Gave Klein is stepping down. This is a sad day. Very much liked him, whomever is put in place next will be important to the future of the city.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-78014837/

^ Yeah, that's indeed sad news. I hope Rahm appoints somebody with a similar agenda as Gabe to the position

A shame about Klein. He was a great guy, and he will be missed. I hope his resignation is for legitimate personal reasons and not politics.

Now that he's leaving, I wonder who the replacement will be? It would be nice to see Rahm choose somebody within CDOT for promotion... It's in the middle of his term so he doesn't need to make a splash with some impressive outsider. CDOT managers like Janet Attarian and Michelle Woods are great people with a strong track record, I'd love to see them in the top job.

If usual Chicago hiring practices follow, he will pick someone he went to school with - who has
Deep-water Mining experience; or a White House associate able to successfully run a Campaign.

Someone who's got what it takes to Head the Planning Department of a Major Metropolitan Area.

NEVER FORGET that in Chicago -- E V E R Y T H I N G is P O L I T I C S....

What a bummer about Gabe. Hopefully he is only stepping down because he feels he has made his mark on the institution. Hopefully he's cleaned house enough that all the progress he's been making will continue.

My guess is he stayed as long as he did to make sure Divvy bikes was properly implemented. Now that it seems fairly well entrenched, he'd rather be back in DC.

Given the importance Rahm has placed on pedestrian and cyclist friendly design I think it is safe to assume that another progressive will be placed in Klein's position.

^. I tend to agree with this. Rahm probably had a lot of choices but decided to go with Klein for a reason. I think Rahm has demonstrated that bikes, pedestrians, and transit are a priority for him. In addition, he and other newer city leaders are becoming advocates for these modes of transportation in a way that was never the case in the past, when only autos had any sort of advocacy.

The timing of Gabe's leaving seems abrupt, though. Was he perhaps frustrated with IDOT's roadblocks? Is it the city's political culture (Aldermen-driven land use planning)?

Hard to say. There's no denying that IDOT has been a hindrance more than a help in the city's effort to tame streets.

This problem is especially acute at the expressway L stations, where CTA and the city control tiny islands inside of a massive swath of pedestrian-unfriendly IDOT territory.

I don't really know what to say about aldermen. It will take time for politicians to realize that pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users are important constituent groups. No American city has fully made this shift but it's happening slowly. Land-use planning isn't really Klein's domain so I doubt that was a reason.

It's worth noting that that was sandstone rather than limestone and that Minneapolis doesn't have the water table issues that Chicago has.

Fair enough, although at O'Hare the dolomite bedrock is at least 75' below the surface. Shallow tunnels though the clay would be cheaper and easier to integrate with airport facilities. Water table issues might complicate things but it's not a dealbreaker.

Given Gabe's history, I really think his reasons for leaving are actually family and income related. Even as a commissioner, you're not going to make nearly as much money working for a city as you can in the private sector. For someone wanting to start a family and provide the best possible life for children, it's entirely understandable that choosing a life in the private sector would win out. It's abrupt in the press, but that doesn't mean it was abrupt in his discussions with Rahm. In a position like Gabe's you become a lame duck and lose a lot of influence once people know you're out, so there'd be plenty of reasons not to make announcements too early.

I see that Divvy announced a 75 station expansion to Evanston and Oak Park.

I use the system frequently to do errands and it cuts walking time to some of my favorite drinking establishments like Scofflaw that are a good distance from the nearest CTA station. I just need to convince my woman to be comfortable riding a divvy bicycle in high heels!

^ I have seen this done. When you see bankers and lawyers riding bikeshares in work attire, you know the city has arrived to whole new level of bike culture. The commuting looks far less marginalized

Unfortunately, the constant drumbeat of "cycling is so dangerous that it can only be done wearing a helmet" is working against that perception for most people. Yesterday I read that a Chicago company had been successfully sued for renting a bike to visitors without providing them helmets and training (they were injured in a dooring). This will set off another round of bleating about how irrational and irresponsible it is to get on a Divvy bike without a helmet. I already hear talk radio callers equating being helmetless with being incompetent, as in "those people shouldn't be allowed on the street."

Training?

I think it was just stupid of the company not to include helmets with the rental - I just got back from San Francisco and they don't require helmets there, but every rental place I looked into included helmets in the cost of the rental. As a company, even if you think they're unnecessary, it's just stupid not to provide them with a bike rental. I don't think that lawsuit would have worked if it just complained about "training." I mean, any competent shop would have had them sign a waiver about risks and safety wherein the renter would claim to know the risks. Such disclaimers aren't ironclad, but would at least be evidence that the renters claimed to know what they're doing.

While I always wear a helmet when I ride my own bikes, I have never worn a helmet with a Divvy bike. Part of the reason is that I ride more aggressively with my own bike, but a larger part is just convenience.

You could make an argument about riding styles. Divvy bikes force an upright riding position and slower speeds, which was initially very annoying for me when I realized I would have to allow a LOT more time to get from Point A to Point B.

But it works the other way - the bikes help reinforce safe, responsible cycling that shouldn't require a helmet. Providing helmets to Divvy riders isn't even feasible.

Yeah, I live 1.5 riding miles from my office - I used to walk - and I can make it home in 7 minutes on my bike if I don't hit too many lights - usually 10 minutes, but I have to budget a minimum of 15 minutes for a Divvy ride and try to allow 20. I did make it home on a Divvy in 10 minutes once, but I was riding really hard and didn't hit any lights.

Can you provide a source? No such "company" exists that I'm aware of that would be so reckless and irresponsible not to provide helmets free of charge along with a helmet refusal waiver. Maybe it was a bike shop that so happened to also rent...not aware of the liability implications?

Yes yes yes. I have never worn a helmet on CaBi and never will. On a faster bike, helmets are super important, but they just aren't necessary and would be a huge hinderance to bikeshare usage.

I'm cautious, but this could be huge.

Given the quick timeline, I'm betting that they will issue conductors a handheld card reader that prints a ticket receipt, rather than the tap-in tap-out system used on Caltrain. Hopefully we can move toward that system over time, as it saves valuable conductor time, but it will require extensive equipment installation across all 241 stations, including (eventually) TVMs like those at CTA stations.

^ That alone would encourage me to visit the city by Metra instead of automobile.

And I don't work downtown, I only visit for leisure.

How about off-train fare collection, and more frequent headways on the in-city routes of the Electric District? Utilizing the same Turnstyles and TVM's as on the 'L'.

Turnstiles and fare control will require huge investments and a radical change in how Metra operates, and how Metra stations fit into communities. The only solution Metra can bring online by next summer is a handheld reader system.

However, I expect Metra to gradually add TVMs at busy stations so that riders can add money to Ventra cards. I expect them to focus on busy, unmanned stations like Ravenswood and Clybourn first. They may eventually install the tap-in, tap-out kiosks like Caltrain or GO Train uses, but they need the handheld readers so they can accept Ventra in the meantime.

I meant turnstyles (and more frequent service) ONLY for the in-city Electric District services (i.e.: the Gray Line); MED University Park, and ALL the Diesel lines would have the card reader - tap in/tap out systems currently being discussed.

Another ATA Member gave me a great idea, in the near future I am going to be running Radio Ads for the Gray Line (cheap @ $75 per month) -- that will reach a huge audience, and hopefully gain it some public support and momentum.

This doesn't make me optimistic...

I imagine his unwillingness to publicly kill the Red Line extension yet is political rather than practical. With the $240M rebuild/expansion of the 95th St. terminal following the total line rebuild I can't see the extension getting built. Other major CTA projects like RPM or a Forrest Park line rebuild will move up the list.

Hopefully he will at least get on board for interim and related improvements for Union Station. Ripping out most of the crap in the concourse, redoing some of the access points, moving everything humanly possible to the great hall, and doing the 75th st CIP to shift Southwest Service to LaSalle would at least by some time.

Yeah, I definitely think Rahm revealed his intentions when CTA unveiled the 95th St plan. The stated rationale for the extension was bus congestion at 95th, but you don't need a rail extension to fix that. Rahm could even spend a few hundred million on BRT lines feeding into 95th and still come out way ahead of the Red Line extension.

I think Emanuel needs to build some more goodwill in the black community before he drops the bomb about the Red Line extension, though. He's not faring well after the school closure debacle.

Anyone who uses CTA frequently do you know if you can currently use a contactless credit card such as a Chase card to pay for the train? So, if I had one I wouldn't need the ventra card?

Yes, but you are charged the normal $2.25 per ride. A $100 monthly unlimited Ventra card is worth it if you ride the CTA on a daily basis.

If there's one thing I do like about the new Ventra card (and there's definitely not many) is that you can go negative on your balance if you have insufficient funds to cover fare for that trip.

Is that all-day pass? I think they still have it or not. I am not quite sure about that.

That was also true of the Chicago Card.

It is $2.25 per trip. Or you can buy weekly or monthly unlimited passes ($100). I am not sure if Ventra sells unlimited daily passes.

Yes. For the best price, stop by a Ventra vending machine to add fare value or a pass to your card. (You can pay for the value or pass using cash, the same contactless card, or another credit card.)

If you don't first add value or a pass, you will be charged a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYG) fare of $2.25 per ride with no transfers.

1-day and 3-day passes are also available. You can add any pass to a Ventra card or contactless credit card. For 1-day passes, you can also purchase a 1-day disposable Ventra ticket.

I only ride the CTA about 20 times a year, so I was hoping to save space in my wallet. Is the only difference if you are using pay-as-you-go is you can't get credited for transfers with a credit card? Even after reading the ventra website it's still confusing, and the ventra website says using a credit card is coming soon.

With pay-as-you-go, there are no transfers and you pay a fare of $2.25 for each tap on rail and buses (with fare value, buses are only $2).

The ability to add value and passes to your contactless bank card is not yet available online, but you can still do this today at vending machines. Adding value or a pass will give you regular fares with transfers.

Which contactless bank card do you mean? Because Ventra is a contactless bank card as well. What do they mean add value to your own bank card? Who stores that information, the bank? Or CTA? I'd just like to get charged on my Chase credit card for when I use the CTA, and not have to worry about adding value every so often.

Good news for the Red Line!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7074567.story

Wow, great news!

Isn't it the same project thats been happening for the last 10 years? Or at least it seems like with employees on the track daily.

No, it's not.

Good news, although I never thought CTA's eligibility was in doubt - we've received New Starts money before for the Brown, Green, and Pink Line rebuilds. The chances of getting funding for the RPM were always pretty secure with a Chicagoan in the White House and an Illinoisan (formerly) running USDOT.

Officially, New Starts funding is for actual new transit lines - it's not meant to bail out agencies like CTA that deferred maintenance for years. On the other hand, FTA is unlikely to approve CTA for new lines if the existing system is in a state of poor repair.

Now for the crappy news - FTA has a massive backlog of worthy projects to fund, ahead of anything for CTA. Congress continues to reduce spending levels on transportation, so this might take awhile.

The 240 million cost of the red line 95th street station seems overly pricey for an el stop and bus route terminus compared to what is there now. I don't understand the need for this when the targeted expansion of the red line south will vastly reduce the number of bus routes terminating there and corresponding passenger volume.

So once the south extension gets built, we'll have this big station at 95th with a passenger and bus load equivalent to 87th street.

Rahm splashed a bunch of money on the 95th rebuild because the extension won't be happening.

Flickr station gallery, for those who haven't seen the renderings yet:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctaweb/...57637853632955

The design is cool but I think they overdid things. The spaciousness of the facilities is exactly what CTA needs, but that metal grid overlaid on the pedestrian bridge is overkill and kind of ugly. Come to think of it, why is there a pedestrian bridge? The two sides of the terminal are already linked via the platform and 95th St crosswalks.

Direct posting so people can stay on the page...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5477/1...6273778b_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5531/1...d97b1409_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7400/1...b415713e_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3679/1...952c7309_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3804/1...f68d1873_b.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2819/1...8f0d6a3b_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7450/1...22262013_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5487/1...2098a242_b.jpg

The decorative 'grid' doesnt actually occur on the pedestrian bridge, it does however act as a goofy crown on the North and South ends of the station. I could imagine the design being much sleeker without them, and I sincerely hope they get VE'd.

As for the existence of the bridge... I would guess a few things. Passenger comfort during foul weather, passenger safety by minimizing street crossings, minimize traffic delays on 95th, and possibly issues with IDOT, since I think 95th is a state controlled roadway and it is likely that they balked at a center pedestrian crossing.




BTW, I really like the encapsulation of the station at roadway level. It may not be attractive, but anything to alleviate the noise, road mist, wind, and rain that Dan Ryan Red Line user have to endure is worth it.

...

Bingo. And Hooray!

I agree that enclosing the platform is a good idea.

Most of Chicago's stations could benefit from this, actually... especially busy median stations like UIC, Irving Park, or 35th. I believe CTA is studying enclosure of some kind for the Blue Line Vision Study.