CHICAGO | General Developments

[Busy Bee]

Transformational or "game changing" probably would have been a minimum of a trillion for transit and rail alone. More realistically 2 trillion.

The "trillion dollar infrastructure bill" only sounds impressive when ignoring the fact that we should have been investing trillions more than that over the last couple decades.

[galleyfox]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/comm...ng-big-numbers

[thegoatman]

River North has really fell off. Damn.

[the urban politician]

River North is also far more built up. But the fall off in the South Loop is more striking. Still lots of parking lots and low intensity uses down there

Edit: I see that those figures don’t include The 78 or Riverline. With that context, the South Loop is actually doing quite well

[Rizzo]

I imagine the 800+ unit OCS probably satisfied some demand also in River North.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Suburban Shadow

Are there any preliminary drawings of the Eisenhower rebuild?
I thought there would be serious space constraints at the Des Plaines river for any widening and Blue line extension.

Yes, there are drawings available but just showing the footprint of the new road and interchanges. There are various pinch points along the alignment, I believe IDOT will eliminate shoulders in these sections.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190318...er_03_maps.pdf

It looks like the Blue Line tracks will extend west through the cemeteries along the Prairie Path alignment, then cut back to the expressway on a viaduct structure through the Cook County courthouse and ComEd property west of the river. This allows Blue Line trains to avoid a really sharp, slow curve just west of the Forest Park station. This also allows the 1st Avenue station to be located off the expressway alignment if ComEd is willing to move their yard somewhere else. May even allow for some TOD if Maywood wants to allow it.

[Busy Bee]

Stream of consciencness here but if they're are going to do that it does beg the question why not just do the extension on the IPP to Mannheim instead of the 290 r.o.w. thus providing a more hospitable and TOD encouraging route (that you are constantly reminding me of) and providing the extra width for 290...

[ardecila]

They *should* do that, but last time they suggested it, it was highly unpopular in the communities affected. Due to the frequent street crossings it would have to be a long aerial structure.

[Busy Bee]

Or a trench. There is probably room for a simple trench with earth slopes along that r.o.w.

They'd probably argue that just pushing dirt around would be too expensive.

[Busy Bee]

Side note...do we know why the IPP deviates between 17th and 1st? Asked another way, when were those damn houses fronting Maywood Dr built in the CA&E row?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Side note...do we know why the IPP deviates between 17th and 1st? Asked another way, when were those damn houses fronting Maywood Dr built in the CA&E row?

There were two ROWs through those communities. The Chicago Great Western came first as a steam railroad, then CA&E got built roughly paralleling it. IPP follows the CA&E, which is the curvier of the two.

It's similar to the North Shore suburbs where the North Shore interurban paralleled the C&NW.

As for a trench, I like that idea but that's even more expensive than an aerial structure because it would need extensive utility relocation, pumping stormwater, and removal of soil that is probably contaminated. Expressway transit sucks, but it's the cheapest way to build rapid transit because you can use highway dollars to do half the work. You just need transit dollars to lay tracks/signals and build stations.

[Busy Bee]

There were two ROWs through those communities. The Chicago Great Western came first as a steam railroad, then CA&E got built roughly paralleling it. IPP follows the CA&E, which is the curvier of the two.

I did not know this. I am so ashamed

As for a trench, I like that idea but that's even more expensive than an aerial structure because it would need extensive utility relocation, pumping stormwater, and removal of soil that is probably contaminated.

How much utilities really though. How high is the water table. Do we even know if you'd need pumping for a 15' below grade trench? Do we know remediation would be necessary? These are all fair questions in the face of the choice to spend hundreds of millions on unsightly concrete viaducts...

Expressway transit sucks, but it's the cheapest way to build rapid transit because you can use highway dollars to do half the work. You just need transit dollars to lay tracks/signals and build stations.

Just wondering why you didn't point that out when I was insisting Bishop Ford Red Line to 103rd was a better option all things considered ($$$ & ROI) than the convoluted UP corridor?

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I did not know this. I am so ashamed




How much utilities really though. How high is the water table. Do we even know if you'd need pumping for a 15' below grade trench? Do we know remediation would be necessary? These are all fair questions in the face of the choice to spend hundreds of millions on unsightly concrete viaducts...

Costs vs benefits. Getting the most for your money which can be scarce.

Reminds me of a recent urban planning debate. The 11’8” argument….a legendary bridge in North Carolina that has destroyed hundreds of trucks is the perfect scenario for debating costs and benefits of infrastructure solutions. Do you spend, say $10 million to raise a train bridge to federal minimums… to end truck collisions that have yet caused no injury or fatalities, but only been a major inconvenience? Or do you spend $10 million to fix 50 deficient grade train crossings with modern equipment for the entire length of the state that could actually save lives?

I guess applying this scenario, median transit is ugly and inconvenient, but it can be very safe when designed appropriately, and it’s cheap and would be the least controversial. I guess one can argue walking by frontage roads to get there is risky for pedestrians, but so is no transit at all. A well qualified consultant will do the research. But I agree with ardecila that while a trench trackway is far more attractive, there would be a tremendous cost burden, and we can’t be sure if neighboring residential areas wouldn’t still be opposed regardless of the design outcome.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

How much utilities really though. How high is the water table. Do we even know if you'd need pumping for a 15' below grade trench? Do we know remediation would be necessary? These are all fair questions in the face of the choice to spend hundreds of millions on unsightly concrete viaducts...

There are reasons you rarely see new rail trenches, I'm pointing out those reasons (these apply to trenched highways too). I can't speak to the specific engineering issues that might arise along the Prairie Path alignment, but the Eisenhower trench through those same communities most certainly needs a massive pumping operation, and pretty much all soil in urbanized parts of Chicagoland is considered special waste even if it doesn't have Superfund levels of junk in it.

Just wondering why you didn't point that out when I was insisting Bishop Ford Red Line to 103rd was a better option all things considered ($$$ & ROI) than the convoluted UP corridor?

I'm not defending expressway transit, just pointing out why it's appealing to transit agencies and politicians. For the Red Line, there was VERY strong community support for the UP alignment and politicians gave the community what they wanted despite the higher cost and impact. I was at a few of those meetings, people cheered when the UP option was selected. I have personally argued that you could get most of the benefits with upgrading Metra Electric and then a cheap 1-stop extension of Red Line to a Metra transfer stop at Chicago State.

I went back and reviewed the info for Blue Line extension, there were actually mixed public comments in support and opposed to using the IPP alignment. The stated reason for taking that out of consideration is that the IPP runs too close to UP-W line and would duplicate service, also that using the IPP alignment would violate Section 4(f) which limits the use of parkland for transportation purposes.

Certainly other cities have built transit next to existing trails, so that shouldn't be disqualifying, there are ways around Section 4(f). More likely it's a cover story because construction costs would be higher on the IPP alignment and/or a few influential people asked for it to be axed behind the scenes.

CTA will probably need to run their own study before they get any Federal money for Blue Line extension, so maybe the Prairie Path alignment will come back.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

The 11’8” argument….a legendary bridge in North Carolina that has destroyed hundreds of trucks is the perfect scenario for debating costs and benefits of infrastructure solutions. Do you spend, say $10 million to raise a train bridge to federal minimums… to end truck collisions that have yet caused no injury or fatalities, but only been a major inconvenience?

Sorry for adding nothing productive to this conversation only to say that I lose my shit laughing while watching YouTube compilations of trucks getting shaved by this bridge.

[moorhosj1]

Block Club has some new information on some bike/trail projects that we've heard of before:

Chicago is planning to connect and expand its trail and “corridor” system with a dozen pedestrian- and bike-friendly projects that could get underway in years to come, Mayor Lori Lightfoot and other city officials said on Thursday.

Several of the projects, including plans to convert an old railroad into a trail in Englewood, are still in the planning and design phases. Others, like Sterling Bay’s planned extension of the 606 Bloomingdale Trail into Lincoln Yards, are set to come to fruition through private partnerships.

Additionally, the city’s transportation department is planning in the second half of this year to launch the first design phase to extend the Chicago Riverwalk south along a 2-mile corridor to Ping Tom Park in Chinatown.

The so-called Englewood Nature Trail being planned for a 1.5-mile abandoned railway along 59th Street was included in the city’s “vision” plan.

Chicago 2022 Trails Planning document

[Via Chicago]

Notably missing from the list of upcoming trail developments was the Paseo Trail proposed for an approximately four-mile stretch through Pilsen and Little Village.

Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25) told The Daily Line there was a “federal grant [to analyze]… the feasibility of the trail.” But the alderman charged Lightfoot’s administration with continuing to “fast-track heavy Industry along the same pathway where we’re going to propose a bike lane.”

The alderman said he thinks “that these contradictions have gotten to the point that the Paseo project seems to be on hold” so community leaders are now proposing that the city consider 16th Street in Pilsen as an “alternative for a pedestrian and bike friendly area.”

it sounds like the Paseo isnt going away per se, just that theyd shift the Cermak portion onto 16th instead

i think the writing was on the wall given how much distribution space the city has been cramming in down there in recent years. is not really a bike trail if you have curb cuts every block for semis.

[ardecila]

16th is almost a mile north of Cermak. I'd love a proper cycle track along 16th ala Dearborn or Clinton in the Loop, but it's not a substitute for the Paseo. Plus, 16th is heavily used for neighborhood parking so I guarantee they'll just paint some sharrows that do literally nothing, because Sigcho thinks removing people's parking is oppression.

Doing nothing is the point - if he did something to improve the neighborhood, it might cause more white people to move in! But he can point to the new sharrows and say he cares about bike users!

[Via Chicago]

i mean i agree, but if you drive down Cermak today youd really have to squint to see how that segment would work as originally proposed. it does feel like a missed opportunity tho and if the trail had gotten in sooner it might have discouraged some of the industrial expansion thats taken place. as it stands we're sitting here 10 years later with zero movement. which is also why i dont put too much stock in these press releases that arent backed up by massive serious funding to propel these ideas forward. 15M is nice but isnt going to get spread pretty thin when you consider all of the miles and segments being mentioned.

[ardecila]

I just don't get the complaints. The Cermak Industrial Corridor is just that, an industrial corridor. Sigcho has supported the restrictive PMD zoning that keeps out residential, office, and retail uses. When DPD tried to loosen up the zoning along Cermak like they did for Fulton Market, he resisted it.

Now he's turning around and complaining that heavy industry is moving in. Yeah, that's the point of industrial zoning! Somehow he thinks he will get sleek non-polluting wind turbine factories where everyone is unionized, well-paid and singing kumbaya.

Not building the Paseo is a missed opportunity, but Sigcho is the one who's responsible for missing it. Of course, I think there's no reason you can't build the trail right now despite the heavy truck traffic. The section east of Ashland is easy, and the section west of Ashland will just need some careful design at the street crossings. Tons of other trails run through industrial areas.