CHICAGO: Transit developments

[orulz]

Originally Posted by k1052

CTA State/Lake replacement station got a big CMAQ grant. Hopefully edging closer to some actual construction.

http://https://chi.streetsblog.org/2...hair-friendly/

The CMAQ grant was 2 years ago.... in 2017

[k1052]

Originally Posted by orulz

The CMAQ grant was 2 years ago.... in 2017

I quoted the wrong story. The project got a $59M grant in addition to the $57M in 2017.

[tjp]

^ Tribune had a story about it a few days ago. It mentions that the stop may "possibly" have an elevator connection to the red line stop there. I was really hoping for a true connection between the two stations - it would make commuting from north side to the west loop a whole lot less annoying.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by tjp

^ Tribune had a story about it a few days ago. It mentions that the stop may "possibly" have an elevator connection to the red line stop there. I was really hoping for a true connection between the two stations - it would make commuting from north side to the west loop a whole lot less annoying.

The Trib article is based on a press release from CMAP on which projects were awarded and how much, plus background from older stories.

I wouldn't assume that the specific project descriptions are accurate and up-to-date. I'm sure CTA/CDOT planners understand the importance of State/Lake to the whole rail system and they would like to put in a great transfer connection, the question is whether a good transfer solution is possible with the amount of money that's been budgeted, and with the physical layout of the area.

I've tried to brainstorm a good way to build that connection and there are no easy answers... a lot of underground construction could push the project budget into the mid-to-high 9 figures, which is way more money than what is available. I think the best solution is to use the median of State Street for a direct elevator/escalator connection, but that requires narrowing the sidewalks.

[emathias]

Is there anything that prevents the City from creating a long-term plan for transit, creating an outline of what is planned, and then methodically getting finding for the necessary studies of each and creating budget lines for each that they, over time, apply funding to and implement as finding becomes available? It seems like if they been doing that over the past several decades that they could have had several projects "shovel ready" it at least ready for bids firing the big Federal stimulus a decade ago and gotten some things done then. Certainly that was probably a once in a lifetime thing, but there are also likely to be other times with looser stimulus strings that a prepared City could take advantage of.

I all because it seems like many long-term plans aren't likely to change but don't happen because they rely on sustained political will that rarely comes about. But if it were just part of the standard way the city does business more could get done. I'm thinking of things like the West Loop Transportation Center, or the Clinton Subway, or the 1968 plan for a Monroe to Streeterville and McCormick circulator. All of those things would really benefit the City, but aren't going to happen as just piecemeal projects. But a City that was organized and dedicated to seeing them through over the long term might have a chance of seeing them implemented. If love to see all of those happen in my lifetime because I think they'd push Chicago into a solid, singularly second place for transit access after New York instead of just being in the cluster of "pretty good" American cities behind New York.

Obviously the downtown ones make the most sense from a "bang for the buck" standpoint, but it could also include projects in the outer neighborhoods to build stronger universal support. Things like the Red Line extension, or a South Lakefront solution, or connecting the Brown Line to the Blue or a Cicero line.

Big improvement projects could also for in the planning, like the RPM stuff, and Blue Line subway station rebuilds.

Is it politics alone that prevent that or something else?

[ardecila]

Mr. D can probably offer a better "big-picture" answer. My thought is that we haven't really had a master plan since the 1968 plan fell apart, probably because we already have such an extensive network.

We don't have the urgency of, say, Los Angeles or Denver to create a brand-new transit network from scratch, and we're pretty jaded about the ability for transit to relieve congestion or solve broader urban problems.

Combine that with the general shitty fiscal situation in the state and it isn't a great situation for any kind of transit expansion.

To the extent that we have any urgency about transit at all, it's been more about securing funds to shore up and rebuild what we already have before a catastrophe happens - which is a false premise, since a robust program of ongoing maintenance would prevent the need for multi-billion dollar reconstruction projects.

[Mr Downtown]

Yeah, I'm smirking at the idea that Northern Illinois could ever have a "long-term plan" for transportation.

For nearly 30 years, the feds have required that we have an MPO to rationalize regional transportation planning. A decade ago, Metropolis 2020 got NIPC and CATS combined into CMAP in hopes it would relate land-use and transportation planning. But mostly for political reasons, CMAP continues to be a "stapler" agency that largely takes in the wish lists from all the different players (IDOT, counties, municipalities, operating agencies) and just staples them together to have "a plan" to give the feds. Go To 2040 was an effort to put some priorities to the various projects folks wished for—and then the biggest project funded and built during the decade, the Circle Interchange, was something not even listed in the document.

Neither CTA nor RTA have much of a long-range planning group, as that's been sacrificed in decade after decade of budget cutting. And both CTA and Metra are primarily devoted to getting the system we have back into a state of good repair. Especially under Daley and Emanuel, projects like Red Line Extension or O'Hare Express have seemed to be more about getting planning grants and disbursing same to consultants than about getting any shovels into the ground.

[aaron38]

Thinking small - Infill, Green Line expansion. Halsted, Racine/Elizabeth, Western. Those three stations added to what's already there would create a very dense walkable corridor through the west loop. Stations can be done one at a time, East to West. Stations should also be minimalist and standard design.

What do you think the odds are that these stations come to pass?

[MayorOfChicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Thinking small - Infill, Green Line expansion. Halsted, Racine/Elizabeth, Western. Those three stations added to what's already there would create a very dense walkable corridor through the west loop. Stations can be done one at a time, East to West. Stations should also be minimalist and standard design.

What do you think the odds are that these stations come to pass?

Then though you'd have Clinton, Halsted, Morgan and Racine. Those last three would all be within a half mile of track.

What would have been better would probably have been stops at Clinton, Halsted and Racine. The Morgan one kinda pushes out direct needs of Halsted or Racine.

[ardecila]

Not sure why Halsted is needed other than the bus transfer. If you rebuilt the station, much of the immediate radius would be taken up by the expressway. Instead, just upgrade the Sangamon entrance of Morgan to a faregate entrance and prioritize redevelopment of the Bridgford property so Lake St doesn't feel so forlorn.

Further west, there is still a 1.5 mile gap between Morgan and Ashland. A new station at Elizabeth would be awesome.

Of course, for the price of two new el stops, you could probably install a streetcar on Canal and Randolph that goes from the Union Station Bus Terminal to Ogilvie to Union Park, providing stronger local access to Fulton Market and potentially eliminating the private shuttle fleets. Milwaukee's streetcar is a similar length and cost about $120M.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Further west, there is still a 1.5 mile gap between Morgan and Ashland.

morgan to ashland is only a 3/4 mile gap, not 1.5 miles.

the 1.5 mile gap o the green line is between ashland and california, but the new damen stop will chop that down a good bit.

[emathias]

I never understood why they put a stop at Morgan. In the long term, placing stations every half-mile is a good pattern for the type of system we have. A Green/Halsted station and an Racine/Elizabeth station would have made a more useful pair than a single station at Morgan.

They could still add one at Elizabeth/Ada, which would have the added benefit of a unique name instead of continuing on with the confusion of multiple same-named stations on different branches (not even only different lines - I'm looking at you, Western and Ashland and Harlem).

Morgan to Ashland is 3/4 of a mile, so splitting that is 3/8th of a mile, which isn't excessively close, especially when it would draw from both north and south of the station. Diversey/Wellington/Belmont are each only 1/4 mile apart, and the West Loop has the potential to be a good deal more dense than even that relatively dense part of Lakeview even if it isn't that dense yet, and it will definitely have more commercial space eventually, as it's turning into borderline downtown as Fulton gets built out. Maybe that's still a long-term possibility.

[IrishIllini]

A stop at Elizabeth isn’t a bad idea. The short spacing is fine that close to downtown. Get a Pink Line stop at Madison and the West Loop is set for the foreseeable future.

Above all I want the Clinton-Larrabee subway. In a perfect world it’d go north towards Goose Island...A subway beneath Broadway branching from the north side redline would be great too. Have it tie back in at Clark/Division.

[aaron38]

I change my mind, build the infill stations West to East. Green line needs a station at Western, that's agreed right?
There's a lot of excitement around a station at Racine/Elizabeth, I agree that would be awesome.

So leave Halsted for last. If density by that point is crying for a station, build it. If not, shelve it.
Thoughts?

[OhioGuy]

This should be interesting!

Geoffrey Baer PBS Special

Yesterday, we caught up with popular WTTW host, Geoffrey Baer's Chicago (WTTW), as he completed filming for Channel 11’s new documentary, “Chicago by ‘L’.” This fun informative program debuts in March 2020! Baer was able to interact with some talented musicians at the Jackson Blue Line Station.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I change my mind, build the infill stations West to East. Green line needs a station at Western, that's agreed right?
There's a lot of excitement around a station at Racine/Elizabeth, I agree that would be awesome.

So leave Halsted for last. If density by that point is crying for a station, build it. If not, shelve it.
Thoughts?

Yea, I would do a station at Elizabeth and one at Western, one at Damen is going to be built. I don't think Halsted is needed.

[Handro]

Are there any major city/region altering projects incubating at the moment? Whatever happened to Ashland BRT, is that completely dead? Has Goose Island redevelopment spurred any talk about using some of the abandoned track near there?

It seems like ambitious plans float around think tanks but never make it to actual policy makers to discuss, is Chicago ever going to make the region more accessible?

I just read about Pace trying a program that uses ride-share companies as a connection for Pace buses. That just seems so... dumb. Can we be bolder?

[ardecila]

^ No. I've slowly come to the realization that Chicago is presently incapable of thinking big or master-planning. When developers try to do it (Lincoln Yards, The 78) they get slapped down.

Our leaders are too busy lurching from crisis to crisis to actually chart a positive vision for how the city can grow. To be fair, a shrinking or static population doesn't create much urgency for large-scale planning, and certainly doesn't give government the financial resources to think big. Why should government spend scarce money creating plans and building infrastructure, when the exodus of minorities from Chicago is already freeing up all the capacity we need to handle the slow growth of white and college-educated groups?

The only new transit we're likely to see is small tweaks - a new L station here, a renovation there, maybe some intermittent bus lanes at bad intersections.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

…. Our leaders are too busy lurching from crisis to crisis to actually chart a positive vision for how the city can grow.

While 100% true this statement works off the presumption our leaders have any vision at all vis a vis paradigm changing transport projects. It's not just a Chicago metropolitan deficit, zoom out to a state level. Even with a progressive governor, where is the emphasis and coalition building both in-state and with neighboring midwestern states necessary to prioritize vision planning, let alone actual funding and building of a midwestern true high speed rail network?

[IrishIllini]

^ I think the system we have is mostly sufficient for our needs. We really only need infill stations, renovations, and dedicated bus lanes at this point.

The north branch is an opportunity for new transit infrastructure, but it may be politically challenging to push for shiny new infrastructure through one of the wealthiest parts of the city at this time. Sterling Bay’s vision of Goose Island and LY as the West Loop 2.0 isn’t viable without rail transit. Easier and cheaper to get that infrastructure going before the NIMBYs move in.