CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[i_am_hydrogen]

Demolition of Lakeview buildings to begin this week for CTA 'flyover' project

The CTA this week will start knocking down buildings in the Lakeview neighborhood to make way for the controversial “flyover,” an elevated bypass that agency officials say will cut down delays along a congested stretch of public transit on the North Side.

The demolition begins more than a year before the city plans to break ground on the flyover, which aims to unclog the bottleneck of Red, Brown and Purple Line trains that flow in and out of the Belmont Avenue station.

“The work we’re doing is an important part of the preparation we need to accomplish to begin construction on the project next year,” said Chris Bushell, the CTA’s chief infrastructure officer, in an interview with reporters Tuesday...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...306-story.html

[ardecila]

Moving fast on this. They’re trying to get all the demolitions done in the 3200 and 3300 blocks before the Cubs season begins, and the 3400 block will be torn down in the fall after the season ends (guess Beer on Clark wanted one more season...)

[the urban politician]

Kinda bummed about these demolitions though.

I'm worried they will remain vacant lots for a long time

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Kinda bummed about these demolitions though.

I'm worried they will remain vacant lots for a long time

That's my worry too; and when they are finally developed they'll likely be the same schlock that goes up around the city. We are loosing a couple great buildings for this project, and the area will ultimately change for the worse when complete.
Also, were the massive concrete structures always part of the plan? Why doesn't the CTA use steel support beams, like the rest of the system? These hulking concrete structures are terrible.

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Where I live in the City driving takes the same/longer than the train. And the cost of parking downtown is a complete waste of money. $105/month unlimited CTA pass is a no brainer. Relax, sip coffee and read.

For us it is situational. We do tend to take the CTA, but let me give a recent example where Uber won the day.

We were out for dinner and had taken CTA to the restaurant. Dinner dragged on longer than it needed to, we were tired after a long day of work, it was cold and raining and the CTA meant a 10 minute walk from the stations at each end with a 20 minute ride (not figuring wait time for a train). It could have been 40-50 minutes door to door.

Or, an Uber was 2 minutes away and the fare around $10.

The choices were 2 walks in the rain as part of the 40 minute trip on CTA - $5.00. Or, 10 minutes by Uber, get home dry, $10. Uber won.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

For us it is situational. We do tend to take the CTA, but let me give a recent example where Uber won the day.

We were out for dinner and had taken CTA to the restaurant. Dinner dragged on longer than it needed to, we were tired after a long day of work, it was cold and raining and the CTA meant a 10 minute walk from the stations at each end with a 20 minute ride (not figuring wait time for a train). It could have been 40-50 minutes door to door.

Or, an Uber was 2 minutes away and the fare around $10.

The choices were 2 walks in the rain as part of the 40 minute trip on CTA - $5.00. Or, 10 minutes by Uber, get home dry, $10. Uber won.

That makes sense. I should have been more clear. I was talking about a commute to/from work during rush hours. Yes, definitely after a night of eating and drinking we will generally take a cab/lyft home.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

...
Also, were the massive concrete structures always part of the plan? Why doesn't the CTA use steel support beams, like the rest of the system? These hulking concrete structures are terrible.

Concrete is generally quieter, I think that's the main reason: it's mass just dampens vibrations better than steel. I don't think they'll feel as "hulking" once built. Even if they used steel, I don't think it would necessarily be some light, airy thing once completed.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

Concrete is generally quieter, I think that's the main reason: it's mass just dampens vibrations better than steel. I don't think they'll feel as "hulking" once built. Even if they used steel, I don't think it would necessarily be some light, airy thing once completed.

Plus, the price of steel will be going up 25% or so.

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Plus, the price of steel will be going up 25% or so.

As will the price of rebar that goes into the concrete structures.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

As will the price of rebar that goes into the concrete structures.

Great, ain't it?

[Busy Bee]

America is getting so great again, it just gives me the goosebumps!

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by emathias

I don't think they'll feel as "hulking" once built. Even if they used steel, I don't think it would necessarily be some light, airy thing once completed.

Hopefully it won't feel hulking, though it does worry me a bit. I've been out in Tysons, Virginia, several times and the concrete structure for Metro's relatively new silver line extension feels very massive/hulking. At the same time, concrete certainly does help dampen the noise. You can tell just from the moment the train moves from the steel tracks to the north/south of Belmont to the concrete track that's part of the overall Belmont station. It immediately becomes much quieter at that time.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Jim in Chicago

As will the price of rebar that goes into the concrete structures.

Well, the rebar is a fraction of the weight of a steel support structure. Virtually all new CTA structures in the last 50 years have been steel beams on concrete bents. Then a concrete deck atop the steel beams.

The Pink Line was an exception, they skipped the concrete deck for that one and doomed Pilsen/LV to another 100 years of earsplitting noise.

I doubt the fluctuations in steel price will affect the design of this project. The increased cost can (probably) be absorbed in the existing contingency... if the increase is too high, we might see a switch to precast concrete beams.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Plus, the price of steel will be going up 25% or so.

That would depend. How much more is American steel vs Chinese steel? If that number is like 10% more, then that will be how much more it is.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

That would depend. How much more is American steel vs Chinese steel? If that number is like 10% more, then that will be how much more it is.

Or Canadian steel, since apparently that's where most of our steel comes from.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by emathias

Or Canadian steel, since apparently that's where most of our steel comes from.

China isn't even top 10 in terms of US steel imports. Canada is our biggest supplier at 16% of total. Brazil is number 2 at 13%. India is number 10 at 2%. Can't wait for increased costs, inflation and job loss as a result of Trump's silly policy.

[OhioGuy]

Yonah Freemark went off today on the lack of vision for the CTA/Metra.

https://twitter.com/yfreemark/status/983408296928448513

It is beyond depressing to me that the Chicago region's draft funded regional transportation expenditure plan includes no expansion of the L rail system other than the Red Line by 2050. It includes a 1.6-mile expansion of the commuter rail network.

Several BRT projects are included, but the project that is top-scoring—Ashland Ave—has essentially been discarded by the mayor's office due to neighborhood opposition. This is a region of 9.5 million people, and this is all Chicago gets for the next 32 years?

Nothing about converting Metra to all-day, useful regional rail as Toronto is undertaking with GO network. No funding for anything that would improve transit significantly for the booming West Loop and river corridor. A lesson in complete abandonment of planning for the future.

I would tend to agree with his assessment. I've already commented on the need for rapid transit along the Chicago River's North Branch, where plenty of development is planned. When it comes to the future of transit, it seems the region's leaders are ignoring Daniel Burnham's sage advice:

"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency."

[Mr Downtown]

Should we propose expansion just for expansion’s sake? After all, Chicago is not growing. Average annual boardings per CTA station is only 1.6 million, less than Atlanta and only a bit better than Miami and Baltimore. New York is 5.8 million boardings per station—systemwide average.

Chicago has a lot—perhaps too much—rapid transit for the size city it has shrunk to. We don't have a problem with not enough transit infrastructure. We have 146 L stations. We have a problem with all the people who count—those who have good downtown jobs—all wanting to live near the same 20 stations.

[the urban politician]

^ Gotta agree here.

The key is to increase development around our existing infrastructure. Look at all of those stations on the south side surrounded by vacant lots and little chicken joints. We need those evil developers to evilly build housing for those slimy cocktail-sippers who will then commute to their evil downtown jobs.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Should we propose expansion just for expansion’s sake? After all, Chicago is not growing. Average annual boardings per CTA station is only 1.6 million, less than Atlanta and only a bit better than Miami and Baltimore. New York is 5.8 million boardings per station—systemwide average.

It’s not expansion just for expansion’s sake. I’m not talking about outward expansion such as the south red line extension or Ford City orange line extension. There’s so much development planned along both branches of the Chicago River closer in. Chicago isn’t growing in less dense areas, but closer in areas certainly appear set for major redevelopment changes over the coming decades. Meanwhile there doesn’t seem to be a vision for how to move the people living in/working in these increasingly built up areas, other than passive talk about buses.