CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know why Chicago didn't redevelop its elevated trains into underground subways in the early 1900's like New York did?

I suppose the short answer is that Chicago did, but for various political and economic reasons construction didn't start until 1937. The Franklin Street subway project of the 1970s would have allowed demolition of the Loop L, but didn't survive the inflation and pessimism of the Carter era followed by the Reagan-era abandonment of urban needs, coupled with Byrne-era incompetency.

A more complete answer would involve Manhattan and Brooklyn's higher residential density, substantially larger office employment by the teens, and New York's long river crossings; and the rather byzantine politics (and associated graft) of Chicago's traction franchises and rejection of public ownership in the 1920s. And bear in mind that New York's Els didn't come down in Manhattan until the late 40s, and remain to this day in the outer boroughs.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by honte

Is the development pattern near this MAX line trending toward something more urban than Chicago's median strips?

There are some modest successes, but those are aided a lot by serious regional land-use policies and heavy city subsidies. What's been confounding to Portland planners is the fierce resistance of city neighborhoods to increases in density. A lot of the Banfield corridor was industrial, so the urban design is still a bit sketchy in places.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know why Chicago didn't redevelop its elevated trains into underground subways in the early 1900's like New York did?

There's everything the others have said, but then there's also the reality that creating a tunnel in the literal rock that is Manhattan is a lot easier and requires less complex engineering than creating a tunnel in the mud that Chicago is built on.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by lalucedm

Most cities realize that, as great as it would be to build rail lines through neighborhoods, in reality that would require a lot of eminent domain, especially for CTA lines that would run through densely-built up areas....so, probably anything new that is built will be on some sort of pre-determined path...expressway median, or in the case of the Orange Line, a pre-existing rail right-of-way. A sad reality of our times. At costs of $100 million a mile (at the extreme low end) just for creating a metro line on a pre-existing right-of-way, this is likely all that transit agencies will pony up for in these times when governments are too cheap to build anything truly nice in the United States.

Building a metro is infinitely less disruptive than an expressway. Give neighborhoods a choice: an expressway or a metro, and see which they choose. It's a false dichotomy to say "metro or nothing" if there is a real unmet transportation need.

[Eventually...Chicago]

^^^^ I agree completely. As more people become transit/green enlightened and desire a good, diverse transportation system, i think you will see a more genuine interest in actually getting something done. Or, quite simply, their community will flounder. It is becoming time for communities to either sack up or skulk away.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

There are some modest successes, but those are aided a lot by serious regional land-use policies and heavy city subsidies. What's been confounding to Portland planners is the fierce resistance of city neighborhoods to increases in density. A lot of the Banfield corridor was industrial, so the urban design is still a bit sketchy in places.

Yes, espeically that first branch. When they opened it up in the 80's many of us thought it would happen natually...then the Nimbys got a hold of it. All that capital put in with the expectation that not only would it improve what was there but will also build a future for more density. I believe Tri-Met attached areas to the westside MAX so that there wouldn't be any opposition from the nimbys who moved in once MAX got up and running and density would be encouraged.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by emathias

creating a tunnel in the literal rock that is Manhattan is a lot easier and requires less complex engineering than creating a tunnel in the mud that Chicago is built on.

Actually, hardly any subway tunneling is easier than that under downtown Chicago. A layer of blue clay at -30 or so can just be cut away with power knives to a fairly precise shape, and the cast-iron rings are then just bolted in and concrete liner pumped in. Vastly easier than the blasting required to get through Manhattan schist. There's a great little movie floating around that shows the Chicago subway builders just carving handfuls of blue clay away like Play-Doh and tossing it into a little disposal cart behind them.

The only real slippage Chicago encountered during subway construction was in the cut-and-cover work done for the stations. There was a drop of about four inches that affected some buildings near State and Chicago.

[Abner]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Interesting... The on and off ramps seem to be the biggest challenge, obviously. Is the development pattern near this MAX line trending toward something more urban than Chicago's median strips?

In addition to what's been said above, the section of the Red Line that's on the side of the freeway is mostly in outer Portland, which is nothing at all like the part of the city you usually hear about. Most of that area is not going to be massively redeveloped very soon, especially not while there are closer-in and more attractive areas along the streetcar and other light rail lines. It's also sometimes kind of awkward to get to the stations because you have to go up a steep stairway and then down another to avoid crossing the tracks. (However, Portland is working on two southern light rail extensions along highways--I-205 to Clackamas and McLoughlin Blvd. to Milwaukie--that do have a lot of potential for redevelopment.)

Also, obviously what makes sense about putting it in the median is that people on both sides of the highway suffer equally. In a bygone era, there would have been no great difficulty putting the 35th Red Line station on the west side of the Dan Ryan to favor Bridgeport users, but I imagine things are different these days.

[honte]

^ Well, yes, but obviously my idea was not to favor one of the other neighborhood. Putting it west of the Dan Ryan makes sense because Bronzeville already has the green line. Putting it north of the Eisenhower would make sense because the commercial parts of Oak Park along the highway are there. Etc.

It is true that this kind of thing could be misconstrued, but really, people need to understand reason at some point along the way.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

It is true that this kind of thing could be misconstrued, but really, people need to understand reason at some point along the way.

Ah, the eternal fight between the professionals and the politicians.

Without getting too philosophical, one could argue that at least sometimes it's a good thing when politics trump reason, though usually it just results in missed opportunities.

For example, it's probably good that the Lake Street Elevated was saved rather than torn down in the 90s, given how strong ridership has gotten on that branch. The obvious choice circa 1992, though, was to abandon it.

Despite this exception that proves the rule, I still agree with you...

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Abner

In addition to what's been said above, the section of the Red Line that's on the side of the freeway is mostly in outer Portland, which is nothing at all like the part of the city you usually hear about. Most of that area is not going to be massively redeveloped very soon, especially not while there are closer-in and more attractive areas along the streetcar and other light rail lines. It's also sometimes kind of awkward to get to the stations because you have to go up a steep stairway and then down another to avoid crossing the tracks. (However, Portland is working on two southern light rail extensions along highways--I-205 to Clackamas and McLoughlin Blvd. to Milwaukie--that do have a lot of potential for redevelopment.)

Also, obviously what makes sense about putting it in the median is that people on both sides of the highway suffer equally. In a bygone era, there would have been no great difficulty putting the 35th Red Line station on the west side of the Dan Ryan to favor Bridgeport users, but I imagine things are different these days.

The two biggest screw ups in Portland along the Gresham Line is Gateway and Hollywood. 62nd and 82nd Could be densified too. Gateway is a lose because it is backwards 1950's mentality (when it was born....) and Hollywood has languished by having too many people wanting too many things from any development....and a few times Hollywood has gone downhill because of all this NIMBY —.

In Chicago's case we need long term planning....letting people know we are going to build transit oriented villages at major stations and encourage it at minor stations. That if a neighborhood fights it we will move the station to an area around it that would like the benefits of a direct gate to the city and dense development.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Actually, hardly any subway tunneling is easier than that under downtown Chicago. A layer of blue clay at -30 or so can just be cut away with power knives to a fairly precise shape, and the cast-iron rings are then just bolted in and concrete liner pumped in. Vastly easier than the blasting required to get through Manhattan schist. There's a great little movie floating around that shows the Chicago subway builders just carving handfuls of blue clay away like Play-Doh and tossing it into a little disposal cart behind them.

The only real slippage Chicago encountered during subway construction was in the cut-and-cover work done for the stations. There was a drop of about four inches that affected some buildings near State and Chicago.

My understanding for tunnel work was that in today's world cutting the tunnel was the easy part, and building the support was where the complexity lay. Thus, cutting through something that could support itself (for the most part) was an easier project than building a tunnel in something that sought level. I could be wrong about that, that's my understanding.

[honte]

^ I would agree that the engineering in our soil conditions is much more complicated.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by emathias

My understanding for tunnel work was that in today's world cutting the tunnel was the easy part, and building the support was where the complexity lay. Thus, cutting through something that could support itself (for the most part) was an easier project than building a tunnel in something that sought level. I could be wrong about that, that's my understanding.

You are 100% right on this one. There is a reason why so many of our towers have those awful parking podiums....it cheaper to build up in Chicago...than deal with our clay.

[Mr Downtown]

Towers present a completely different problem than tunnels. The watery soil above the clay is trying to seep into the hole from the sides, flooding is a problem for any spaces below the water table, and the "boat" is trying to float out of the hole.

Tunnels through Chicago's blue clay present only the problem of support for the soil above. Chalk or sandstone is about the only thing easier to work and virtually all tunnels--even through rock--require lining for support.

I will stand by my opinion that hardly any city is easier to tunnel under than Chicago. Remember that it is crisscrossed by dozens of water supply and sewer tunnels, and that 65 miles of freight tunnels were easily dug by a private company under virtually every downtown street.

Some interesting articles on how the Chicago subway was built appear in Engineering News-Record August 1, 1940 and Jan. 30, 1941 and the Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, Dec. 1938, April 1941, and June 1944.

[SevenSevenThree]

Off-topic: VivaLFuego (or anyone else for that matter), are there any plans in the near future for renovation or to completely rebuild the Wilson station on the Red Line? Or better yet, an extensive overhaul of the entire north branch?

[VivaLFuego]

Some near-term improvements have been underway at Wilson the past couple months...replaced canopy, lighting, stairwells, and platform decking. Other modest improvements along the North Main are also underway, including canopy and lighting replacement. There is no fixed/holistic plan in place to rehab the entire North Main. It is a terrifyingly large and expensive job to do a thorough and effective reconstruction, and thus a bit of a hot potato.

There is a medium-term plan to completely reconstruct Wilson - in fact there has been for 15 years or more - but it's a very major job. Of course there is ongoing debate about what the replacement should be: a local/express stop with dual island platforms, or a local-only stop with a single island platform. There's also debate about location: should Wilson be eliminated and a new station built at Montrose instead for better station spacing? Should Wilson and Lawrence both be demolished and combined into a single super station generally over Broadway? For such a big project, what is the potential to bring in private developers for a TOD to use some private financing to aid in redevelopment?

And then of course, how to configure/use the historic station house.

These are major, fundamental issues, and I'm not sure if any of them have been resolved. I believe preliminary design work for the rebuild was started a few years ago but halted because of possibly changing demands for the station.

Naturally, there are a lot of political stakeholders involved in this sort of decision.

For reference, reconstructing Howard Station (a project of comparable scope) will have taken around 30 years from serious inception (i.e. inclusion in the capital plan) to completion.

[honte]

^ This is the biggest pipe dream on earth given the financial state of our transit, but has anyone ever thought about reconstructing the Frank Lloyd Wright station design as a part of something larger? Wouldn't that be amazing? It definitely would be a major attention grabber, especially if Chicago wanted to shine some light on its new transit emphasis.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by emathias

Actually, a lot of cities with Metra are doing a lot more with TOD near their stations than the City of Chicago is doing with TOD near CTA stations. And that will probably remain the case while alermanic privilege remains in effect. Naperville near the rail station is better than many of the "L" stations in Chicago - maybe even better than the majority not counting downtown stations.

Have you ever walked from Naperville's station to its downtown? Its not all better than most neighborhood CTA stations sans some of the expressway median stations. Downtown Naperville is a good 1/2 mile walk south of the Metra station, and along a very busy and unpleasant arterial street. You can walk through a nice typical midwestern small town style neighborhood (which is a designated historic district) if one doesn't mind back tracking a bit. Point is though, that nearly all of Naperville's infill development happens away from the station, not next to it.

[emathias]

Tribune story on Daley in the Beijing subway
Click above for full story

BEIJING - On his first full day here, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley headed not for the famously sculptural sporting arenas, but rather for the bowels of the metropolis, taking a ride on a state-of-the-art subway that would turn Chicago commuters green with envy.

His tour of a spanking-new subway line, one of four built since 2002 at a cost of $7.7 billion, signaled just how badly he wants to polish Chicago's transit system, with federal help, as part of its bid for the 2016 Summer Games.

"You have to get this on people's minds," he said, adding he'd like Chicago Transit Authority President Ron Huberman and other transit officials to visit Beijing's system and see if its sleek, quiet-riding wide-bodied carriages can be adapted to Chicago's existing transit system skeleton.
...