CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Well, the full story is much more complicated, including the Germans on the North Side having the clout to get their area exempted from the Fire Limits, within which only masonry buildings could be built. But most relevant here is that—as you note—Lake View (as well as the Towns of Jefferson, Lake, and Hyde Park) weren't part of the city until 1889.

Map of the Fire Limits (in yellow):

[gallo]

In reference to the CTA Belmont Flyover project:

Since the CTA failed is failing to fully illustrate the magnitude of demolition and it's effect on the neighborhood, I've decided to do some quick visualizations that shows what happens and how it feels as a pedestrian when intact blocks are removed and replaced with vacant land and/or parking. Though there is potential for new development on some of these sites, even that would be unlikely to happen for 5-10 years once the project gets started.

The visualizations aren't intended to precisely show what the final infrastructure would look like, but they speak to the enormous impact that this project, as currently designed, would have on the neighborhood fabric as well as existing businesses and residents in the area. Feel free to share these among those interested.

It is essential that the CTA work with the community on a context-sensitive solution to improving efficiency on the Red, Purple and Brown Lines that doesn't create substantial negative impacts.

First up is Clark and School looking north, where the CTA want's to straighten a slight curve in the tracks at the expense of this block:

[k1052]

That is Clark and Roscoe.

I have yet to hear an explanation from the CTA about why they want to straighten this jog. Seems like a lot of expense to go through to do it but maybe there is a reasonable explanation that I'm not aware of.

The flyover component itself is a worthy project which should be done regardless. NIMBYs saying its only a minute to a minute and half delay on average and isn't worth it don't get the larger picture about upping TPH which will be required in the not distant future.

[thewaterman11]

Originally Posted by k1052

That is Clark and Roscoe.

I have yet to hear an explanation from the CTA about why they want to straighten this jog. Seems like a lot of expense to go through to do it but maybe there is a reasonable explanation that I'm not aware of.

The flyover component itself is a worthy project which should be done regardless. NIMBYs saying its only a minute to a minute and half delay on average and isn't worth it don't get the larger picture about upping TPH which will be required in the not distant future.

Surely for a city facing another large budget hole, those $320 million dollars that destroy buildings (and rid of those pesky tenants that pay taxes and all) and save those 80 seconds could be better spent elsewhere... it's a busy corridor but the high cost coupled with atrocious urban design sense make the idea a terrible one to me.

[Busy Bee]

The more I think about this project the more I dislike it. Necessary demo and aesthetics aside, IS the flyover really all that necessary in the larger scope of things? Don't many other large systems with much higher ridership have similar stop and go points and cross tracks at grade? New York comes to mind with the M coming into the JZ Jamaica elevated. I'm sure there are other examples in NY as well as London, Paris, Berlin, etc.

It seems to me it just isn't worth the money when so much of the system is antiquated and in need of investment, especially when the project will negatively impact the urban design of the area. I say just do what you can to help the issue with scheduling and PTC and move on to bigger issues. Somehow we've managed for nearly 100 years...

[k1052]

Originally Posted by thewaterman11

Surely for a city facing another large budget hole, those $320 million dollars that destroy buildings (and rid of those pesky tenants that pay taxes and all) and save those 80 seconds could be better spent elsewhere... it's a busy corridor but the high cost coupled with atrocious urban design sense make the idea a terrible one to me.

A lot of that will be coming from the feds. It's not just only about saving 80 seconds on current schedules (which mind you is already per TRAIN so its not negligible) but being able to increase TPH on the Brown and Red Lines in the future which will most definitely be required. The CTA has had this on their wish list for a couple decades now.

Should the CTA be made responsible to only do partial demos where possible and replace/develop resultant vacant sites in a timely manner? Definitely. Discussing the mechanisms to make that happen is a lot more productive conversation IMO.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The more I think about this project the more I dislike it. Necessary demo and aesthetics aside, IS the flyover really all that necessary in the larger scope of things? Don't many other large systems with much higher ridership have similar stop and go points and cross tracks at grade? New York comes to mind with the M coming into the JZ Jamaica elevated. I'm sure there are other examples in NY as well as London, Paris, Berlin, etc.

It seems to me it just isn't worth the money when so much of the system is antiquated and in need of investment, especially when the project will negatively impact the urban design of the area. I say just do what you can to help the issue with scheduling and PTC and move on to bigger issues. Somehow we've managed for nearly 100 years...

If I had to venture a guess adding PTC would probably run the CTA somewhere north of a billion dollars. The Flushing line CBTC project alone is costing the MTA $500M and counting.

[gallo]

You're correct, the first image was from Roscoe Street, not School. Here is the west side of Clark, just south of Roscoe. The building housing Cassava is one of the finest along Clark Street, and would be a major loss through demolition.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The more I think about this project the more I dislike it. Necessary demo and aesthetics aside, IS the flyover really all that necessary in the larger scope of things? Don't many other large systems with much higher ridership have similar stop and go points and cross tracks at grade? New York comes to mind with the M coming into the JZ Jamaica elevated. I'm sure there are other examples in NY as well as London, Paris, Berlin, etc.

It seems to me it just isn't worth the money when so much of the system is antiquated and in need of investment, especially when the project will negatively impact the urban design of the area. I say just do what you can to help the issue with scheduling and PTC and move on to bigger issues. Somehow we've managed for nearly 100 years...

I am starting to feel the same way. Maybe if the entire line had been upgraded and this one particular spot was the DEFINITIVE choke point for the system, then I could get behind it 100%. But there are many more issues effecting ride times on the North side that could be resolved without such massive urban carnage. (Im looking at you North/Clybourn curve)

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by gallo

Wait. What the fuck hellish nightmare am I looking at?!?!?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I am starting to feel the same way. Maybe if the entire line had been upgraded and this one particular spot was the DEFINITIVE choke point for the system, then I could get behind it 100%. But there are many more issues effecting ride times on the North side that could be resolved without such massive urban carnage. (Im looking at you North/Clybourn curve)

It is the definitive choke point. A delay or malfunction in the switches here will throw off the L system for the entire North Side. It is literally critical. A sharp curve here or there is a drag but doesn't have the potential for cascading failures.

However, I don't see the need to straighten the jog on the Main Line over Clark, especially when CTA is proposing to add more jogs further north to accommodate wider station platforms. Reducing the scope of the project to just the flyover can cut the land acquisition by half, at least.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by gallo

You're correct, the first image was from Roscoe Street, not School. Here is the west side of Clark, just south of Roscoe. The building housing Cassava is one of the finest along Clark Street, and would be a major loss through demolition.

Just at a glance it looks like the CTA could easily just trim the building back and take the room needed without a total demolition. Helps that there is a nice vacant lot next door to stage on...I still miss Thai Classic though.

[harryc]

[QUOTE=gallo;6589571]You're correct, the first image was from Roscoe Street, not School. Here is the west side of Clark, just south of Roscoe. The building housing Cassava is one of the finest along Clark Street, and would be a major loss through demolition.

...snop.../QUOTE]

Thank you for the illustrations - very compelling.

[gallo]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Wait. What the fuck hellish nightmare am I looking at?!?!?

The CTA wants to demo that entire block in order to straighten out a very slight jog in the tracks, completely unrelated to the proposed flyover.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by ardecila

However, I don't see the need to straighten the jog on the Main Line over Clark, especially when CTA is proposing to add more jogs further north to accommodate wider station platforms. Reducing the scope of the project to just the flyover can cut the land acquisition by half, at least.

This is what I want to know. I don't see any compelling reason to do this given the costs and limited apparent benefit.

The flyover itself must happen particularly if we're going to blow a couple billion rebuilding the North Main line and all it's stations.

[DonMendigo]

Tower crane up at the expansion of St Joseph at Sheridan and Surf. Finally.

[UPChicago]

I think the whole Red Line modernization project is shortsighted. It is going to cost $2 billion to renovate the north line as an elevated track and would have cost $2.2 to run the subway north to Wilson, which would have eliminated a need for a flyover all together. Don't quote me on the price but it was fairly close for building a subway verse renovating the elevated tracks.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It is the definitive choke point. A delay or malfunction in the switches here will throw off the L system for the entire North Side. It is literally critical. A sharp curve here or there is a drag but doesn't have the potential for cascading failures.

However, I don't see the need to straighten the jog on the Main Line over Clark, especially when CTA is proposing to add more jogs further north to accommodate wider station platforms. Reducing the scope of the project to just the flyover can cut the land acquisition by half, at least.

Fine, but at least we can agree on the jog straightening.

And please, can someone tell CTA that the best way to hide the fact they are proposing a massive 50 foot tall flyover is NOT to build what amounts to a concrete tube through the sky. A minimal depth, side barrier-less, steel structure would be far more visually appealing, less intrusive, block less sunlight, and allow for some visual excitement by leaving the passing trains exposed.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

I think the whole Red Line modernization project is shortsighted. It is going to cost $2 billion to renovate the north line as an elevated track and would have cost $2.2 to run the subway north to Wilson, which would have eliminated a need for a flyover all together. Don't quote me on the price but it was fairly close for building a subway verse renovating the elevated tracks.

It is politically impossible to close/consolidate the existing stops to make the subway alternative work. People went ballistic and at least a couple alderman came out very much against it when it was first proposed a few years back. The CTA hasn't touched that particular live wire since.

[Baronvonellis]

Wasn't the ridership much higher back in the 40's and 50's than today? What did they do then without the flyover?