I'm pretty sure everyone is leaving and nobody is coming to West Englewood and North Lawndale. Why are we discussing TOD for these areas? Can we at least discuss neighborhoods with functioning real estate markets?

Yeah, but for some reason nobody likes these in Illinois (unfortunately). The only ones I can think of are at the Howard Yard and at I-88/355. Plus, you need a lot of extra clearance beneath the bridge deck to accommodate the depth of structure on a concrete box girder. A truss has a deck with practically zero thickness.

In this part of the country, they're scared of rebar corrosion from road salt. You can't just replace the top surface of a box girder because it's part of the structure. It's a shame, though, because they're so much more sculptural.

The I-88/I-355 interchange is about the clumsiest possible implementation of this structural type: post-tensioned segments, with drainpipes added as an afterthought. I cringe every time I see it.

Which is what they want at this sight. Grade separation without having to lower the road too much.

Actually, looking at it now, I am confused. What will be the final layout of this intersection and which bridge is this? If I am not mistaken, this is the replacement for the rail bridge currently there, right? Will another rail bridge be built underneath this one, lowering Torrence, or will the at grade rail move?

Isn't this what happened on Cline Ave? As I understand it, that was just sloppy construction. They build box girders all the time in Northern Europe, with the aid of coated rebar and precise drainage systems.

Steel box girders are also usually pretty elegant, and you CAN replace the deck on those if need be.

And thus, the continued demise of two ancient streetcar lines (note their prime numbering). It looks like the north lakefront service reconfiguration will be largely undone as well.

I also vaguely recall that the University of Chicago switched from Laidlaw (now First Transit) to CTA for the Hyde Park local bus routes partly because CTA agreed to extend its subsidy to the routes. Thus, the university could get twice the service for the same price, and there would be adequate capacity to carry non-university residents -- somewhat important in a relatively dense neighborhood, and since there's no Woodlawn local bus.

Yet new construction is intrinsically expensive, even when the land costs are written down to near-zero. Indeed, land costs are a much smaller fraction of urban housing prices than suburban. It just isn't possible to make new construction price-competitive with something like Prairie Shores, where the structures have fully depreciated.

I feel like I've pointed this out before (maybe over in the General Development thread), but most local moves privilege access to friends, family, and businesses over downtown access. Most of your local friends probably live on the same side of town as you. Thus even in NYC, where transfers are relatively easy due to high frequencies, gentrification flows along transit corridors, as if train lines were river valleys; it takes a very long time for redevelopment to "jump the ridge."

For what it's worth, the 2003 zoning ordinance already permitted an administrative reduction of 25% to parking ratios in the neighborhoods, and much steeper reductions in downtown zones (=RM7 and up). (Thus, Revolution Brewing was built without on-site parking through an upzone to a downtown district, then a downzone back.) That seemed pretty modest then, and I'm glad that the downtown policy is now being extended down one step to RM6.5, but it isn't a huge policy change.

I have the same question. Though, looking at street view (I assume all this is happening around 131st Street?) it doesn't look like any reconfiguration is actually going on ... this is probably only a replication of the existing configuration, necessitated merely by either an ageing viaduct structure or a desire for wider, or higher, clearance for Torrence as it passes underneath. Is that right - does anybody know?

Also, the bridge move (and the bridge itself) is a wonderful sight, but I haven't noticed local press coverage of it. You'd think it would make a nice tv or web story. Unless I missed it, it just makes me feel more that the press is slacking off as usual. How many irrelevant stories about Bears preseason injuries do we need? This is not only somewhat inspiring during a recessionary time (and general malaise on the south side), it also shows tax dollars at work.

Much more ambitious. They're moving the whole area onto three levels.

This also includes a multi-use path that will eventually connect across the river to the future Red Line terminal at 130th, although they're not connecting the path across the Bishop Ford just yet.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6201/...1c87781741.jpg
Source

I can think of 3 major concrete box girder bridges either recently built or under construction in the Twin Cities, with three times the winter of Chicago.

New details on CTA Red North station investments
 

A lot of news has been trickling out about the Chicago Transit Authority's reinvestment in stations and infrastructure on the North Red Line. Below are some links to stories we've published at CTA Station Watch, which is tracking the work at 10 North Red stations.

On August 14, at a press conference to celebrate $11 million worth of work at the Morse station, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said there was much more to come, including a "spectacular" express-transfer station at Wilson, with an estimated cost of $200 million. We confirmed some of the details with CTA and then offered some learned speculation on how the station might be built.

At a community meeting on August 27, CTA officials said that the Thorndale, Berwyn and Argyle stations will get the same level of rehab as at Morse, with glazed brick, new terrazzo and plenty of stainless steel. And all three stations will be expanded in width by taking over space in adjoining storefronts. The bad news is that concrete viaducts and columns are so deteriorated that street closures will extend well beyond the six-week station closures. Three columns at Argyle must be removed and replaced while trains run overhead. Full story here.

At that same meeting, CTA's General Manager - Construction Steven Mascheri outlined a fairly extensive "deep cleaning" of the worn-out Bryn Mawr station, which is not part of the seven-station Red North Station Interim Improvements project. Already underway, this short-term work will include new wall finishes to replace falling tile in the stairwells, plus new doors, rotogates and lighting. But the big news is that full reconstruction of the station, including an elevator for ADA accessibility, is coming in about two years. Local Alderman Harry Osterman said the project would cost $25 million, "and that could grow."

http://ctastationwatch.com/uploads/c...3.ImageHandler
Bryn Mawr stairwell

http://ctastationwatch.com/uploads/c...4.ImageHandler
A typical column at Argyle. This is one of the good ones.

Plenty of related photo sets at the CTA Station Watch Facebook page.

That is bloody fantastic. Creating extra grade separation by excavating down a level, not just for like fifty yards either side of an underpass but over a much broader, and 4-directional, spacial extent.

You really don't see this being used as a solution in other parts of the city much. Is there some reason? Is it just that most of the city is built-up with businesses and residences, so downward excavation would leave them high and dry above their street access (e.g. depressing Belmont or Western at their intersection did not seem to come up as an idea recently), while Torrence/130th is basically a clean slate in the styx? Does water table figure into it much?

Yeah, the access issue is important, but this is also crazy expensive, especially if you need to relocate a rats' nest of underground utilities.

That's not to mention that this is pretty anti-urban. You won't wanna be a pedestrian in this area... Even the bike path will probably feel pretty sketchy. Doing it right (a la Dupont Circle in DC) only adds to the cost.

As it stands, this 130th project is basically a massive handout to Ford, whose factory will benefit greatly from eliminating grade-crossing delays.

^And I find it hard to believe that this couldn't have been done much more economically, given all the vacant land in that neighborhood. I suspect there was an unwillingness to infringe on the "wetlands" to the southwest of the intersection or the auto rack loading lot to the southeast—but somehow, no shortage of money to spend appeasing Ford.

^ I'm not sure I understand the piling on Ford by you guys (unless there's some big news story I've missed). How does this approach "appease" Ford more than the more-economical alternative you allude to? I'm also not sure Ford "benefits greatly" from reducing delays; they can reduce the quantity of inventory on-site a little, and pay a little less to drivers -- this is not a "great" boost to their bottom line; it's pretty minor. And it benefits suppliers and parts delivery companies more than it benefits Ford itself. And it reduces idling pollution too. So the benefits are limited and they are also spread out among many constitutents.

Also, Ford's been assembling cars in our city since the days of Henry Ford, and we're lucky to have them as the most successful of the 3 major assembly factories in Illinois. In fact they've been adding shifts and producing a few of the rare big hits in the US auto industry. So even if it's over the top, spending here seems better than spending on at least some other city projects.

Does the City's infrastructure work here exceed what the City would do anyway in a bid to make a neighborhood more attractive to manufacturing investment? Or to finally give some infrastructure and economic love to the far south side? One key element for an efficient auto assembly plant is the just-in-time supply of components from suppliers -- the biggest effect of this redevelopment could be just to enable more suppliers to relocate and/or expand in this neighborhood, adding jobs and tax base.

Isn't all of this exactly the same as what CREATE is doing anyway -- elimination of freight grade crossings? So is your objection simply that the City is paying for this rather than the feds?

I don’t recall seeing this here, but on Tuesday CTA Tattler posted that funds have been allocated for Bryn Mawr to be fully rebuilt—as in more than the basic update that’s being done this summer—in two years. $25 million has already been allocated, with the possibility of more being gathered later.

It looks like, rather than a big rebuild, we’ll see a slow infilling, station-by-station. I’m guessing how thorough a modernization (platform width, embankment replacement, new entrance at Hollywood) will depend on how much they can scrounge up.

Any one know if the street closure on division is due to the station renovation of Clark and division?

I was hoping for a transfer station at Bryn Mawr. Maybe Berwyn would be easier to expand, though. Obviously Loyola should also be a transfer station.

$25 million will probably buy the current set of upgrades (concrete replacement, demo/replacement of all interior and platform finishes) plus an elevator, a new canopy, and an auxiliary entrance.

As you saw in the Tribune this morning, IDOT is looking at various alternatives for reconstruction of the Circle Interchange. Of course, it isn't funded yet, so no one can predict when this might happen. There have been a couple of meetings to talk with stakeholders about various considerations, and the preliminary alternatives have been released. PDF here. IDOT is mainly concerned about improving the throughput/reducing the backups on north-to-west and east-to-north movements, so at a minimum the alternatives give two lanes for both those ramps. Most of the alternatives also make the Dan Ryan four lanes all the way through (rather than the current three) and some push five through.

One funny thing is that they haven't yet sketched out the vertical dimensions, and some of the alternatives create nearly complete Texas-style stack interchanges that would rise 50 feet or more above the surrounding streets. I'm not crazy about that, and I think the speed gained by smoothing out the curves will be largely defeated (especially for trucks) by the elevation change required.

All the alternatives push the decision points, gores, and merge points further away from the Circle itself. Some show six westbound lanes leaving the Circle on I-290; the idea is that lanes would drop at Ashland and somewhere else just west. There's been some talk about whether the Morgan exit should be retained, especially now that UIC has closed the street south of Harrison.

Another curious thing is that IDOT just did a master plan for the interchange's hardscape and landscape in 2010 (PDF here) but there's been no mention of that plan in these meetings, and that plan didn't say anything about expansion or reconfiguration.

As a freeway historian, I'm reluctant to see the Circle's historic unique design completely blown away, but I think that will be a hard argument to make to the folks in charge of this.

Yes, Beta Magellan, it's starting to look like certain stations will be rebuilt -- Wilson, Bryn Mawr, Loyola, maybe Sheridan at some point -- and that work will be compatible with the full modernization or with a less-expensive rebuild of the embankment system. And portions of the "facelifts" at the seven Red North stations might be saved, as well. The Morse stationhouse rebuild, with its glazed brick and terrazzo floor, looked like more than a 10- or 20-year fix. And CTA President Forrest Claypool said on August 14 that the other Red North stations will get "roughly equal" treatment. Argyle and Thorndale are closed now and crews are working the holiday weekend to get the work done. http://ctastationwatch.com/main-line/379

Whatever the long-term investments, with the stations fixed up and the slow zones fixed, the North Red can maintain and even build ridership, especially if we get some dense new development around the stations.

Interesting discussion about the Circle. I think the vertical concerns could be partially alleviated by pulling 290 onto a higher level between Desplaines and Morgan. The ramps would then circulate beneath 290, and trucks wouldn't have to climb to the top position. This would put Halsted and maybe Peoria into a tunnel beneath 290, but with wider sidewalks and proper lighting systems, the tunnels could be treated pretty nicely for pedestrians.

I REALLY hope the city takes the advantage to push for something world-class here, both in terms of function and design. I talked about box girders above, but even conventional beam systems can be made unique and sculptural if you put a true artist behind the design of the bents and abutments.

http://www.graftonarchitects.ie/work...resource_id=55

In terms of the Burnham Plan, this is THE heart of the city. Let's not settle for the same-old.