CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[ChiHi]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I disagree. Good design should absolutely be included when the city is considering a 100-year investment like this. We all have to live with this station long after the bills are paid off and Rahm Emanuel is a distant memory. A cramped, utilitarian station like the ones from the 90s on the Green Line would cost nearly as much (because transit be expensive, yo) and would not be a point of pride for the community or an anchor of redevelopment.

It may seem like a palace because our expectations are so low, but this is pretty much the standard in Chicago's peer cities globally. Check out the London Transit Thread, or the Paris Transit Thread. In those cities, even stations in fringe, low-income neighborhoods are being renovated with this caliber of design. There are tangible benefits, too - the wide open spaces and transparent materials like glass improve sightlines, which reduces crime and makes riders feel safer. Higher quality materials can be more durable and resistant to vandalism, corrosion, etc.

Also, as I pointed out - if this station is ever gonna be successful at luring United Center crowds onto the CTA, it has to be this big. Otherwise event day crowds will overwhelm the station and spill onto narrow sidewalks.

Although I applaud the city's Dubai-esque ambition, they have a Sears level credit rating. Having a ton of fancy crap and no ability to afford to maintain it is far from optimal. Also, was the 'Long after the bills are paid' part a joke? You give this city $100, they'll find a way to leverage that into a $100,000 loan and then take the wrong end of a credit default swap just to enhance the loss further.

[ardecila]

This station is funded with TIF... despite what you may feel about that tool, it is about as reliable a funding source as the city can have. Basically the land owners who will see their property values jump after this station opens, are the ones who will be paying for the station via their tax bills.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by bnk

Can you give Musk a break here? At least he is trying something.

It might or might not work but lets at least give him the opportunity to try it out here.

Its not costing the tax payers [ yet ]

Yes, I agree. I will be waiting to see how this goes. If it works in Chicago, the potential for use in other cities where transit projects are very expensive, like NY, is huge. Frankly, those types of cities in the US need another solution because conventional rail is far too expensive, especially tunnels. Look how slow the 2nd avenue subway is going. It may never be completed at this rate. East Side Access in NY is also ridiculously expensive and slow. Look at how cities in Europe build, like London with Crossrail, etc.. They are able to do it, but we need something else.

[aquablue]

Too bad Chicago isn't the capital of a centralized country like London or Paris, where all the funding for sexy transport projects is funneled. Same with NYC. -- that's RE: renovation of subway stations in London and Paris.

[Via Chicago]

like so many of Elon’s projects, it’s a dumb idea that was thoroughly investigated in the ‘70s and found to be a flop that he’s just thought up again. like the way the urban hyperloop proposals work is pure PRT, the 60s-80s dream of a parallel infrastructure for individual pods that would take you where you wanted at the push of a button.

• Video Link

• Video Link

even SpaceX isn’t doing anything new or weird. McDonnell Douglas tested a tail-sitting reuseable rocket 25 years ago! 45 years ago the shuttle boosters were reuseable tubes, they just didn’t waste fuel getting back to the ground and used parachutes instead. All the stuff about it being the first privately-funded company to do this or that is because of a massive post-Cold War/neoliberalization era change in how NASA requisitions worked, not because it wasn’t as though nobody could do that in the sixties. And this deregulation has also meant SpaceX is free to fuck up and have spectacular failures at a rate that was historically totally unacceptable, because the market provides a buffer

[jc5680]

From Michelle Stenzel's twitter, The recommended alternative for the NLSD redesign going forward is a dedicated lane for transit in the middle. It also means expanding to 10 lanes wide…





Full presentation from last task force meeting.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jc5680

From Michelle Stenzel's twitter, The recommended alternative for the NLSD redesign going forward is a dedicated lane for transit in the middle. It also means expanding to 10 lanes wide…

To be clear, there are no new lanes for cars in this proposal. The road will remain as four car lanes + one bus lane south of Montrose, and north of Montrose they are proposing to convert an existing car lane for bus-only use and effectively narrow the number of lanes for cars.

With that being said... every new drawing for this project gets more and more unrealistic. Instead of a standardized underpass that can be repeated up and down the corridor (say, based on the spacious Museum Campus or 53rd St design) they keep showing elaborate landmark pedestrian bridges. When there is the slightest possibility of a conflict that might cause congestion, they show an expensive tunnel or flyover to remove the problem. They're trying to keep everyone happy and keep their traffic models all-green and there is literally zero fiscal restraint. I'm happy to see them making a firmer stand in favor of bus lanes, but when they need to cut the budget on this thing I fully expect many of the crazy bike-path flyovers and pedestrian bridges to go away. Hopefully they are streamlined and simplified instead of deleted altogether.

The bus lane alone is projected to cost $206M additional on top of everything else (although it's so integral to the project I'm not sure it can be split out like that)

[the urban politician]

Nice. What is the timeline and financing situation for this?

[SIGSEGV]

The bus lane needs to continue on Michigan... It's literally faster to get off a 146 and walk and catch another one in front of you sometimes.

[Baronvonellis]

I think it's interesting that some of the alternatives were turning LSD in a causeway out in the Lake! Or LSD as a tunnel under the park. A causeway out in the lake would be pretty wacky. But a tunnel might be better as it would create more parkland, and it would be alot niceer not having to cross a highway to get to the lake from every street, it would be a huge benefit. Although the cost would be alot more, it's too bad they dismissed it so early. They should consider burying LSD along Grant Park at least. Too bad Chicago isn't a capital city of a Midwestern country, where we could have stuff like that happen.

[tjp]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The bus lane needs to continue on Michigan... It's literally faster to get off a 146 and walk and catch another one in front of you sometimes.

Seriously. I've been taking the 148 recently and practically need to do breathing exercises in order to not freak out over how slow it's going.

[Greenview]

Thanks Via Chicago,
Seeing the PRT again took me back to my freshman year at WVU. It was a great time. I did not end up graduating from there however. I got my bachelors from Purdue. The PRT was old in 2004 when I was a freshman, I got a car out there for my sophomore year. After years that darned PRT broke down seemingly twice a week. The hills in morgantown did create an interesting dilemma that this tried to solve. It'll be interesting to see if this can work underground and faster in Musk's grand plan.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by tjp

Seriously. I've been taking the 148 recently and practically need to do breathing exercises in order to not freak out over how slow it's going.

I'd honestly be fine if Michigan was pedestrianized with room left just for bike/bus lanes. Sidewalk crowding gets pretty bad in the warmer months that I actively avoid it and use Rush instead.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by ardecila

To be clear, there are no new lanes for cars in this proposal. The road will remain as four car lanes + one bus lane south of Montrose, and north of Montrose they are proposing to convert an existing car lane for bus-only use and effectively narrow the number of lanes for cars.

I was more concerned that the overall road width needs to be increased, not sure if that was always the plan or not but it stood out to me here.

Originally Posted by ardecila

The bus lane alone is projected to cost $206M additional on top of everything else (although it's so integral to the project I'm not sure it can be split out like that)

I can't find her tweet now, but Michelle said something to the effect of that the center aligned bus lanes are intended to be built in such a way that would allow for potentially converting to light rail in the future. I don't really know what that means in practical terms, but I assume it can only mean a higher initial cost.

[the urban politician]

Why is a bus lane so expensive?

Just paint regular ashpalt red, call it a "bus lane" and move on.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why is a bus lane so expensive?

Just paint regular ashpalt red, call it a "bus lane" and move on.

Well from the plan above I'm going say that the dedicated bus on/off ramp tunnels for Michigan for the left hand LSD bus lanes are probably kinda spendy...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Why is a bus lane so expensive?

Just paint regular ashpalt red, call it a "bus lane" and move on.

Any new lane on an urban highway is expensive, it doesn't matter what color you paint it. Honestly, if the project was JUST widening LSD to add a bus lane, I'd be surprised if it only cost $206M.

But yes, you are asking why not just paint one of the existing lanes red. It sounds like IDOT will consider keeping the 4-lane width and making one of the lanes a HOT lane, where buses could share space with carpoolers and toll-paying single drivers. In theory the price would be adjusted in real time to keep the lane from getting congested. I feel such a thing may be needed to cover the sure-to-be insane cost of this proposal.

If I were king of Chicago, I'd just toll the entire highway during peak periods with modern I Pass systems like the Elgin-O'Hare. This would reduce demand, making room to set aside a bus lane in the center. Leave it free on weekends and off-peak so you don't penalize Joe Schmoe or Jose Salcedo taking the kids to the museum. Use the revenue to add crosstown bus service so you can go from Lakeview to Hyde Park down LSD, crosstown commuters being very poorly served by transit currently. Also camera enforcement of speed, if little neighborhood parks can get speed cameras then we should also have them in the mother of all Chicago city parks.

Originally Posted by jc5680

I can't find her tweet now, but Michelle said something to the effect of that the center aligned bus lanes are intended to be built in such a way that would allow for potentially converting to light rail in the future. I don't really know what that means in practical terms, but I assume it can only mean a higher initial cost.

I assume this is one of those questions that professional transit engineers get routinely. Light rail is capable of traveling on city streets and making tight turns (in fact, that's the main advantage over subways) so there's really not a lot of advance planning that needs to be done.

[Chi-Sky21]

seems kind of silly to put it running down the middle of LSD to begin with, where are people going to board? if you were to have them board in the middle of LSD you would need stations there and ways to get to them and there is no room. Just sounds like a dumb idea, just keep a bus lane and leave it at that.... keeps it cheaper that way too.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The bus lane needs to continue on Michigan... It's literally faster to get off a 146 and walk and catch another one in front of you sometimes.

Which is why they needed to extend lower Michigan to LSD. Yes, it's expensive, but it would still have a huge bang for buck. The city should, at the very least, start saving for it and design it so that as Federal funds become available it can be implemented.

[Busy Bee]

^Yep