Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
Sort of a tangent, but can you point me to the law or regs governing the noise wall requirements?
|
I'm not sure I fully understand the policy, but in general the sponsoring agency must do an analysis of sensitive land uses (residential, schools, parks, etc) and a noise wall is required when there is a certain concentration of those uses along the route. Expansions or new highways would trigger the requirement but resurfacings, reconstruction etc would not. Apparently communities can opt-out of sound walls somehow, because IDOT has put them to a vote along the Eisenhower through Oak Park and along the Kennedy through Norwood/Oriole Park, as well as various IDOT and Tollway projects in the burbs.
They also put the Stevenson sound walls
up to a vote in Bridgeport. A few owners screamed loudly about how they were an eyesore, but when it was actually put to a mail-in vote the walls were favored by 78% of voters. The response rate was only 22% so Ald. Thompson called for a 2nd vote... I can't find any info on how the 2nd vote went, but the Managed Lane project essentially died off anyway so it's a moot point for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee
And thats not even getting into the fact the UP corridor IS NOT the ideal ridership catchment route for frequent heavy rail rapid transit or the laughably incompetent aerial rollercoaster the engineers have designed (forgoing the obvious short tunnel solution) to connect the Dan Ryan row to the UP corridor. The whole thing is a disaster. And this is what passes as the Cta's most eligable shovel ready project?
|
Wait, you're complaining because you want CTA to spend even more money putting part of the route underground? The current route is sunken below street level and it needs to transition upward to an elevated alignment for the extension, so why would they go even further down with a short tunnel? Tying into the above discussion, CTA will be required to put noise walls along the entire elevated structure.