CHICAGO | General Developments

[Steely Dan]

FWIW, i've been house hunting for a new place for my family. we found a great duplex down in a 3-flat right in our price wheelhouse in lincoln square.

when i walked out onto the back deck and saw that the brown line ran right down the alley in back, i completely fell in love!



but i'm a "train nerd" ......

my wife was less enthusiastic.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

FWIW, i've been house hunting for a new place for my family. we found a great duplex down in a 3-flat right in our price wheelhouse in lincoln square.

when i walked out onto the back deck and saw that the brown line ran right down the alley in back, i completely fell in love!



but i'm a "train nerd" ......

my wife was less enthusiastic.

are ya'll going to get this house?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

not denying it wouldnt be expensive. simply stating that given the choice, most people would prefer not to live next to loud active rail lines if they dont have to. the red line goes through my alley. do i tolerate it? yes. would i also prefer our rail system didnt sound like the 1000 banshees let loose straight out of hell every time a train passed my apartment (about once a minute)? yes. there isnt anything noble about pretending that this is what being a resident of a city should by default entail, or pretending that long term abusive exposure to these sorts of sensory pollution dont have have health impacts.

if we are going to talk about how high minded and culturally rich it would be to cap the kennedy in the west loop, or cover over the rail yards downtown, i dont think one can also talk out the other corner of their mouth and act like people in more far flung neighborhoods arent as deserving of the same considerations because its so "gritty and cool". either its a net positive to pursue these sorts of quality of life improvements or its not. and i think its obvious which approach is more gracious from a city planning standpoint.

The solution to getting rid of the freight trains in Chicago proper would be to route them along the outskirts of the city which will never happen as we've seen with the shitshows that happen whenever the suburbs need to fathom such an increase in freight traffic.

That said, no you are wrong, we should keep them because they don't actually cause any tangible quality of life issues. The trains by my building are barely noticeable if you close the windows. Even with the windows open the main noise is a low rumble and rhythmic squeak as the trains roll through at about 20-30 mph. The L trains are a bit louder, but again you feel the vibration more than you hear it. The loudest are the metra trains which tear through there at high speed, but they are so fast and short you basically just hear a woosh and some dinging from the bell.

It's ironic that you would criticize such things as you are such a proponent of the grit and grind of the people and neighborhoods of Chicago. These viaducts are a priceless part of our history and worthy of preservation. "This makes a noise" is never a valid argument against something in a city. Cities are loud, get over it.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by bcp

"[no] pretending [that the] abusive exposure to these sorts of sensory pollution dont have have health impacts"


wow... have you considered moving? is something forcing you to stay put?

i like my neighborhood, train noises notwithstanding. that dosent mean we cant acknowledge detrimental urban design and attempt to address it over the long term. is it also "cool" to live down the street from active coal plants and polluted waterways?

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Cities are loud, get over it.

this isnt a productive attitude to creating more liveable cities long term. they are loud because humans made them loud. humans can also make them softer, if they choose to. this can in part be accomplished through smarter design. light rail is certainly softer than the stock in Chicago, as a very basic example. (and fwiw there are plenty of other urban ills like car alarms, horns, jacked up stereos, etc which IMO deserve just as much of a crackdown from a regulatory perspective).

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The solution to getting rid of the freight trains in Chicago proper would be to route them along the outskirts of the city which will never happen as we've seen with the shitshows that happen whenever the suburbs need to fathom such an increase in freight traffic.

That said, no you are wrong, we should keep them because they don't actually cause any tangible quality of life issues. The trains by my building are barely noticeable if you close the windows. Even with the windows open the main noise is a low rumble and rhythmic squeak as the trains roll through at about 20-30 mph. The L trains are a bit louder, but again you feel the vibration more than you hear it. The loudest are the metra trains which tear through there at high speed, but they are so fast and short you basically just hear a woosh and some dinging from the bell.

It's ironic that you would criticize such things as you are such a proponent of the grit and grind of the people and neighborhoods of Chicago. These viaducts are a priceless part of our history and worthy of preservation. "This makes a noise" is never a valid argument against something in a city. Cities are loud, get over it.

You seem passionate on this. Honestly, do you think more people would prefer to live next to a park or train lines? Do you think most people would prefer to live next to noisy trains or a quiet park? Burying the train lines would suppress noise and allow for use of the land above them, We get it you think they are cool. You thinking they are cool is not enough to say it shouldn't be done. The only thing standing in the way is money. But the reality is most people don't share your infatuation with train lines and would much rather live next to a park or another building or basically anything other than train yards/lines.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

You seem passionate on this. Honestly, do you think more people would prefer to live next to a park or train lines? Do you think most people would prefer to live next to noisy trains or a quiet park? Burying the train lines would suppress noise and allow for use of the land above them, We get it you think they are cool. You thinking they are cool is not enough to say it shouldn't be done. The only thing standing in the way is money. But the reality is most people don't share your infatuation with train lines and would much rather live next to a park or another building or basically anything other than train yards/lines.

I have to agree with this... too many accidents, pollution, etc. No thanks.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

You seem passionate on this. Honestly, do you think more people would prefer to live next to a park or train lines? Do you think most people would prefer to live next to noisy trains or a quiet park? Burying the train lines would suppress noise and allow for use of the land above them, We get it you think they are cool. You thinking they are cool is not enough to say it shouldn't be done. The only thing standing in the way is money. But the reality is most people don't share your infatuation with train lines and would much rather live next to a park or another building or basically anything other than train yards/lines.

Lol, so much more than just "money" that's wrong with this. First of all, these lines are almost all diesel, so you'd have to electrify everything including the freight trains or build some kind of contrived ventilation system that would be just as noisy, "ugly", etc as the lines themselves. This isn't about it being "cool", which they definitely are, it's about the history and very nature of this city. The noise you are all bitching about is negligible, it really does not impact quality of life and you are crazy if you think it does. I mean talk about first world problems: "The extensive transit infrastructure of my city makes a somewhat loud noise ever 10-15 min, woe is me!". There is a laundry list probably dozens of pages long of real issues that actually affect quality of life in this city, some of which have been named.

I love the comparison of this to a coal plant. I mean in what world do you think the noise of a passing L or freight train is even remotely similar to smog belching industry? It might annoy some people, but it's not actually physically harming anyone. Sure diesel smoke might not be great for you, but trains are far more efficient and less polluting than any other form of transit so if you want your cheap — from China, you'll just have to put up with an occasional waft of diesel exhaust.

Also, whats the sudden fixation on Parks. They aren't some sort of magical panacea, sure in a nice area I'd like to be by one, but in a neighborhood with major gang issues no thanks, I prefer bullets not flying through my windows. Parks are only as desirable as the neighborhoods around them. I say the same about train lines, they are only as detrimental as the area allows them to be. There are many many many areas of Chicago where the train viaducts are barely noticeable because the community has enveloped them. On the NW side no one bats an eyelash at any of the viaducts. There are brand new townhome developments all over Portage and Old Irving Park crammed right between multiple lines. They aren't hurting anyone.

On the other hand, nothing is more kickass than the watering hole on Milwaukee Ave where the NCS (?) crosses and people unload off an oldschool train platform right into their favorite bar. What is wrong with you people that you can't appreciate the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and just generally positive attributes of these kinds of urban details?

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Lol, so much more than just "money" that's wrong with this. First of all, these lines are almost all diesel, so you'd have to electrify everything including the freight trains or build some kind of contrived ventilation system that would be just as noisy, "ugly", etc as the lines themselves. This isn't about it being "cool", which they definitely are, it's about the history and very nature of this city. The noise you are all bitching about is negligible, it really does not impact quality of life and you are crazy if you think it does. I mean talk about first world problems: "The extensive transit infrastructure of my city makes a somewhat loud noise ever 10-15 min, woe is me!". There is a laundry list probably dozens of pages long of real issues that actually affect quality of life in this city, some of which have been named.

I love the comparison of this to a coal plant. I mean in what world do you think the noise of a passing L or freight train is even remotely similar to smog belching industry? It might annoy some people, but it's not actually physically harming anyone. Sure diesel smoke might not be great for you, but trains are far more efficient and less polluting than any other form of transit so if you want your cheap — from China, you'll just have to put up with an occasional waft of diesel exhaust.

Also, whats the sudden fixation on Parks. They aren't some sort of magical panacea, sure in a nice area I'd like to be by one, but in a neighborhood with major gang issues no thanks, I prefer bullets not flying through my windows. Parks are only as desirable as the neighborhoods around them. I say the same about train lines, they are only as detrimental as the area allows them to be. There are many many many areas of Chicago where the train viaducts are barely noticeable because the community has enveloped them. On the NW side no one bats an eyelash at any of the viaducts. There are brand new townhome developments all over Portage and Old Irving Park crammed right between multiple lines. They aren't hurting anyone.

On the other hand, nothing is more kickass than the watering hole on Milwaukee Ave where the NCS (?) crosses and people unload off an oldschool train platform right into their favorite bar. What is wrong with you people that you can't appreciate the historical, cultural, aesthetic, and just generally positive attributes of these kinds of urban details?

Trains produce more pollution than parks. I'm not even sure why you're trying to argue this. And if the neighborhood is rough, it doesn't matter if it's a park or a train yard, bad things will happen in that area. You still can't refute the stance that most people would prefer to live next to a park than train lines.

[left of center]

I'm fine with train lines if they are grade separated. Above, or below. I understand economic feasibility not allowing freight train lines to be put underground except for cases such as near the city center. That being said, I'm fine with most existing elevated freight rail (as well as the L trains), but would like for some freight/metra lines to be removed from grade level (such as the MD-W, MD-N, NCS lines in the West Loop from Union, etc.)

The tracks I'd really love to bury is the ME/South Shore lines from Millennium Station. Such an eye sore on our front lawn. Continue the decking over that began with Millennium Park and keep on moving southward, to McCormick Place at least, even beyond that if possible. I remember when the Central Station project was considering decking over the tracks south of Roosevelt at one point. They showed the tracks as decked over with parkland on a number of renderings of OMP and the Museum Pointe/Museum Park buildings back in the day. I wonder why they never did. I always just assumed $$$ got in the way of that.

[the urban politician]

The L should be a National Historic Landmark. Period.

It should be taken good care of, though: it needs a paint job!

Regarding freight trains, sure, make them go underground. Good luck with that!

All new heavy rapid transit rail in Chicago should be in the form of the subway, IMO. But the L is a historic treasure. Sunbelt wannabe cities will never be able to replicate it.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The L should be a National Historic Landmark. Period.

It should be taken good care of, though: it needs a paint job!

Regarding freight trains, sure, make them go underground. Good luck with that!

All new heavy rapid transit rail in Chicago should be in the form of the subway, IMO. But the L is a historic treasure. Sunbelt wannabe cities will never be able to replicate it.

The Franklin Brown/Purple line is absolutely disgraceful. It needs to be painted ASAP.

Its hard to believe there was an almost successful push to turn the L into a subway in the Loop back in the 1970s. What a tragedy that would have been. The L is inseparable from the identity of Chicago.

One of the best parts of hosting visitors from out of town is taking them around the L. They gape at it like they are looking at interactive ancient Greek ruins. Recharges the 'ole civic pride levels.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Trains produce more pollution than parks. I'm not even sure why you're trying to argue this. And if the neighborhood is rough, it doesn't matter if it's a park or a train yard, bad things will happen in that area. You still can't refute the stance that most people would prefer to live next to a park than train lines.

Lol, OK. I'm done with this after reading "trains produce more pollution than parks". This is clearly a concept that you will not be understanding any time soon.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by left of center

I'm fine with train lines if they are grade separated. Above, or below. I understand economic feasibility not allowing freight train lines to be put underground except for cases such as near the city center. That being said, I'm fine with most existing elevated freight rail (as well as the L trains), but would like for some freight/metra lines to be removed from grade level (such as the MD-W, MD-N, NCS lines in the West Loop from Union, etc.)

The tracks I'd really love to bury is the ME/South Shore lines from Millennium Station. Such an eye sore on our front lawn. Continue the decking over that began with Millennium Park and keep on moving southward, to McCormick Place at least, even beyond that if possible. I remember when the Central Station project was considering decking over the tracks south of Roosevelt at one point. They showed the tracks as decked over with parkland on a number of renderings of OMP and the Museum Pointe/Museum Park buildings back in the day. I wonder why they never did. I always just assumed $$$ got in the way of that.

I've been asking and advocating this since I joined this site. I would love to hear an answer why this is not even being talked about. Do in in stages it doesn't have to happen overnight. Its an ugly obstacle to access the museum campus and the lakefront. The condos right next to them would i'm sure appreciate it and their condo units appreciate it.

[Stunnies23]

Originally Posted by bnk

I've been asking and advocating this since I joined this site. I would love to hear an answer why this is not even being talked about. Do in in stages it doesn't have to happen overnight. Its an ugly obstacle to access the museum campus and the lakefront. The condos right next to them would i'm sure appreciate it and their condo units appreciate it.

Wouldn't the railroad sell their air rights to a developer, thus having another high rise on it that blocks the lake views of condos just west of the tracks. The NIMBYS would go crazy.

[left of center]

^ That would violate the lakefront protection ordinance.

FotP(-ing lots) would — a ton of bricks. Not that anyone would care anymore at this point... pretty sure they burned most of their political capital shooing away a free billion dollar museum.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The L should be a National Historic Landmark. Period.

It should be taken good care of, though: it needs a paint job!

Regarding freight trains, sure, make them go underground. Good luck with that!

All new heavy rapid transit rail in Chicago should be in the form of the subway, IMO. But the L is a historic treasure. Sunbelt wannabe cities will never be able to replicate it.

I agree that they should stay.

However, if the opportunity presented itself it would also provide a pretty damn awesome converted rail to trail circling downtown.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Lol, OK. I'm done with this after reading "trains produce more pollution than parks". This is clearly a concept that you will not be understanding any time soon.

Couldn't be you're the one that can't think outside your box..

It won't be happening for a very long time, if ever, but burying the train lines would be more beneficial to the city than not.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by Stunnies23

Wouldn't the railroad sell their air rights to a developer, thus having another high rise on it that blocks the lake views of condos just west of the tracks. The NIMBYS would go crazy.

Yes they would. And there would be more buildings for sure.

[Mr Downtown]

The Lakefront Protection Ordinance doesn't forbid anything. It just requires a second rubber-stamp from the Plan Commission.

[The Best Forumer]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The Lakefront Protection Ordinance doesn't forbid anything. It just requires a second rubber-stamp from the Plan Commission.

What is the point if it then>