaper and more likely that this can get off the ground. Or a set of articulated high loading floor light rail trains which are the same width of the CTA trains.

SMH

IrishIllini Jan 30, 2017 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT (Post 7692598)
They will have to work with RTA so they can figure out
a) Fare that are possibly compatible with Metra, which will effect the ridership modeling and whatever farebox recovery that they maybe expecting.
b) How the fare of this will effect CTA ridership will it actually relieve loading in part of the L that are going over capacity?




The consultant actually said that? When the operating dimension of the L cars actually fits the tighter turning conditions that would work for the DLR and they want wider 10' trains which makes it virtually impossible to get a tight conditions. If they want better operating loading just add an extra door with seats along the walls which in fact will make it something that will HELP the CTA in future.

The CTA car dimensions are a base framework and in fact working off of that with a slight modification will make the cost of the work of the railcars cheaper and more likely that this can get off the ground. Or a set of articulated high loading floor light rail trains which are the same width of the CTA trains.

SMH

Was there a public meeting regarding the connector? Is there another planned for the near future? Would love to see it come to fruition. Any word regarding the status of the grant they were hoping to win?

Mr Downtown Jan 31, 2017 2:19 AM

No public meetings yet, and still some distance from one. At this point, it's just an idea being explored by the Chicago Central Area Committee

denizen467 Jan 31, 2017 4:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 7687848)
The 18th street connection and much of the orange line are examples of more modern elevated structures with ballasted, closed decks and concrete noise walls. They are also much, much quieter than the Lake Street or Loop elevated tracks. They are more visually obtrusive too since light can't pass through the structure, but I'm pretty sure fixing the noise would be worth it. I wonder if the Lake Street or Loop elevated structures are strong enough to support a retrofit to those standards.

Rare opportunity for anyone to directly compare noise levels exists for a little while -- stand on Broadway underneath the Wilson approach viaduct. Northbound Purple trains still run on the century-old steel structure(*) All other trains are running on the new viaduct structure. (I guess you could just make two audio recordings with your smartphone in two different locations and almost accomplish the same thing; there's nothing like being there though.)

*: Looking carefully while on Broadway, even the old viaduct has had some columns completely replaced (not yet available in Google streetview) with temporary new ones during the complicated construction project, so even the old viaduct is probably enjoying some sound dampening. The difference is nevertheless noticeable. In any case, because this is next to a station, I doubt it will be possible to make a comparison with trains running full speed.

UPChicago Jan 31, 2017 3:41 PM

^ I live in the vicinity and I can vouch for this statement, since they replaced the old western most viaducts the noise level is unnoticeable for passing trains whereas before it use to be unbearable at times.

emathias Feb 9, 2017 2:47 PM

New Green Line 'L' Station Planned At Damen and Lake, City Announces

Quote:

NEAR WEST SIDE — Mayor Rahm Emanuel will announce plans for a new Green Line 'L' station at Damen and Lake on the Near West Side Thursday morning.

The new station will fill a 1½ mile gap between existing Green Line stations at California and Ashland. Emanuel is expected to announce the new 'L' station ahead of his 2017 infrastructure address.

The Damen and Lake stop aims to better serve the growing business corridor and residential neighborhood on the Near West Side, the Mayor's office said.
...
From DNAinfo

I'm glad they're adding this. I kinda wish they'd decided to do both this one and one at Madison/Pink. Damen is better because there is more existing residential nearby, but that sea of parking lots near Madison/Pink could easily become developments if there were a stop there. At some point the land value will be high enough that United Center can create multi-story parking garages adjacent to the Center and do some intensive development on the outer lots.

maru2501 Feb 9, 2017 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 7706461)
Two demolition permits were issued yesterday to tear the body shop down at LaSalle and Erie. I believe it's supposed to be luxury condos (starting at $1.3M), called The Betham.


ALSO*** New CTA stop is planned to be completed at Damen & Lake by mid 2020, about 1.5 to 2 blocks north of the United Center. ***



that CTA stop is badly needed there for UC. I always thought maybe they would do a giant pink line stop right where it crosses near the UC to the east

I wish they would eminent domain a couple of those ridiculous parking lots

marothisu Feb 9, 2017 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maru2501 (Post 7706648)
that CTA stop is badly needed there for UC. I always thought maybe they would do a giant pink line stop right where it crosses near the UC to the east

I wish they would eminent domain a couple of those ridiculous parking lots

Yeah I'm surprised they didn't go on the Pink Line, but this is good nonetheless. I'm curious if it will spur some new development in that specific area with a new stop. 3 years is a ways away though so who knows.

maru2501 Feb 9, 2017 5:04 PM

I wish I had a better understanding of who owns which lots. I agree economics will take over eventually

Steely Dan Feb 9, 2017 5:36 PM

while i'm all for new stations on that underutilized stretch of the green line, a new station at damen/lake will only be marginally closer to the UC's front door than the current IMD blue line stop.

0.38 miles vs. 0.44 miles, respectively, according to google earth. that's only a times savings of roughly one minute at average walking speed (8.8 minutes vs. 7.6 minutes).

that's better than nothing, but the way to really make a proper UC station is to add one at madison on the pink line, as others have mentioned (only 0.20 miles to the UC front door, a 4 minute walk).

orulz Feb 9, 2017 6:04 PM

Completely agree about Madison on the Pink Line, needs a stop too.

As for the green line, Western probably needs a stop eventually given the bus connection. And given that this area is Chicago's newest boom town, I think another stop between Morgan and Ashland would make sense, too. Perhaps at Elizabeth...

nomarandlee Feb 9, 2017 6:05 PM

4mins vs. 9mins is a big gap when talking about walking to a game in January and February.

Still, the Damen stop will be a good location to fill in a rather large gap on the Green Line.

the urban politician Feb 9, 2017 6:59 PM

I think it's about more than just UC. I think the West Loop boom is playing a role in this. My hope is that the city uses this investment to spur more development, particular some moderately dense TOD

Mr Downtown Feb 9, 2017 7:10 PM

I hope no part of this is being justified as serving the United Center.

The owner of all those parking lots made a choice not to build the United Center close to a transit station. Why should public money now be used to subsidize rides to his sports venue? CTA already runs an express bus right to the door for him.

IrishIllini Feb 9, 2017 8:20 PM

That stretch of Damen leaves a lot to be desired. North of the tracks seems fairly intact. Most of the buildings have been maintained and there are few surface lots. South of the tracks it totally different. There's some new construction in the area, but there are tons of vacant parcels. It'll be interesting to see how quickly infill occurs. The state of the area around the United Center should be a crime. Anyone know the history of why so much of the neighborhood was leveled? I'm assuming the destabilization of East Garfield Park has something to do with it?

I agree the Pink Line also makes sense. Maybe in the future they'll add a stop at Madison. The West Loop is changing fairly quickly, so I can't imagine why the CTA wouldn't add one at some point.

Steely Dan Feb 9, 2017 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 7706810)
Still, the Damen stop will be a good location to fill in a rather large gap on the Green Line.

for sure, the fact that there are currently no stops between ashland and freaking california (1.5 miles) is a bit mind blowing. damen and western should absolutely both have stops on the green line.

emathias Feb 9, 2017 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 7706809)
...
And given that this area is Chicago's newest boom town, I think another stop between Morgan and Ashland would make sense, too. Perhaps at Elizabeth...

That's unlikely to happen. If they were going to do anything like that, they would have rebuilt the Halsted stop and added one at Racine. I suppose if things got *really* dense that they might consider one between Morgan and Ashland, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

But, if we're talking about putting closely spaced stations as infill, a Brown/Purple stop at Franklin/Ohio/Ontario would be useful, too. Walking-wise it's nearly the same distance, only about 10% closer together. There used to be a stop at Grand. The improvement wouldn't be so much for people east of Wells, but it would dramatically improve access to that retail area on Ontario west of Orleans and near Grand and the River.

But neither of those should come before a Brown Line stop at Division. Or even a Brown Line stop at Halsted, for that matter. Heck, for the Near North area, the City should either get serious about a Clinton Street subway or save up for a Red Line station at Clybourn/Larrabee.

PKDickman Feb 9, 2017 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini (Post 7706969)
TThe state of the area around the United Center should be a crime. Anyone know the history of why so much of the neighborhood was leveled? I'm assuming the destabilization of East Garfield Park has something to do with it?

https://s24.postimg.org/l56tmb439/blight.jpg

Personally, I thought Western would've been a better choice.
The connectivity is better, the existing structure is massive enough to support a modern station and the CTA already owns land on one of the corners so a large hunk of the elevator placement problem is already solved.
But I'll take what I can get.

Mr Downtown Feb 9, 2017 9:39 PM

http://epmgaa.media.clients.ellingto...n_t750x550.jpg

Aren't the 1968 riots on the West Side more relevant than a 1941 survey of how many dwellings lacked indoor plumbing?

maru2501 Feb 9, 2017 10:28 PM

before my brother dumped his bulls season tickets this year I would regularly walk from the ashland green stop.
It is in fact far in the cold

Steely Dan Feb 9, 2017 10:42 PM

^ as mentioned earlier in the thread, the blue line IMD stop is currently the closest el stop to the UC.

0.44 miles walking distance to the UC vs. 0.64 miles from green line ashland. that's 8.8 minutes walking time vs. 12.8 minutes.

if it's bitterly cold out, those 4 minutes are not inconsequential.

PKDickman Feb 9, 2017 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7707078)
http://epmgaa.media.clients.ellingto...n_t750x550.jpg

Aren't the 1968 riots on the West Side more relevant than a 1941 survey of how many dwellings lacked indoor plumbing?

First off, that picture is quite a bit west. Those trees in the distance are in Garfield Park.

Second, if it was only plumbing, half of the city would be labled as blighted. To make it to that distinction 20% of the buildings had to be uninhabitable, 40% substandard and 50% constructed before 1895.

There is a tendancy to look at Madison as it exists today, and imagine it was all burnt down by rioters.

The riots left Madison snaggletoothed, but easily 60% of the structures were still there 5 years Martin Luther King died.

The Madison we see now evolved over the next 10 or 15 years. Fair plan insurance (a byproduct of the riots) sparked an epidemic of landlord lightning.

ardecila Feb 10, 2017 3:47 AM

I honestly think the new Damen stop is in a more versatile location than a Pink Line stop would be. Within walking distance of the Damen stop is a fairly attractive new mixed-income development (Westhaven Park) and north of Lake is a booming industrial district that's becoming home to thousands of creative-sector jobs.

It's true that the new station offers only the tiniest advantage over taking the Blue Line to Medical District, with the added disadvantage that Green Line service is much less frequent than Blue Line service, and the Green Line doesn't directly connect to many places where fans are likely to board.

If Rahm really wants to provide better transit access to the UC, he should direct CDOT to improve the pedestrian connections between CTA stations and the stadium. A streetscaping or sidewalk widening could be done for far cheaper than the $80M cost of a new station. Right now, the pedestrian paths from the Medical District stop's Damen or Ogden exits are not inviting at all.

A small note in Rahm's statement today mentions that the Damen stop will be "based on" the previous Morgan project. Probably this means the design will be simplified a little bit and recycled, which is fine - it's a gorgeous station. But the Morgan stop also has an auxiliary exit to Sangamon Street. It's possible that the new Damen stop will have a secondary entrance from Wolcott, which is a straight shot to the north doors of United Center along a relatively low-traffic street with landscaped sidewalks. That would only be a 0.26 mile walk.

Justin_Chicago Feb 10, 2017 4:08 AM

As a long time Bulls season ticket holder, I applaud this move. I walk from the Ashland Greenline stop every game and appreciate the shorter distance in the winter. I personally dislike the IMD Blueline stop because the sidewalks are awful. I probably take that route 20% of the time. Also, I enjoy stopping off at the Morgan stop for a nightcap at Au Cheval.

Mr Downtown Feb 10, 2017 2:45 PM

^Curious why you don't find the #19 United Center Express bus useful for the trip to the game.

Steely Dan Feb 10, 2017 2:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7707733)
^Curious why you don't find the #19 United Center Express bus useful for the trip to the game.

speaking strictly for myself, i generally enjoy walking and buses are kinda stupid. i use them only as a last resort.

if the el can get me to within a half mile walking distance of my destination, i'll choose that option almost every time.

Justin_Chicago Feb 10, 2017 5:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7707733)
^Curious why you don't find the #19 United Center Express bus useful for the trip to the game.

Simple. I leave from my office in the Central Loop or the Redline State/Lake stop on the weekend. In my personal experience, the CTA train is always faster than the express bus with stop lights and traffic around 6-6:30pm. Also, the buses line up after the game and take 5-10 minutes to board people and leave. I can walk to Ashland in the same amount of time and not be packed like sardines. I have been taking Chicago public transit for more years than most and try to avoid buses at all costs if rail is a nearby alternative option. Buses are a last resort for me. I cannot stand bus or light rail systems that wait in line with vehicles at lights. It defeats the purpose of "rapid" public transit in my opinion. I know this is a controversial statement for many people on this board that promote BRT/Light Rail. I feel like you are either 100% in it (invest in heavy rail) or faking it with short-term cheap alternatives (BRT). Rail is a long-term (50+ year) investment that can significantly boost economic activity and residential density if done right. Despite our state political issues, we should view investments in Chicago's infrastructure in the same manner as NYC and the major cities of Europe and Asia. We should not invest in BRT/Light Rail because that is what car-centric cities like Dallas and Denver are doing. A short-term patch with long-term implications. Do not dilute our stature and economic advantages. I spent time in Portland and found it faster to walk around downtown then ride their light rail. I am in Houston for work this week and absolutely hate it. People rarely use sidewalks and have a preference to drive/uber a few blocks to a restaurant.

Sorry for ranting. This is my broad personal view and not directed towards any specific board member.

Health wise, I am in excellent shape and I enjoy walking/exercising if my destination is within a mile...assuming I'm not in a rush. This is why the Ashland stop is not an issue for me. I also like using Divvy for the last leg if I am traveling alone.

I am personally excited for the Damen Green line stop. I think this will continue to increase residential and commercial density along the line. A Pink line would not be advantageous unless a developer purchased the surrounding private parking lots and built flats or mid-rises. I doubt that will happen. There will always be people that pay a premium to drive and park.

OhioGuy Feb 10, 2017 8:29 PM

An infill station for the green line at Damen makes sense as presumably the popularity of the Fulton Market District will lead to further demands for housing spreading westward. Now when will an infill station happen on the brown line at Division now that adjacent Atrium Village is set to be redeveloped (which I believe takes into account a possible future station?) and lots of additional redevelopment will be occurring in the Cabrini Green area to the west?


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:14 PM.

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