CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

And the Wacker project really needs to go to Harrison, and include all those crazy ramps linking Lower-to-Eisenhower, Upper/Lower-to-Harrison, Eisenhower-to-Upper and Lower, et cetera, no? Or are they waiting to know whether/how a Wacker extension southwards would be built?

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City. The plan right now is to build a Wells-Wentworth connector. A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City.

Smooth pun. I guess it sailed right into River City.

Originally Posted by ardecila

A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.

I think this would instantly massively increase the appeal of office or other buildings at Franklin Point. Not only because of direct access from/onto Wacker, but you'd open up the possibility of sexy new addresses from "600 South Wacker" thru as much as "799 South Wacker". If the area is already too residential to attain any office-building critical mass, then hotels would likely find some benefit from this so they can market themselves to outsiders as not being in the Loop's boondocks.

I'm curious what people think about
(1) whether a Franklin Point developer would find this beneficial (assuming zoning increase or some other way of making up for losing buildable site area to the roadway, in addition to of course being paid for selling the roadway land).
(2) whether the city itself would consider it worth building the extension (whether this time around or in a future phase) to effectively enlarge the developable area of the most desirable part of the Loop. Certainly there will be no Loop land constraint problems for a long while, but a decision on an extension would have to occur sooner, before Franklin Point begins any development.

I guess a lot of this enthusiasm is dampened when you consider the western views would be of the McCormick-sized post office across the river - not exactly pretty to look at or down upon.

[orulz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm pretty sure the boat sailed on any extension of Wacker when they built River City. The plan right now is to build a Wells-Wentworth connector. A 1-block extension of Wacker diagonally across the Franklin Point site might be a good idea, having a direct Wacker-Wells connection, but I haven't seen any plans for this.

Couldn't they build the same connection on the Congress/Wells/Franklin/Harrison block? (The block that's already filled with the Congress-Wacker ramps.) The ramps could be rebuilt to tie in with this connector.

You lose the ability to have "700 S Wacker Drive" addresses, but you avoid having to take a big chunk of land from the Franklin Point site, and instead use only public land.

Or was there some agreement already in force for air rights development over those ramps that would make this impossible?

[ardecila]

Right, but that would require coordination with the current Wacker Drive project. I believe the intent is to replace the existing roadway with an identical one, except with better streetscaping and higher vertical clearances to allow larger trucks onto Lower Wacker (fulfilling the road's original intention). If this is the case, then the terminus of Wacker will still be on Harrison one block west of Wells after the project is done.

[ardecila]

Okay... I went to the Red Line Alternatives Analysis meeting tonight. The alignment (the Locally Preferred Alternative) was chosen: along the UP railroad from 95th to 130th. After some refinement, CTA will take this plan to the Feds in the fall for negotiation and begin working on the Environmental Impact Statement and early design.

CTA has not decided whether the line will be built on the east or west side of the UP tracks. There are preliminary alignments for either choice, but the projected cost is $1.1 billion either way. The line will be almost all elevated, but the UP railroad will remain at-grade. This irritates me... most projects of this type in other cities allow for both the transit and the railroad to be grade-separated, since the Federal funding process allows cities to receive money for this grade-separation that would not otherwise be available. CTA and UP also need to be separated by 50 feet, making for a rather inefficient use of space in a dense city. To be honest, I was hoping for something like DC's Red Line where rail and transit are right next to each other.

There will be a station at 115th, which is close to the major intersection of 115th/Michigan, and the City is working with a developer for a mixed-use complex with a grocery and residential here that will have a transit connection. I'm sure it will be half-assed and strip-mallish, like the thing they built at Howard.

A major park and ride is planned at the 130th terminal similar to the garage at Cumberland. Like Kimball, O'Hare, and Midway, 130th will have 3 tracks. Since the station would abut the South Shore Line, CTA is negotiating with South Shore to build a transfer station. North of the station will be a rather large new train yard to replace the existing one at 95th.

FINALLY, CTA has developed a rainy-day plan in case the Feds are stingy: a shortened line extension to 115th, with the remainder of the line to 130th deferred to a later project. It increases the cost-effectiveness rating of the extension by 23%, since it dramatically reduces the cost without a huge loss in projected ridership. This shortened version would not include the new yard, which CTA claims the Red Line needs. They will probably use this as leverage to get the Feds to fund the entire project (besides, there's a South Sider running the show in DC - what are the chances this thing doesn't get funded?)

Detailed Map of East and West Alignments

103rd Station (not the final design)

[denizen467]

for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

[ardecila]

^^ The tracks serve only freight right now, but Metra has a proposal for a new SouthEast Service that would use these tracks. If that comes to fruition, then Metra would plan a joint station next to one of CTA's stations, like what exists at Jefferson Park.

The crossings are not included in CREATE because they do not cause significant road congestion, so they aren't urgent enough to make the cut. However, with major pedestrian generators like L stations right next door, they will become a safety problem fast IMO.

[the urban politician]

^ Thanks for all the info, ardecila. I'm glad they chose a route that doesn't run in the median of an expressway, and actually runs through neighborhoods.

This is a great opportunity for the city to promote TOD, especially along the planned route of this train. Did you get any sense that the CTA and the Planning Dept have been talking to eachother about this? If I'm correct, part of 103rd st is a designated "Pedestrian Street", although I"m not sure if it's the portion that would be served by this new L stop.

[the urban politician]

Ald Manny Flores appears to be pretty progressive with the TOD thing. He collaborated to form an organization known as Green Economy Chicago. Here is a recent posting by them:

Add Transit-Oriented Development Designation to Chicago Zoning Code
Written by Lee Crandell - Friday, 22 May 2009 17:18
Our zoning code needs to address the unique opportunities and challenges in the areas around our train stations. Transit-oriented development could provide more destinations and housing options within walking distance of transit. It would promote a healthier lifestyle and allow us to reduce vehicle miles traveled (along with associated greenhouse gases and pollution). While some stations are already surrounding by vibrant walkable areas (such as Belmont Red Line and Damen Blue Line), many others are underdeveloped and surrounded by parking lots. The current zoning code also puts heavy restrictions on density around many of the stations, even though these areas would be most the appropriate for higher-density development.
Chicago currently has a Pedestrian Street designation in its zoning code that could be adapted for transit-oriented development. This new designation could be applied to a radius (1/4 mile, 5-minute walk?) around all train stations in the city, much like the current zoning code provides for limited exceptions to the parking requirements in transit-served locations (defined as within 600 feet of CTA or METRA station). The Pedestrian Street designation has lower parking requirements, ensures fewer curb cuts interrupting the sidewalk, restricts strip malls, and ensures buildings abut the sidewalk with windows and doors instead of being set back behind parking. All of these requirements would also be appropriate for the areas around the stations. A transit-oriented development designation could also go a step further, allowing for an automatic increase in floor-area ratio and minimum lot area per unit within the existing allowable building height. This would enable developers to provide more diverse housing options near the stations as the market demands, including studios and one-bedrooms that may not be feasible under the existing code.

^ You know, I would love to see Ald Flores actually try to bring this up and try to get an ordinance passed. Since all it takes is one Alderman to back these things, why not do something that would benefit the city, as opposed to wasting everybody's time banning foie gras and street drummers, and now with Ald Ed Burke pushing to require red light camera ticketeers to go to driving school.

[BVictor1]

This should be added here also...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7751889.story

High-speed rail: Biden praises Midwest plan to enhance passenger train system

Federal officials laud Midwest pitch for upgrade funds
By Mike Dorning and Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporters
June 4, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Obama administration officials offered encouraging signs Wednesday that a proposed Midwest high-speed rail network based around a Chicago hub has an inside track on a significant piece of $8 billion to be distributed among 10 major U.S. projects.

Vice President Joe Biden lauded the Midwest proposal, which envisions passenger trains speeding through the region at 110 m.p.h., as "one of the most comprehensive plans that have been put forward so far."

The full 3,000-mile Midwest corridor system stretching over nine states would cost $9.6 billion to construct over 10 years, according to the latest estimate.

But "for $3.4 billion, you can get a big chunk of this plan done," Biden said in a conference call with reporters.



The administration gathered eight governors, including Gov. Pat Quinn, for a roundtable at the White House on Wednesday. Interviewed at the White House afterward, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Illinois congressman, noted that Obama and his chief of staff, Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel, have taken an intense interest in the rail initiative. He suggested that that would work in favor of substantial financial support for a Midwest network.

Obama and Emanuel made funding for high-speed rail a priority in negotiations over the economic stimulus package. In addition to the $8 billion secured in the economic stimulus, the White House has asked for another $5 billion over the next five years.

"This is the president's initiative," LaHood said. "I mean he and Rahm personally saw to it that Congress included $8 billion for high-speed rail. And I don't want to answer to the president why we're not doing something in the Midwest."

According to transportation experts, the Midwest bid also will merit support because of Chicago's central role in the nation's rail and other transportation networks.

"Based on the conversations I had with the governors today, I think [the Midwest] will have as good a proposal as any that we will receive," LaHood said. "Everyone will have a reasonable chance."

At a meeting earlier in the day to strategize on funding with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Quinn announced plans for a July summit of Midwest governors to address high-speed rail in Chicago. He said he and the other governors will coordinate plans and try to muster enthusiasm among mayors, members of Congress and business.

"The point is, the more people who are invested in this, the better," Quinn said. He added that a successful Olympic bid for Chicago could add political immediacy to the regional project.

Regardless of how much money the Midwest project receives in the first round of funding, the initial phase of work in and around Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit would concentrate on eliminating slow zones, where Amtrak passenger trains often travel as slow as 10 m.p.h. because of freight train interference and antiquated tracks and signals.

The goal would be to increase those speeds to 30 to 50 m.p.h. initially and faster later, operating in accordance with the philosophy of rail experts that the key to going fast is to not go slow.

The Federal Railroad Administration will issue guidelines for applications by June 17, and Biden said grants will start rolling this summer.

The first category of grants will focus on improving existing rail systems and putting people to work under the economic recovery plan, the vice president said. The strategy appears to benefit the Midwest proposal.

The second round will go toward building sections of corridors and aiding high-speed rail programs such as California's plan, which will feature trains moving at up to 220 m.p.h. between Sacramento and San Diego.

Mike Dorning reported from Washington and Jon Hilkevitch from Chicago. mdorning@tribune.com

jhilkevitch@tribune.com

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by denizen467

for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

That is how the Pulaski Orange Line station is. Right next to a single fright track. A couple of the crossing gates are actually between the two CTA viaducts carrying the inbound and outbound tracks. The trains on the fright track are slow and infrequent, so safety really isn't that much of an issue at Pulaski.

Ardecila, was there any mention of eminent domain or takings of residential property along the route? I think its a little ridiculous to keep that 50' distance if we have to condemn private property when the line could easily be constructed on the existing right of way. Is the reason a federal restriction, or does Union Pacific intend to triple track the route at some point in the future? The line seems to have enough buffer space along the whole route to avoid eminent domain along most of the route, but it seems some may be inevitable.

Other than that, the route is fantastic. Its equidistant between Metra Lines, so it provides supplemental rather than duplicate service, and the prospect of new transfer stations between the South East Service and South Shore is pretty exciting. The 130th St transfer would be heavily used by Indiana Sox fans coming in by way of the South Shore.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

That is how the Pulaski Orange Line station is. Right next to a single fright track. A couple of the crossing gates are actually between the two CTA viaducts carrying the inbound and outbound tracks. The trains on the fright track are slow and infrequent, so safety really isn't that much of an issue at Pulaski.

I know about Pulaski - and I thought it was weird when I first saw it - but that track is a short line railroad that exists only to serve some nearby industrial clients with a few cars occasionally. As you said, safety there is not the issue that it would be next to a main-line railroad like this stretch of UP tracks.

Ardecila, was there any mention of eminent domain or takings of residential property along the route? I think its a little ridiculous to keep that 50' distance if we have to condemn private property when the line could easily be constructed on the existing right of way. Is the reason a federal restriction, or does Union Pacific intend to triple track the route at some point in the future? The line seems to have enough buffer space along the whole route to avoid eminent domain along most of the route, but it seems some may be inevitable.

Takings will depend on whether an alignment east or west of the UP tracks is chosen. The east alignment requires quite a bit of takings, while the west requires less. Despite the takings, I actually think the east alignment is more favorable, since it puts a station on the near side of the UP tracks at 115th. (That might be a bad thing, however, if a large bus turnaround is built separating the station from the Michigan/115th intersection)

The 50' separation was chosen based on an combination of FRA regulations and negotiations with UP. I think UP is worried about the impact of SouthEast Service on their freight operations, and if SouthEast Service is built, they would push for a third track. They also want room to store construction equipment or build sidings.

However, the presentation boards suggested that CTA could be moved closer to UP if CTA builds a 2'6" crash wall to prevent structural damage to the viaduct in the event of a freight crash. UP is not in favor of this, obviously, and they have better legal help than the residents of Roseland to fight takings.

[Abner]

What was the response of the audience at the Red Line presentation? Did the crowd at the meeting seem supportive of the plan and the alignment?

There was a segment on 848 on Chicago Public Radio about Roseland residents organizing to promote the Red Line extension. There are definitely people who are passionate about this. I'm wondering how people reacted to the proposed alignment.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by denizen467

for the report!

Are those UP tracks just for freight and not Metra or Amtrak? And are their grade crossings included in CREATE at all?

That 103rd Street image looks totally goofy - RR gates right in front of an elevated crossing.

Yeah that's about as queer as it gets. Seems it would be mre logically, cheaper and frankly more aesthetically pleasing to just put everything in a trench. I guess I just like trench rapid transit though, it more like a subway to me and it makes for some pretty cool looking stations.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Abner

What was the response of the audience at the Red Line presentation? Did the crowd at the meeting seem supportive of the plan and the alignment?

There was a segment on 848 on Chicago Public Radio about Roseland residents organizing to promote the Red Line extension. There are definitely people who are passionate about this. I'm wondering how people reacted to the proposed alignment.

I believe the CTA conducted a survey finding that something like 94% of people favored the UP alignment over the Halsted alignment. (The idea of an elevated rail viaduct in the center of a major road is off-putting to most people, me included). At the meeting, with the 'official' announcement of the UP alignment as the LPA, virtually everybody in the room clapped.

Roseland is a community that feels largely ignored, both historically and in the recent wave of streetscaping and civic improvements that have swept the city under Daley. They are understandably very excited about a new rapid transit line running through their neighborhood. There is also a definite need for this extension: I got to see 95th on my way to the meeting, during rush hour to boot, and it was my first time there. To see such traffic at a non-downtown station was pretty cool.

Busy Bee: I understand about the trench, and initially I was hoping for that as well. But the more I look at it, the more I see only a huge pricetag. Building anything subterranean, especially in Chicago's soil, requires huge and expensive infrastructure to deal with the problem of water - pumping it, redirecting it, moving sewers and power lines, etc. Because of our soft clay soil, it's even arguable that bored tunnels would be cheaper than the construction of a trench, which would require expensive and time-consuming sheet piling along its entire length. A tunnel would just require a bunch of guys with power knives to cut away the clay, then some concrete rings to stabilize the tunnel.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The 130th St transfer would be heavily used by Indiana Sox fans coming in by way of the South Shore.

Doesn't seem too smart they have one option where the 130th St station is a couple hundred yards west of the South Shore line (when the other option has it adjacent).

[arenn]

$1.1 billion? I just can't fathom the cost of these projects. Reconstructing the entire Dan Ryan Expressway, including adding lanes on the south end, didn't cost that much.

[ardecila]

It seems like quite a bit, but it's on par with other current heavy rail projects. The Silver Line in DC is 23 miles, $5.2 billion, or $226 million/mile. Chicago's Red Line extension is 5.3 miles, $1.1 billion, or $220 million/mile.

Both lines run largely in unused right-of-way, so they are a good rough comparison, as opposed to say the Second Avenue Subway.

It's not like there are a ton of these projects to establish comparison - actually, I would not be surprised if CTA is merely taking the cost/mile figure from the DC project. CTA hasn't actually bid the project yet, and I don't know how the $1.1 billion figure stands in relation to construction cost inflation. You of all people should understand that. This could be $1.1 billion only after factoring in several years' inflation due to the duration of the Federal process.

[Busy Bee]

For everyone's benefit, is there anyone here (Viva???) that can spell out what exactly costs $220 million a mile for a new rail line on unused ROW not requiring major demolition or utility removal? The skeptic in me is dying to call bullshit.

[VivaLFuego]

My understanding is that the $1.1 billion is:
(a) fully burdened, i.e. including design/engineering and construction management costs, and
(b) estimated in year-of-expenditure (YOE) i.e. projecting future inflation/fluctuations in construction cost.

It's hard to compare construction costs amongst projects unless you know for certain that you are comparing apples to apples (in regards to (a) & (b)). Naturally, most journalists don't include such useful information when discussing how much such and such transportation project costs. The Dan Ryan project was apparently $975 million in total expenditure, but it's unclear if that is fully burdened including design/engineering costs and so on.

Off-hand, ardec's comparison to the Silver Line is a good one.

One thing I'm not sure of is whether the $1.1 billion includes (c) railcar purchases to actually operate the line. Obviously, this would be a huge cost component. Busy Bee, a major cost component in rapid transit construction is the traction power and signal infrastructure that needs to be installed - this also explains why starter commuter rail systems can often be brought online so cheaply.