CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[Dr. Taco]

heh...

http://illinoispolicyinstitute.org/n...m_medium=email

[k1052]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^ 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.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^ 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.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by emathias

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

[VivaLFuego]

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.

[Mr Downtown]

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.)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

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.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

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

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by schwerve

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?

[ardecila]

^^ 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.

[the urban politician]

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.

[schwerve]

^ do we have any idea what's in that bill?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by schwerve

^ 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.

[Marcu]

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%.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Marcu

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

[Busy Bee]

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.

[bnk]

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.....

[Busy Bee]

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.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

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

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

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