CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Yes, a few hundred people do every weekday morning, its very well utilized. Orange Line trains empty out at Roosevelt with people transferring for travel to points north of the Loop.

I do believe there is a plan to build an elevator connection to the Pedway with the new station at Washington/Wabash. It was certainly discussed before. They have to build elevators anyway for ADA compliance.


I for one though believe it is mistake to eliminate a station on the Wabash side of the Loop. Grant Park/Millennium Park festivals require lots of CTA capacity, I seriously wonder if 2 stations can handle the load of 3. Those stations are packed when the events empty out for the evening.

I would think it would allow more strategic boarding on wider and longer platforms. It would seem unreasonable to me to cram a bunch of people on one train and then have another mass crowd waiting at another station close by that can't board, or is just trying to push on causing delays. Better to manage very large crowds at one big station.

[ardecila]

Yeah, I think this will be more efficient. Washington/Wabash has the same kind of long, wide platforms, and exits galore, and it also sees heavy usage (being the closest Brown Line station to West Loop offices).

I like having busy stations that are fairly crowded... it justifies retail concessions inside the station, generous staircases, and a high level of maintenance. It will suck losing the historic Inner Loop stationhouse at Madison/Wabash, though.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Yes, a few hundred people do every weekday morning, its very well utilized. Orange Line trains empty out at Roosevelt with people transferring for travel to points north of the Loop.

I do believe there is a plan to build an elevator connection to the Pedway with the new station at Washington/Wabash. It was certainly discussed before. They have to build elevators anyway for ADA compliance.


I for one though believe it is mistake to eliminate a station on the Wabash side of the Loop. Grant Park/Millennium Park festivals require lots of CTA capacity, I seriously wonder if 2 stations can handle the load of 3. Those stations are packed when the events empty out for the evening.

Somebody please check, and correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe the Northern entrances to the proposed station will be on the SE and SW corners of the Washington/Wabash intersection (600ft from Randolph), unless they build a block-long walkway alongside the tracks -- there is NO WAY to connect it with the Pedway, and that is what I am whining about.

btw - Check out this Tribune article (and my comments): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,6715609.story Does anyone know if Mayor Emanuel has appointed his Member to the Metra Board yet?

[CTA Gray Line]

Does anyone have any idea of the Capital Costs to install Constant Tension Catenary over the Metra Electric District and Kensington & Eastern system?

Everybody knows about the problems with catenary caused by temperature extremes Winter and/or Summer: http://bit.ly/195ZJ1p

This NE Alliance article says about $450M for 24 miles on the NJ Transit: http://bit.ly/pJY6eZ

[OhioGuy]

Putzin' along on the 81 westward down Lawrence to the blue line. Oh how I wish the brown line was extended in a subway under Lawrence to Jefferson Park and out to O'Hare. A one seat ride to the airport for the north side of Chicago would be so wonderful compared to this pathetic stop & go every 2 blocks bus ride.

[ardecila]

Yeah, we could use a few of these outer links. I'm really hoping the next BRT project after Ashland is on 55th or 63rd. It would be great to get a connection from Hyde Park to Midway, and bring stronger transit service to some areas that are really struggling.

On the North Side, a Peterson or Irving Park BRT would be useful as well.

[ardecila]

Illiana Corridor proposal fails to win over planning board
By Richard Wronski
Tribune reporters
1:02 p.m. CDT, October 9, 2013

A planning group this morning refused to support plans for a controversial toll road that would run through Will County and into Indiana.

The Illiana Corridor failed in a 10-4 vote to get the backing of the Chicagoland Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

The decisive vote on the proposed $1.3 billion road will be taken Oct. 17 by the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee.

Ten voted against the proposal, including those from the city of Chicago, Lake County, McHenry County and four of the five Cook County representatives. Supporters represented DuPage, Kane/Kendall and Will counties, as well as the remaining Cook County vote. The proposed 47-mile road would run from Interstate 55 near Wilmington to Interstate 65 near Lowell, Ind.

Lots of political intrigue here. Quinn is supportive because he needs Will County votes, but Emanuel and Preckwinkle have now come out against it and everybody connected to the City or Cook County will vote against it. Hopefully this gets defeated at the final vote next week, just like the equally boneheaded Prairie Parkway before it.

[Busy Bee]

While I agree that the Illiana is largely politically driven and will inevitably encourage sprawl, I actually think there is a need for a new E- W roadway. Instead of on the edge of south suburban sprawl I can see an E-W or NE-SW road further downstate being useful for those wanting to avoid driving through the Chicago metro entirely. Just looking at a map a rout from Dwight or even further south Pontiac over to Kankakee over to 65.

This actually reminds me of a wish list interstate I've had since of my days growing up in Peoria and that's a Interstate-ified US-24 from Fort Wayne (or even Toledo) to Peoria (onward through to Quincy and KC, Missouri via IL-336 and US-24), filling a large swath of 2 states with inconvenient non diagonal E-W highway connections.

[ardecila]

Well, it's not a terrible idea. I just don't think it needs to be an interstate. Lay out a 4-lane divided highway with intersections at-grade and bypasses of major towns. This is what Ohio and Indiana did to US-24 between Ft. Wayne and Toledo or US-30 between Valpo and Ft. Wayne.

There's also gotta be some cost control. Ohio built its Fort to Port project (the segment between between Napoleon and Waterville) for $8M/mile, to expressway standards, on a greenfield alignment. Illiana is projected to cost at least $27M/mile, even though there are virtually no differences when it comes to terrain, and the economies of scale should make it cheaper than the Ohio project.

The way I see it, with construction costs so absurdly high and no movement to bring them down (higher costs = more jobs, right?) we need to be building only the highest priority things, and Illiana is not that important.

[OrdoSeclorum]

It sounds like the Ashland BRT environmental assessment is going to be delayed due to the government shutdown.

On that topic, this Sun Times article... (hyperlink not working): http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...r-emanuel.html

...makes is sound like Rahm is backing away from the proposal a bit. Does anyone more familiar with City Hall and CDOT have an idea about the level of support for the Ashland BRT and its prospects? It's a project I really want to see move forward, but I know a lot of cranks ad NIMBYs have been agitating against it.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I take back my complaining about the delay on the Wells St. bridge. It's looking pretty good.
Today





(I want to say this is a Hydro composition that I remembered from a while back)

[ardecila]

South Lake Shore Drive extension soon open to drivers, development
John Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter
October 14, 2013

The South Lake Shore Drive extension, Chicago's newest roadway, is less than two weeks away from opening along a part of the city that for more than 100 years most people have seen only from a distance.

The road's opening will also provide the key piece of infrastructure that for years has been missing from far-reaching plans to develop an area that has been approved to include up to about 18,000 residents, beaches and marinas and 25 million square feet of retail, commercial and research facilities. The South Lake Shore Drive extension is scheduled to open Oct. 27, according to the Illinois and Chicago departments of transportation, which worked on the $64 million project that began in April 2012.

The 30 mph speed limit on the new roadway is less than the 40 mph limit on the rest of Lake Shore Drive. The south extension is designed to function as an arterial street, project managers said, with the added aesthetics of a landscaped-median boulevard and stunning views of Lake Michigan. Almost 600 trees have been planted, officials said.

The extension runs two lanes in each direction and includes a bicycle lane in each direction between 79th and 87th streets and shared vehicle-bike lanes south of 87th, officials said. In addition, locations have been set aside for future parking when the largest undeveloped parcel in Chicago is built out.

The opening has been delayed. The decision was made to accommodate installation of natural gas mains, electric lines and telecommunications cables for future expansion, said Dan Burke, CDOT deputy commissioner and the department's chief engineer.

The extension marks the city's first large-scale implementation of LED lighting, which uses about half the energy of high-pressure sodium lights, Burke said. In addition, the parking lanes along the extension are made of permeable asphalt that helps with drainage by funneling rain into the subgrade material instead of directing the water into the storm system, he said.

Excuse the huge image, but this is pretty awesome. It's like a rendering or SimCity, but it's real if you look closely enough. Unfortunately there wasn't time to revise plans and substitute protected or raised bike lanes - the design for this project totally preceded Gabe Klein's tenure at CDOT. Hopefully this can be fixed retroactively while there are no NIMBYs to complain.

[Rizzo]

Bicycle accommodation could be done on the sidewalk vs the roadway. It's a blank slate through what will be eventually surrounded by master planned development. In this particular situation anywhere, plans would typically call for a separate path off-road for bicycles on an arterial....not bike lanes or cycle tracks.

Bike lanes can only be placed on arterials if circumstances of crowded urban development require it to be there and not a separate path off the street. But this is not the case. So I don't know why it was designed this way, but it could easily be reconfigured in the future.

[Chi-Sky21]

It does include some bike lanes,

"The extension runs two lanes in each direction and includes a bicycle lane in each direction between 79th and 87th streets and shared vehicle-bike lanes south of 87th"

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Excuse the huge image, but this is pretty awesome. It's like a rendering or SimCity, but it's real if you look closely enough. Unfortunately there wasn't time to revise plans and substitute protected or raised bike lanes - the design for this project totally preceded Gabe Klein's tenure at CDOT. Hopefully this can be fixed retroactively while there are no NIMBYs to complain.

Remember this photo well, folks. I'm an eternal optimist, but if the cards are played well, this will look so incredibly different in the not-too-distant-future.

[Busy Bee]

I'm also an optimist and am hoping for the best. If South Works were a few miles closer to downtown I'd be right there with you. I'm just concerned that its location and the socioeconomic conditions of the adjacent neighborhood will stifle development for many years. My gut wants to see that awesome modern project rise in 10 years, but my brain tells me in reality it will probably be another generation before this sight reaches its potential.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm also an optimist and am hoping for the best. If South Works were a few miles closer to downtown I'd be right there with you. I'm just concerned that its location and the socioeconomic conditions of the adjacent neighborhood will stifle development for many years. My gut wants to see that awesome modern project rise in 10 years, but my brain tells me in reality it will probably be another generation before this sight reaches its potential.

It would make the Project much more viable if it had Rapid-transit access to Downtown -- BUT present-day Politics make that all but impossible, even though the facilities are already there!

[Via Chicago]

Is there an official date when the Wells bridge is supposed to open to traffic? Hard to find info anywhere.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

It does include some bike lanes,

"The extension runs two lanes in each direction and includes a bicycle lane in each direction between 79th and 87th streets and shared vehicle-bike lanes south of 87th"

We are aware. The issue is conventional bike lanes can be dangerous on arterial streets. That's why CDot has done a great job in recent years to place buffered lanes and cycle track in to ensure cyclists have proper distance from motor vehicles and do not get hit by car doors.

However, as ardecila pointed out, much of this planning came before all the new improvements, so this route has conventional bike lanes which are bit concerning from a safety standpoint.

You'll notice a nice buffered lane on that corner, but that may have just been because of available space from the calculated turning radius.



Regardless, I love that photo. It shows so much promise and potential for that site. It really does look like something out of SimCity.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm also an optimist and am hoping for the best. If South Works were a few miles closer to downtown I'd be right there with you. I'm just concerned that its location and the socioeconomic conditions of the adjacent neighborhood will stifle development for many years. My gut wants to see that awesome modern project rise in 10 years, but my brain tells me in reality it will probably be another generation before this sight reaches its potential.

Yeah, it might take that long. Chicago Velo Campus is building a strong institution down there. I'm mindful of how the Billie Jean King Center spurred development in Queens. You need institutions like that where a certain crowd of people is willing to take a chance and be pioneers in exchange for being close to the facility. The Obama Library would definitely have the same effect. Hopefully as these institutions grow they remain compact to allow a full-fledged neighborhood around them.

Honestly, I think it will take more public investment though. A city subsidy for increased Metra Electric service, investment in parkland, and certainly TIF subsidies for McCaffery, at least in the 1st phase.