The plan is actually to turn a 4-lane cross section into a 3-lane cross section, with a turning lane in the middle. In many cases, this actually improves capacity, since left-turning traffic does not foul up one traffic lane and force drivers to merge right, which usually fouls up the other one. Creating a bike lane may also alleviate traffic delay due to cyclists who already use Lawrence.

^I happened to notice today that Roosevelt Road on the Oak Park/Berwyn border has been reconfigured this way, and traffic seems to move more smoothly than the traditional four-lane cross-section still in place in Cicero.

^ Sounds good. As long as the travel lane doesn't intermittently become a bus stop or an interminable right-turn lane clogged because of peds (nothing against pedestrians!).

the seas have parted!!

Suburban residents now favor more transit spending, poll shows

Reflecting the increasing strain of gridlocked traffic, a majority of Chicago-area residents think improving bus and train service is so important to the region that repairing and expanding expressways and toll roads should take a back seat, a Tribune/WGN poll shows.

Most suburbanites support investing more in mass transit than roads, sharing the long-held stance of a large majority of city residents, the poll found. Suburban residents also said they are driving less and taking more advantage of expanded suburban train and bus service in communities where the automobile has been king.

Even in the collar counties, half said public transit deserves a higher priority in spending decisions.

The director of a Chicagoland civic organization called the poll results "phenomenal.''

"People are seeing that a car-oriented culture is limiting economic development and quality of life in the region,'' said Frank Beal, executive director of Chicago Metropolis 2020, which promotes social and economic ideas for the 21st century. "



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2153627.story

Just now seeing this or just now admitting it?

Don't forget that there's a bike lane and a parking lane. I believe the buses will pull to the right, out of the flow of traffic.

^ Ok, that's great. I should just go look and check it out.

----------------------------

Does anyone know if the Central Avenue Bypass (south of MDW) project has gotten going?

The last Federal transportation bill included a $3.8 million earmark to begin the preliminary engineering on the project. However, IDOT hasn't spent it yet, and now Oberstar, the Transportation Committee chair in the House, wants those funds back, along with others. This is just another blow in a long battle between Oberstar and Durbin over numerous issues. That disagreement, by the way, is a significant factor in why we haven't gotten much Federal funding for big projects in recent years.

Link to article

I'm really hoping we can get moving on this bridge soon. It's really an opportunity to create a landmark... a similar project in Port Coquitlam, BC (near Vancouver) yielded an absolute work of art:
http://www.joconl.com/images/archivesid/26259/550.jpg

The cable-stayed spans allowed for significant cost reduction as well, since the bridge piers could be moved farther apart and the bridge deck could be made thinner, reducing the need for costly track relocation or heavy steel sections.

Money came from a CMAQ grant.

Funding for the flyover may come from CMAQ, so you can't really spend it on outright highway projects. Usually it goes to bike paths and such, although Illinois has tried and succeeded at spending the money on other stuff, like transit station rehab projects, or infill stations. These projects are expensive, so they tend to soak up a lot of the available money.

CMAQ can at least partially pay for streetscape projects, too, at least when they have bike or transit components.

Congestion Pricing Coming to Chicago?


http://thecityfix.com/congestion-pri...ng-to-chicago/

http://www.metroplanning.org/uploads...ort_7.8.10.pdf




Inbound traffic on Chicago's Kennedy Expressway on July 9, 2010. A new study has suggested Chicago adopt congestion pricing to cut down on wasteful driving. Photo via the Chicago Tribune.

http://thecityfix.com/files/2010/07/transitchicago.jpg

Metra Ravenswood Station not moving
 

From the Chicago Tribune:

Residents on Ravenswood Avenue were so upset by the idea of a Metra station closer to their homes that they complained to officials, circulated a petition, formed an association and hired an attorney.

Their efforts seem to have worked.

Metra officials and the area's alderman have backed away from a plan to move the Metra's busy Ravenswood station north of Lawrence Avenue from its current location south of the street.

On Wednesday, Metra spokesman Michael Gillis said Metra, in consultation with Ald. Gene Schulter, 47th, had decided to build the new station on the same site as it sits now.

Link to story

My favorite line "Had we known we wouldn't have bought". This is the fucking mindset of NIMBYS that I don't get. A healthy city is dynamic by nature, I wonder how people felt when they built this idiot's building. Sheesh no wonder why this country is lagging and it is the 'me' first attitude. :hell:

Yes and it indicates the the "Nanny State" mind set is alive and well even in a well to do neighborhood. The thinking is that somehow "Someone should have warned me that (list your objection here) would be built during (list your time frame here) and that if (list your exaggerated catastrophe here)our home values would go down and what about the children?"

This guy's name seems to crop up more than it should, would love to turn the tables on him. His sniveling attitude makes me sick, they want all amnenities but don't want any of the sacrafice. Is is slander to write an op-ed piece on him and his stupid bunch of whinos.

Good deal --- I wonder how much money has thus been wasted on unnecessary A/D/E work, and how much extra construction will cost because of added difficulty in staging.

It's only money, and there's plenty of that going around.

Definitely wonder on how much the whole mess will cost. And I don't see a station across the street as opposed to a block down dramatically changes the reality that the man quoted decided to build his house in the middle of the city across from a rather active rail line. I'd also assume there was at least some sort of public discourse on moving the location of the station in initial planning stages where these sort of issues should have come to light in the first place, even if we see them as ridiculous.

That said, I'm curious about the decision to move the station to begin with--I assume it is partly a simple matter of preventing any station closures/work on an active station, but is there more to it than that? moving a station one block isn't going to really change its accessibility, no? Closer to some, farther for others, and is a one block difference either way really going to change an appreciable people's mind on riding the train? Perhaps formal analysis says yes; from a common sense perspective seems unlikely though.

In general, it's simply far cheaper if you can avoid very complex staging in rebuilding an active facility in a constrained space (e.g. the enormously expensive Grand/State reconstruction). I don't think there is any compelling service planning or operational reasoning for either a northside or southside station location.

I assume you are referring to the Ravenswood Neighborhood Association group. Almost as bad as the West Loop outfit. What would they have said if Metra decided to move the station 8 blocks south to Irving Park with the intent of improving inter-modal routing?

They are the same ones that complained when they wanted to develop the sears parking lot area. Gee, what does he expect when he moved to an area next to a train stop and one of the largest development sites on the north side. He should of just built his house in Winnetka.

Is there anything suspicious about the speed with which this 180 degree change occurred -- under 30 days (from Epstein finding out about the plan on 6/29). It's almost like Metra wanted to go with the southern platform, but needed an excuse to go with the more expensive option.

One complaint, brief involvement of the Alderman, and then poof - Metra's plans flip around.

Much more curious, in my opinion, is the sudden appearance out of nowhere of the desperate need to rebuild the station, coupled with the alderman's insistence that the meetings about the development north of Lawrence could not discuss the location of the Metra station. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government, and lurching from wishlist item to TIGER application to sham public hearing is no way to do long-range planning, capital investment programming, or neighborhood redevelopment.

What do you prefer, an anarcho-syndicalist commune? ;)

At least we have the Lady of the Lake, er, "Daley of the Lake", distributin' chits...


(Alright, don't read too much into that.)

Wait a second, you mean there's another away to plan infrastructure development and renewal?

In fairness, among all non-downtown Metra stations, based on ridership alone Ravenswood would be near the top of the list for substantial investment to improve accessibility (for full ADA compliance) and lengthen platforms so all cars can serve the station. Granted, on a commuter railroad, even a relatively busy station isn't an "urgent" capital need on the same order as say, structure and vehicle replacement, unless the feds and disability-rights-groups have been applying the regulatory hammer towards Metra as hard as they've been on CTA lately.

CREATE 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project
 

75th Street Capital Improvement Project website

All you infrastructure-train-urbanist can get some satisfaction nawing on this bone.

Has there been any legitimate studies done on the possibility of adding a station to the green line between Roosevelt and I-55? With all of the condo development that's occurred in that area, I would think a new station might be warranted? It would seem as though a station on the south side of 18th street, just past the orange line junction, might be a good spot. Placing it further north would make it too close to Roosevelt, while placing it further south would lead somewhat to overlap with the Cermak red line station a couple blocks further west/west-southwest.

There are definite plans to add a station at Cermak, although some have called for an different or additional location at 18th. Ald. Fioretti is in support of this, and TIF budgets have set aside future tax receipts for the station.

A Cermak station overlaps the Chinatown station in theory, but in reality the double whammy of the Rock Island tracks and the Ickes Homes have really separated Chinatown from areas further east. A Cermak station would also allow for easy bus transfers and have a quick walk to McCormick Place.

City of Chicago Testing PolyBrite International’s New Borealis LED Streetlights
 

Story Link


PolyBrite International Inc., developer of the Borealis brand light emitting diode (LED) Lighting Systems, announced that the city of Chicago has installed new Borealis LED streetlights as part of a test pilot program. The City of Chicago will monitor the LED streetlights, weighed against their current lighting solution for streets and alleyways. The goal is for a safer, cleaner and brighter light that will improve nighttime safety and the overall appearance of the city.

Borealis LED streetlights have been installed and will be monitored for three months on the block of 4800 W. Parker Avenue in Chicago, IL. The city will be testing the LED streetlights for high color rendition to assure adequate vision, and greater control of light dispersion and energy savings. Currently, most of the city’s streets are illuminated with High Pressure Sodium (HPS) streetlights. HPS lights are used primarily because of their long rated life relative to other conventional options, but HPS street lighting has a very low color rendition, hindering visibility at night.

“We continue our efforts in assisting communities and cities everywhere with innovative ways to reduce their lighting concerns and their carbon footprint on the world,” said Carl Scianna, president and CEO of PolyBrite International. Mr. Scianna also noted that, “Borealis LED streetlights have a very high color rendition and consume a remarkable average of 60% less energy than the HPS streetlights. We appreciate the city’s study and their commitment to a clean, bright and safe lighting solution for their city streets.”

Borealis LED streetlights have a longer life, up to 50,000 hours, compared to the HPS life span of 20,000 hours. In addition to reduced maintenance, Borealis LED streetlights have a very high color rendition and produce a sharp, pure color without glare. They feature an instant “on” with no cold starting compared to HPS street lights, which typically take several minutes to achieve full brightness. PolyBrite’s patented LED technology, used in all Borealis lamps and lighting systems, will reduce the city’s operating costs, including lower energy usage and reduced maintenance and bulb replacement.

Motion sensors and lighting controls can also be used with Borealis LED lighting since they can be turned on and off instantly. Furthermore, Borealis LED streetlights are better equipped to withstand extreme hot and cold temperatures and provide more control over what is illuminated, thus reducing light pollution, making it an ideal solution for public lighting applications.

I've love to see the dreadful yellow sodium vapor go the way of the dodo. Do we know where the test poles are? I'd really like to see a pic.

"Borealis LED streetlights have been installed and will be monitored for three months on the block of 4800 W. Parker Avenue in Chicago, IL"

How'd I miss that? I should stop skimming;)

...............

^^ Extend the brown line to Jefferson Park!

what a pleasant surprise to ride the new rail cars on the blue line on the way home from work today! I can't believe smooth they are, and they're not even running off AC yet...

They are --- or rather, they use AC motors in the propulsion system, but the third rail is still 600VDC and probably will remain so. The railcars have transformers to convert the power supply.

From an energy standpoint, does AC third rail power supply offer more cost savings for electricity over direct current power supply? I know about the acceleration advantages, noise and smoother operation, just wondering about the actual pull of electricity into the traction motors.

stop building roads in sprawl move closer to where you work; encourage employment density and concomitant household density



I have no pity on suburbanites who bitch about their crazy commutes....they bough the myth hook line sinker

stop building roads in sprawl move closer to where you work; encourage employment density and concomitant household density



I have no pity on suburbanites who bitch about their crazy commutes....they bough the myth hook line sinker


Build transit; build / reuse developments that can effectively utilize transit; increase transit services in dense areas instead of cutting services and building more choked roads

"Move closer to where you work" sounds so easy. But grown-ups often own their houses, have spouses who work, or have kids they want to benefit from specific school districts. Do you expect them to move every time one spouse or the other changes jobs?

While I'm not an electrical engineer, I'll attempt a layman's explanation as I understand it. Generally, AC power running at high voltages (e.g. up to 25kV) on overhead wires is less susceptible to current loss over long distances than the lower voltage (generally 500-900V) DC power used for third rails (very high voltages are more prone to arcing and thus are avoided on third rails). The current loss on third rail systems is mitigated by having more closely spaced power substations than would otherwise accompany a high voltage AC system -- substations are, of course, very expensive.

In terms of how this all nets out for energy efficiency and cost efficiency, I think the answer is "it depends." DC is more prone to current loss than AC, third rail is generally cheaper to install/maintain than an overhead catenary, but DC systems will require a greater number of expensive substations. So, the most efficient solution depends on all of those.

In general, global precedent and experience certainly implies that for short, "metro" rapid transit routes, third rail DC is more cost effective, while for longer commuter rail or intercity routes, overhead AC is preferred.

Theoretically there would be substantially less loss between substations. AC can be transmitted long distances with much less loss.

I'm told that power consumption is now a limiting factor on some CTA lines, which prevents more trains from being run during rush periods. But that's not why AC was specified for this order. Instead, Kruesi was at a transit conference in Paris and was embarrassed when someone said "you guys in Chicago are still buying DC cars?"

I could have sworn I read or heard somewhere that these cars can run off either AC or DC, and eventually they'll get rid of all DC-only cars so they can turn the system to an AC system, which would definitely be a more efficient system in general.

But compared to the old cars, I felt like I was in the future riding those new cars :tup:

^Definitely no DC motors on these cars. You may be thinking of the regenerative braking system, which I think is switched off at the moment but I'm not 100% sure. I'm also not sure what the expected energy savings from regenerative braking are for these particular railcars. Of course, power draw is both a systematic issue and driven by peak demand, and thus there would not be appreciable savings until a substantial portion of the fleet have the technology and the magnitude of savings (both relative and absolute) will vary somewhat with the service level. The general range for net power savings seems to be in the 5-15% range, if the entire fleet is converted.

While you raise a good point regarding short-term mobility vis-a-vis home and work locations, the article does say she's being doing this for 20 years; i.e. basically since I-355 first opened, and thus presumably with the assumption of an imminent extension further northward. After 20 years, it's pretty hard to be sympathetic towards her plight on either the schooling or underwater-mortgage grounds.

In support of your general point, I know a good number of people who, 5 years ago, swore they'd never work in the suburbs, or buy a car anytime soon (maybe after the family/kids got started), but ended up doing both sometime since 2008, commuting from the city to jobs in the I-90 or I-88 corridors. They really didn't want to do the commute; they also really didn't want to move from their urban neighborhoods. Importantly, they also needed jobs.

The difference of course is that most of them would rather their jobs just relocate downtown, rather than following Sugar Grove Mama and complain to a newspaper about how another expressway should be built.

From what I know of electrical properties, both DC and AC can be transmitted over great distances with relatively little loss. In the case of a system where there is a single, well-defined use of the power the other factors involved in electrical transmission and use would play a much larger role in power loss than simple AC vs DC.

I'm gonna get a little bit wonkish here, but...

In defense of Sugar Grove Mama, the lack of a complete second orbital highway is really a drag on mobility through the region, placing heavy traffic on the Tri-State and the routes through the city. The 53 extension and the Illiana are two of the three missing segments in that orbital highway, so I support those plans - especially because they would be paid for with toll revenue and not the state's money. The federal contribution would come from the highway "pot" of funds, which is distinct from the transit "pot".

What all that means is that highway construction would NOT be done at the expense of transit. People tend to think that one competes with the other for money, but that just isn't the case here in Chicagoland. The state is broke, of course, so it's not like there's any money to be had from the general fund anyway.

I'd also love to see something like LA's Measure R, or Denver's FasTracks... we don't have ballot initiatives like California does, but we could do an "advisory referendum" (essentially just a massive, government-led poll) on a Chicagoland-only tax increase for transit expansion. If that Tribune poll a few weeks ago was correct, then the referendum should get significant support. Publish a list of visionary, well-planned transit projects with a definite pricetag and send it to the voters.

I would include about $12-15 billion worth of transit projects. There are some ideas that have real potential, but the people in charge are pushing total loser ideas, like the STAR Line or the SouthEast Service. The Inner Circumferential Rail, for example..

Virgin America skips O'Hare
 

I just read that Virgin America will skip ORD again and make its appearance at DFW. The reason again is gate space, this is exactly why the Western Terminal needs to get built. The city needs to control the gates, not AA or UA.

While some will argue this is not a big loss, it is more passengers that will not be using ORD and less revenue for the city. What the hell is wrong with Aviation commission. In my opinion ORD is one of the, if not the most important asset for Chicago. Yet in last 10 years passenger traffic has fallen by 21% and flights by 12.5%. Yeah some of it is the recession, but darn it the city needs to step up and do something.:hell:

^How would having a gate devoted to two Virgin America flights a day increase passenger numbers more than having eight UA or AA departures from the same gate?

Thanks for the trenchant tidbit....I'll keep it mind when I grow up.

Adults also are capable of evaluating options; choosing between options; and realizing that said choice among said options have consequences.

I know america...consequences.....novel concept

Having additional gates allows the airport flexibility to add carriers. Take VA for example, the airline has been looking at mid-continent airport which they would eventually to collect passengers from other midwestern and mid-continent cities. This brings in additional passengers.

UA and AA hubs are a good thing, but it also leaves the city very little flexiblity in doing things at the airport without the airlines buy in. ORD will need gate capacity, to compete with the likes of ATL, DIA and other airports.

Chicago should be angling to make ORD the Star Alliance or One World hub for North America. As such, untangling the runways and building 1st rate facilities with sufficient gate capacity should be the priority of OMP.