HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5441  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2009, 5:27 PM
Dr. Taco Dr. Taco is offline
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 92626
Posts: 3,882
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5442  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2009, 6:02 PM
k1052 k1052 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
^ re: Clark/Division, there's also ongoing talk of building a new entrance at LaSalle/Division as well, which obviously would make it a much more expensive project than otherwise. Not sure of the status. I suspect you won't hear much of anything about it until both (a) Illinois actually enacts a capital plan to match the funds from (b) the next major Federal transportation reauthorization. The vast majority of major CDOT projects are from state and federal capital money, which also explains why Chicago's roads have gotten so bad over the last 2 years as the state money disappeared around 2005 and road maintenance has consisted of pothole patching rather than reconstruction.
I don't see how they can possibly justify the sure to be massive expense for such a limited gain since the station is just one block away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5443  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2009, 7:22 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
^ re: Clark/Division, there's also ongoing talk of building a new entrance at LaSalle/Division as well, which obviously would make it a much more expensive project than otherwise. Not sure of the status. I suspect you won't hear much of anything about it until both (a) Illinois actually enacts a capital plan to match the funds from (b) the next major Federal transportation reauthorization. The vast majority of major CDOT projects are from state and federal capital money, which also explains why Chicago's roads have gotten so bad over the last 2 years as the state money disappeared around 2005 and road maintenance has consisted of pothole patching rather than reconstruction.
I'd find it much more useful if they'd plan on a stop at Goethe and Clyborn instead of just an extra exit at Lasalle. It's easily a mile between Clark/Division and North/Clyborn. If you coordinated planning for a stop there with some TOD development, it'd really help extend the Clyborn corridor south to connect Division to North.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5444  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2009, 8:46 PM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
I'd find it much more useful if they'd plan on a stop at Goethe and Clyborn instead of just an extra exit at Lasalle. It's easily a mile between Clark/Division and North/Clyborn. If you coordinated planning for a stop there with some TOD development, it'd really help extend the Clyborn corridor south to connect Division to North.
1.1 miles

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sour...27595&t=h&z=15


Does anyone know the route the L follows underneath the near north area...

I think your idea at goeth and clybourn might be a good idea....at least conceptually

Last edited by lawfin; Jul 10, 2009 at 12:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5445  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2009, 9:53 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,464
Is there any decent precedent for constructing an infill subway station from scratch along a live railroad? I'm sure it's technically possible but it seems like an immense project (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars fully burdened with design costs and such - think of the costs involved in the Roosevelt Connector project in the early 90s to build a new flying junction to create the current Red Line routing, or of course Block 37 which is just a flat junction). The 'infill' station projects in rail networks nationwide that come to mind tend to be either elevated or at grade, and in best cases exist where the original line was built to allow for it. To my knowledge the only such unused 'hook' for easy(er) expansion or construction in CTA's subway system is the flying junction under Lake and Canal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5446  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 4:43 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,331
State/Roosevelt was also a "hook" for future expansion: the original tunnel included a center tail track that descended to allow a flying junction for a future Archer subway. That was finally used in the late 80s when the HoDaR connection was built.

As for infill subway stations, there's Lake on the Red Line. (A little joke for us oldtimers. For four decades the State Street subway only made three stops along its continuous downtown platform, but in the late 90s CTA decided to add a fourth, closer to the State/Lake walking transfer.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5447  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 5:25 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Is there any decent precedent for constructing an infill subway station from scratch along a live railroad? I'm sure it's technically possible but it seems like an immense project (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars fully burdened with design costs and such - think of the costs involved in the Roosevelt Connector project in the early 90s to build a new flying junction to create the current Red Line routing, or of course Block 37 which is just a flat junction). The 'infill' station projects in rail networks nationwide that come to mind tend to be either elevated or at grade, and in best cases exist where the original line was built to allow for it. To my knowledge the only such unused 'hook' for easy(er) expansion or construction in CTA's subway system is the flying junction under Lake and Canal.
Not along a live railroad, but the two underground stations on Metrolink in St. Louis were built into a tunnel not designed for them. From the looks of it, they were a simple cut-and-cover job.

Conceptually, I can think of a few methodologies to build an infill station that wouldn't require a total shutdown of the line. You could probably get away with a total shutdown on Clybourn, fortunately, which would make matters easier.

Also... IF the Clinton Subway is ever built, plans include a station at Division/Larrabee, pretty close to Clybourn/Goethe.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5448  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 6:49 AM
schwerve schwerve is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Is there any decent precedent for constructing an infill subway station from scratch along a live railroad? I'm sure it's technically possible but it seems like an immense project (e.g. hundreds of millions of dollars fully burdened with design costs and such - think of the costs involved in the Roosevelt Connector project in the early 90s to build a new flying junction to create the current Red Line routing, or of course Block 37 which is just a flat junction). The 'infill' station projects in rail networks nationwide that come to mind tend to be either elevated or at grade, and in best cases exist where the original line was built to allow for it. To my knowledge the only such unused 'hook' for easy(er) expansion or construction in CTA's subway system is the flying junction under Lake and Canal.
there was a study completed by BART in 2003 for an underground infill station at 30th & Mission, estimated cost: 450 Million

http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanfrancisco.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5449  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 7:51 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerve View Post
there was a study completed by BART in 2003 for an underground infill station at 30th & Mission, estimated cost: 450 Million

http://www.bart.gov/about/planning/sanfrancisco.aspx
^^^^Jeezuz.....I can't believe it is that expensive for one station....wow...

WHy is it so much.....trust me I know nothing about constructing subways or their stations but wouldn't mind learning a bit; if someone is willing to point me toward some good resources

Boy....I cannot get over that cost.


How much is it to build new subway by the mile?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5450  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 9:17 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,661
^^ It's hard to give a per-mile cost because so few subways are built in the US, and because local conditions change costs dramatically. There really are no good standards of comparison from which to make accurate estimates. This is just one reason why contractors often are able to fleece government to some degree in transit projects.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5451  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 5:55 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Finally!

Quinn to sign $29B public works bill
July 09, 2009
(AP) — Gov. Pat Quinn says he will sign legislation creating a huge public works program to help the Illinois economy.
Quinn plans to sign the bill on Monday.
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5452  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 6:21 PM
schwerve schwerve is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 343
^ do we have any idea what's in that bill?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5453  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 7:31 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerve View Post
^ do we have any idea what's in that bill?
Nothing, yet. The legislature just appropriates the money. IDOT decides what actually gets built. I'm also not sure how much, if any, will go to the transit agencies.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5454  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 8:40 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,643
As with any transportation spending bill that comes out of Springfield, Anywhere between 50% to 60% will go to areas outside Chicagoland. In fact, I think this particular bill set the breakdown at 50%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5455  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2009, 9:30 PM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
As with any transportation spending bill that comes out of Springfield, Anywhere between 50% to 60% will go to areas outside Chicagoland. In fact, I think this particular bill set the breakdown at 50%.
So the Chicago area is 75-80% of the population and is 80+% of the GDP of the state and we split this 50 / 50 or there abouts.

Tyranny of the minority
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5456  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 12:44 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,494
A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5457  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 3:17 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 11,960


Those could be construed as fighting words from a downstater when the Chicagoland area feeds more dollars into the system and we struggle to pay for a multiple system of transportations options of feeding people into the state’s economic engine. Metra costs monies, as does, the CTA, PACE, RTA, the local interstates...


The linear miles of road down state could be converted back to gravel for all I care by just the way the rest of rural Illinois is depopulating in comparison to Chicagoland and their lack of contribution into the system. Downstate has been a donor region longer than the state of Illinois has been a donor state in the federal tax system.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5458  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 3:31 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 8,494
All I'm saying is that until Chicagoland becomes a sovereign principality expect (particularly) highway spending to be divided in this way. No use complaining about it, I suppose a congressman or two should be contacted if someone was serious about changing the way its awarded and allocated. All this 'downstate is useless' rhetoric is funny until its time to eat.
__________________
Only if you're looking can it find you

No, it's not pronounced "Keeve."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5459  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 5:59 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
All I'm saying is that until Chicagoland becomes a sovereign principality expect (particularly) highway spending to be divided in this way. No use complaining about it, I suppose a congressman or two should be contacted if someone was serious about changing the way its awarded and allocated. All this 'downstate is useless' rhetoric is funny until its time to eat.
I am sure they will still take our green backs....if not there is Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin ...yadda...yadda
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5460  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2009, 6:01 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
A linear mile of roadway is a linear mile of roadway, in Chicagoland or downstate—and downstate has more linear miles of roadway. It seems pretty simple to me.
That is a facile comparison at best.....volume has effects on roads...and the volume in the chicago area is far greater than downstate
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.