TUP, have you seen Transit Future? Have you called your commissioner to support it? If not, why are you complaining?

CTA in-house ironworker crews have been doing structural renewal for 6+ months, usually at night but sometimes on weekends (hence the periodic all-day Sunday single tracking). Once the structural work is done, the track will be replaced; last I heard (admittedly a while ago) the track replacement is supposed to begin this summer.

Clearer which buildings are coming down at this link:
http://www.transitchicago.com/news_i...pm/bypass.aspx

So Johnny O'hagan's and its parking lot. Maybe the Houndstooth Saloon at Clark and Buckingham? Hard for me to tell.

It also looks like some of the buildings will be for platform renovations further north, not just for the bypass.

This is pretty interesting..is the city ACTUALLY starting to plan ahead and embrace TOD?
Preplanning TOD density around the new brown line flyover?

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...s-after-bypass

Here are some images DNAInfo forgot to include of the TOD as well as how the new viaducts will blend in with the neighborhood:

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...Buckingham.jpg
Conceptual rendering of development at Clark/Buckingham
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...wayAinslie.png
Conceptual rendering of development at Broadway/Ainslie
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...ng_Generic.jpg
Preliminary, conceptual rendering of new structure spanning adjacent alley
http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...-Optimized.jpg
Preliminary, conceptual rendering of a reconstructed viaduct

so when does the CTA plan to untangle the loop "L" due to many stop and wait intersecting line delays, is that a "priority?"

let's build some of these "flyovers" downtown shall we. . .

I really hope the architecture of the viaduct structure isn't that lame. It looks like its straight out of an old highway engineering standards book. I'd like to see something really modern done with the design of the elevated structure.

Why should anyone support that sprawl oriented plan?

I don't think there's all that many cost effective options for the type of bridge structure unless you mean there should be some extra architectural embellishment to what you see.

They'll want to minimize the number of vertical piers. Right now there's a ton of columns....just more structure to maintain. So they'll use longer spans of steel to minimize vertical support.

Then they don't want it to be too hulking, so they won't use any longspan box girder construction or else the structure will get really deep and massive. But that's usually what you see where you get some cool modern forms otherwise found in lower density areas where there's the space to build.

You won't see any trusses...just more connections to maintain.

These match the sections at Belmont and Fullerton which aren't the most attractive but are quiet as trains roll in and spacious below.

They could do something like this with U-beams... A modest upgrade but at least there are no flanges for pigeons to sit on and the underside is attractive.

http://www.hpcbridgeviews.com/images...lvd_BTR056.gif

^ Yeah, that would be a good look too. I'm sure it would be even better dampening sound and vibrations.

I am liking the "when we get the money it's getting built period" attitude from the CTA on the Clark flyover. A handful of residents shouldn't but allowed to strangle rail upgrades for all of the northern neighborhoods. I wish the CTA and Rahm would show the same spine on Ashland BRT.

My guess is that if/when Rahm gets reelected, he will hammer through the Ashland BRT. When that happens I will laugh with evil joy, especially when the left turn lanes for traffic are slowly closed, one by one.

Just for the record, despite my grumblings earlier I will reiterate that I am impressed with how the CTA is refurbishing the system (and working to increase the capacity of what we have), what frustrates me is to see cities throughout the nation adding new transit lines (light and heavy rail) while Chicago appears nowhere on any of those lists.

You can argue that those cities have faster population growth than Chicago, but that misses the big picture. It's not about how much a region is growing, it's about where a region is growing. Chicago has the fastest core growth in the nation, period. So there is a HUGE market for people to want to live in the core, and those are all potential transit users. So a new Metra line out into the cornfields may not be the best use of transit dollars, but how about connecting the system better?

Perhaps not the Circle Line, but the Clinton St Subway makes total sense and should be the #1 New Starts priority in Chicago right now, especially with all of the growth & development along the Blue Line corridor. Also, the West Loop Transportation Center with a subway connecting to Millennium Station and onward to Mag Mile/Streeterville/Navy Pier is badly needed. Forget this Mr. Rogers Trolley BRT nonsense that we are building for 39 cents, it's a waste and I don't think a lot of people are going to use it because it's just a goddamn glorified bus. We need subways.

The money is out there. It's just going to other cities, not Chicago.

:cheers:

I rather not waste money on the Ashland BRT and instead aggressively pursue the Circle Line.

And WHERE do/should all the (lots of them) delivery trucks go urban (3 right turns -- or avoid the area like Ebola?)

Or use a better 21st Century transit mode on Ashland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_sxmhjLU2A

These are very flexible vehicles, with doors on both sides -- and power pick-up from overhead wire or center-rail. I think the Ashland Corridor communities might be much more receptive to this type of transit installation, and it could be the start/first phase of a city-wide re-introduction of streetcar/light-rail service.

What exactly is the advantage of rail? The braking distance is far inferior, so left turns would have to be aggressively prevented, lest you have a repeat of Houston's wham-bam-killer-tram.

More visible to casual users? Smoother ride? Not compared to a purpose-built guideway. Less noisy? No. More maneuverable? Definitely not. Faster acceleration? Perhaps a tiny bit, but time advantage lost in slower deceleration. Cheaper to operate? Disproven many times.

Makes railfans drool? Well, you got me there.

Sorry guys, as sexy as it would be to just build subways all over the place, BRT is the only logical way to expand the system right now. Don't forget that Chicago has always been a city of hub and spoke heavy rail connected by a much lighter rail/bus grid. Buses have simply replaced cable cars and streetcars and Chicago is built to support an excellent network of surface based transit. BRT is a fantastic way to upgrade that network of buses so that they achieve speeds that are nearly as fast as the L. As awesome as it would be if Chicago never removed and paved over the street car lines, BRT will be even more awesome since the streetcars were always disadvantaged by the fact that they couldn't easily be rerouted or avoid obstacles. BRT has the best of both worlds: a reserved ROW with fast loading at a limited number of platforms just like heavy rail, but is not tied to expensive trackwork at street level.

I for one cannot wait to see Ashland BRT and am even more thrilled about Western BRT. I don't give a damn about the poor delivery truckers who will have to obey another traffic law. If it really is that big of a problem then distributors will simply have to start buying smaller trucks which would be a win for the whole city because I really don't think 18 wheelers belong in the core in the first place.

I feel the exact same way, I think the City needs to try to explore the subway option whenever possible for future expansion of existing lines and future additional lines. I really think the purpose of the refurbishment of the system is to eventually apply for federal money for additional lines, might be wishful thinking.