CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by left of center

cons:
-removal of the Franklin St off ramp and on ramp to 290
-TWO years? thats a very long time, traffic is going to be horrible.

Look again. There will still be a direct ramp from eastbound Congress to northbound Franklin, but it will come into Franklin from the left. The opposite ramp (northbound Franklin to westbound Congress) isn't very heavily used, probably because Franklin ends one block to the south at a large vacant lot.

Two years isn't so bad... we endured it for the east-west section of Wacker, and we got a beautiful and functional road out of it, that doesn't snarl semi trucks. It won't be so bad... the timeline is such that, although CDOT claims that three major projects will all occur at the same time, only two projects will have road closures at any given time. First the Eisenhower resurfacing and Congress Bridge through 2010, then in 2011 the Eisenhower will be done and the closures on Wacker will begin, while the bridge work continues until the end of 2011.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by emathias

I wanted to follow up on this again with another point: Despite what we'd like to believe, most people in Chicago don't live near CTA transit stations, but they all pay taxes the subsidize CTA operations. Since they don't live near "L" stations, they don't care about the zoning near "L" stations any more than they care about the zoning across the street from the Willis Tower - which is to say, they pretty much don't care at all.

If you started a campaign that explained to people in a clear way that they're paying for the CTA, but that the CTA would need less funding if more people lived, worked and shopped near the "L," then the 80% of Chicagoans who don't live within 1/4 mile of an "L" station, coupled with the significant portion (even if it were a minority) of those who DO live near an "L" station who support density, would mean an electorate that overwhelmingly supported city-wide, alderman-resistant TOD zoning near CTA stations.

Start with that, and if (when) it works, move on to Metra stations and some formula for places served for frequent, high-capacity bus service.

The ONLY caveat I can think of is putting in wording that required NEW stations to get rezoned with the same criteria. That might be less popular, but I don't think it would create enough of a stumbling block to stop overall support - after all, very few places are even remotely under consideration for a "L" station in the near future, and with only a couple exceptions places that are, are probably more receptive than average to some upzoning anyway.

I'm not sure this is realistic. Aldermen, in true Chicago style, cover each others' asses if it doesn't harm them to do so. Aldermen in wards without rapid transit stations don't want their colleagues to lose control over local development, because that erodes the whole concept of aldermanic privilege and would lay the groundwork for the whole practice to be abolished.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Look again. There will still be a direct ramp from eastbound Congress to northbound Franklin, but it will come into Franklin from the left. The opposite ramp (northbound Franklin to westbound Congress) isn't very heavily used, probably because Franklin ends one block to the south at a large vacant lot.

ahh, indeed you are right. i stand corrected

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by emathias

PDF description of North/South Wacker Drive rebuilding project to start April, 2010.

Quick, could Mr. Downtown or someone notify CDOT. Why are they planning a project around a building called "19 N. Wacker" that does not exist (page 6). Oh, how this project has long been waiting to come to fruition.

Kudos, though, to their "Sears Tower" designation.

[the urban politician]

^ My favorite part is the burying of the 290 ramps.

Nothing says "great, big city" like submerged transportation infrastructure

[emathias]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

Agreed on all points except this last one. Better to force the issue on a case by case basis than to say you absolutely cannot have an L station without increasing density. What happens when a neighborhood says "fine, we won't take the L station at all then."? I'm not sure if there're any L stations on the drawing board (a transfer station perhaps) that are really critical to the system outside of the surrounding neighborhood, but I could see how it would be a possible issue. Sure, density is better, no argument there, but sometimes the overall system has to take priority over the density in one neighborhood. Force the density issue after the station is built if that ever were to come up, don't make it a prerequisite for even being considered for an L station.

Maybe, although I think new stations should have fairly high a minimum ridership target, and places that can generate that as they are maybe should be excepted, but places that aren't there, but the location may still make sense, should be forced to upzone to foster better usage stats. If we're going to invest in infrastructure that feeds a pedestrian lifestyle, then we need to also invest in usage patterns that enable it.

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm not sure this is realistic. Aldermen, in true Chicago style, cover each others' asses if it doesn't harm them to do so. Aldermen in wards without rapid transit stations don't want their colleagues to lose control over local development, because that erodes the whole concept of aldermanic privilege and would lay the groundwork for the whole practice to be abolished.

I'm not saying it's realistic to do in a year, but if a strategy of educational groundwork, followed by private support from a few key alderman and the mayor, then followed by a large public campaign equating low density near "L" stations with higher taxes in a timeframe ahead of aldermanic elections, I think it could be done. We'd be talking a 3-5 year process, but I think it could be done.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ My favorite part is the burying of the 290 ramps.

Nothing says "great, big city" like submerged transportation infrastructure

Nothing says "great, big city" like confidently building towers over submerged transportation infrastructure.

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Nothing says "great, big city" like submerged transportation infrastructure

Amen to that.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Nothing says "great, big city" like confidently building towers over submerged transportation infrastructure.

No, nothing says "terrorism target" like building buildings over submerged roads...

[Busy Bee]

I guess a few dozen massive buildings in NYC are targets then—or many service sections of lower wacker or michigan and wabash north of the river, I guess Trump is a huge liability.

[ardecila]

^ Not to mention all the underground garages, or parking podiums (which, in fact, have been terrorism targets before - the original WTC attack).

The only surefire way to prevent terrorist attacks is to keep terrorists OUT of our country, through intelligence-gathering services. Look at this last one - his own father contacted authorities to warn them about his son, and nobody followed up on it. Then the dude boards a plane with an underwear bomb. Terrorists don't have to attack planes, which means that there are infinite other ways they could get in and kill scores of people - perhaps on trains, buses, at concerts, sporting events, or demonstrations. Regardless, we will never be able to stop these people without advance knowledge of their plans to harm Americans.

[Nowhereman1280]

Ok, it does take more than just being over a road to become a terrorist target, but you all have to admit that its stupid to build certain types of buildings over roads. For example, the old Post Office. I know it wasn't a concern then, but that building would be a huge target for terrorists. I mean they could have shut down mail delivery to a large part of the US just by driving one timothy McVey bomb truck under it and detonating. Same goes for the fact that the CSX trading floors were cleverly built over a freeway. Hello, if that were in NYC it would have been attacked by now.

Also, parking garages are not the same as building over a road. Parking garages have limited access and can be easily secured. A busy freeway has hundreds of thousands of people passing under it each day completely unscreened.

Anyhow, terrorists or not, I still think its a complete waste of money to build buildings over infrastructure in Chicago right now. Its not like this area of the city is running super short on developable land. I'd much rather have them start filling in the gaping holes in the landscape to the south and south west of the Sears Tower than waste their time building on spaces that could actually make a pretty pleasant and needed park.

[the urban politician]

Sorry, wrong place

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'd much rather have them start filling in the gaping holes in the landscape to the south and south west of the Sears Tower than waste their time building on spaces that could actually make a pretty pleasant and needed park.

There is really not that much open space s and sw of the Sears Tower except for maybe the Dominicks surface lot.

[Pandemonious]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.869...,0.041242&z=15

What? There are dozens of giant sears tower sized surface parking lots and acres and acres of undeveloped land in that area.... I realize Roosevelt collection is filling in one big chunk over on Roosevelt, but given the adjacency to the loop, it would be pretty hard for this general area to feel any less dense than it does.

I used to live at 333 S Desplaines, and walked down to Dominick's or Whole Foods a lot, and there is just block after block of surface lots, power stations, and warehouses engulfed in total desolation. Aside from being able to see the skyscrapers a half mile away or so, it feels like no man's land. As I walked it went from super high density Loop/West Loop to blocks and blocks of warehouse (some seemingly abandoned) buildings/surface parking lots, and then you emerge into the suburbanized strip mall hell that now exists by Roosevelt. While I think it blows ass to be a pedestrian in this area of the city, it is light years better than it was 6-7 years ago when there was pretty much just a vast empty wasteland there (No University Village/Target/Whole Foods/Home Depot/anything). That said, this area of the city needs far more mixed-use developments, and along with that better access to transit (pretty much zero buses run through it). Obviously a lot of this is because this area is totally segregated from the city with highway to the west, and the railroad tracks, river, and shitty ass dearborn park to the east with basically no E-W streets connecting with the lakefront or the UIC area aside from grade separated Roosevelt.

There is so much potential in that area of the city (even after being shat all over by strip malls) if it just had better connections through it...

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Yeah, have you ever been to the South Loop Marcu? I mean there is like 20 square blocks of open land along the river directly south of the Sears alone...

Not to mention the two empty blocks directly east of the ramps in question, two huge lots next to 311 S Wacker, the lot next to the chiller plant, and the dozens of lots west of the river, east of 94, and south of Congress. That area is practically a wasteland. Also, if we are going to start building buildings over stuff, we should start decking over the massive rail yards that are right along the river. That RE is much more valuable than begin conveniently situated on top of the Congress expressway with virtually no way to walk to and from your apartment or office without being hit by speeding cars.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Yeah, have you ever been to the South Loop Marcu? I mean there is like 20 square blocks of open land along the river directly south of the Sears alone...

Last I heard, that area has been "almost developed" a number of times before running into various problems, so as far as I'm concerned, it is still under development pending financial/economic improvement. Not building an underground onramp won't stop future development. Continuing economic and financial problems will.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Not to mention the two empty blocks directly east of the ramps in question, two huge lots next to 311 S Wacker, the lot next to the chiller plant, and the dozens of lots west of the river, east of 94, and south of Congress. That area is practically a wasteland. Also, if we are going to start building buildings over stuff, we should start decking over the massive rail yards that are right along the river. That RE is much more valuable than begin conveniently situated on top of the Congress expressway with virtually no way to walk to and from your apartment or office without being hit by speeding cars.

All the things you listed, rail tracks, surface lots, etc. are not necessarily open for development. It may not be desirable use, but it's not as if the chiller plant is ready to sell its parking lot if only a developer came along. If they haven't sold yet, they probably won't unless they outright move. Moving rail tracks is by all accounts jsut as costly as buring onramps.

Originally Posted by Pandemonious

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=41.869...,0.041242&z=15

That said, this area of the city needs far more mixed-use developments, and along with that better access to transit (pretty much zero buses run through it). Obviously a lot of this is because this area is totally segregated from the city with highway to the west, and the railroad tracks, river, and shitty ass dearborn park to the east with basically no E-W streets connecting with the lakefront or the UIC area aside from grade separated Roosevelt.

There is so much potential in that area of the city (even after being shat all over by strip malls) if it just had better connections through it...

The are may not be good to good or desirable use, but that's not the same as it being completely empty.

I just don't see how not buring onramps will somehow stimulate more growth southwest of the Loop. If anything, it will only make the general area more desirable.

[ardecila]

There's already a proposal for the parking lot next to the chiller plant. The site is owned by Development Resources, not ComEd.



The fact that this tower wasn't built just testifies to the weak office market in the Loop, not a lack of interest by developers. In 2003, smaller developers could build midrises in the West Loop and find back-office tenants and small firms to fill them. Later, as vacancy rates started to climb, only the biggest developers like John Buck could put together an anchor tenant and smaller tenants to land financing for a new tower. Last year, we saw the very end of that, as Hines couldn't get the financing to build River Point even with 40% of its space leased, and city commitments to fund the plaza. Development Resources simply had bad timing, as they started to market this tower at the worst possible time.'

Not that this relates AT ALL to transit...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Marcu

Last I heard, that area has been "almost developed" a number of times before running into various problems, so as far as I'm concerned, it is still under development pending financial/economic improvement. Not building an underground onramp won't stop future development. Continuing economic and financial problems will.

One wasn't developed because of corruption the other huge open area was almost developed but it appears to be dormant now because of the economic crash, same goes with the above proposal. Clearly there are much better places to start developing.

Also, whats with this "not available to develop" stuff? How do we determine that, almost all lots in the city are not owned by developers, so does that mean there are no developable lots in the city? No, developers buy whatever they come across in areas they are interested in when it becomes available. Also what makes the airights over those ramps any more developable than a parking lot? If anything I would expect the bureaucratic bs associated with pulling off such a development would make it a far less appealing option than simply making a high offer on a nextdoor lot that doesn't even have any infrastructure buried under it...

[Mr Downtown]

George Ritzlin, who has an antique map shop in Evanston, today sent me a picture of a woman who recently visited his shop. She has the CTA rail map that I designed tattooed on her foot!



Indeed, that Red Line Extension is going to terminate in a most inconvenient location.