Forest Glen Garage

[Guest]

I was told by an operator at Jeff Pk. that the land where FG currently sits has been purchased to make way for new development which subsequently means that FG would have to move elsewhere. Has anyone else heard anything more about this?

[jajuan]

I was told by an operator at Jeff Pk. that the land where FG currently sits has been purchased to make way for new development which subsequently means that FG would have to move elsewhere. Has anyone else heard anything more about this?

Sounds like unfounded rumor to me. Where is the CTA going to store all those buses? Kedzie for example is already over capacity. During the end of one morning rush period, I saw maybe about 30 buses parked outside near the shop area of that garage, and there were buses still pulling in after their rush hour runs. Not to mention why include Forest Glen in the recent spring pick changes if the land that the garage sits on was going to be sold?

Given the current capital funding situation with the state, and there being no known construction plans for a new garage even if there were money for it currently, the CTA can't be that stupid. Yes management has made dumb moves in the past, but this is way over the top even for them.

[Chicago13]

There's a new hosuing development supposedly being built behind FG at the very end of Armstrong Ave. But there's no truth as far as I know that the garage land itself is up for sale. The CTA would have to find another site and build a new garage first before they would even put the current garage land up for sale.

[Busjack]

We discussed this one about 1-1/2 years ago. I don't think anything has changed.

Maybe about 8 or 9 years ago, the CTA capital plan in the budget mentioned the need to replace F, P, A, and 77. Over the years that got whittled to 77, and with the current scarcity of capital money, I doubt that replacing any would be a priority.

As others mentioned, with Doomsday off the table, you need somewhere to store the buses, and FG is ideally placed, as far as serving Jefferson Park is concerned.

Has there been any progress in building the development behind it? The last I saw, there wasn't.

[Guest]

We discussed this one about 1-1/2 years ago. I don't think anything has changed.

Maybe about 8 or 9 years ago, the CTA capital plan in the budget mentioned the need to replace F, P, A, and 77. Over the years that got whittled to 77, and with the current scarcity of capital money, I doubt that replacing any would be a priority.

As others mentioned, with Doomsday off the table, you need somewhere to store the buses, and FG is ideally placed, as far as serving Jefferson Park is concerned.

Has there been any progress in building the development behind it? The last I saw, there wasn't.

I know that the factory behind FG at the end of Armstrong was sold, im sure CTA still has plans in it garage modernization program to replace the older facilities. I remember some talk about moving FG garage to a new site by the Irving and Oak Pk. ave.

[sw4400]

I know that the factory behind FG at the end of Armstrong was sold, im sure CTA still has plans in it garage modernization program to replace the older facilities. I remember some talk about moving FG garage to a new site by the Irving and Oak Pk. ave.

That'd be sweet!!! if true. Right in my ballpark, so to speak. I can then make trips near it and see if there is a way to photograph buses from the public walkway.

[Busjack]

I remember some talk about moving FG garage to a new site by the Irving and Oak Pk. ave.

However, it would be hard to make street relief from there, while Central has offered a consistent corridor.

[RIPTA42]

I don't know if they're occupied yet, but the houses at the end of Armstrong are there. If a developer were interested in the FG property, the capital budget might not be an issue - paying to relocate the garage could be part of the sale agreement.

[Busjack]

I don't know if they're occupied yet, but the houses at the end of Armstrong are there. If a developer were interested in the FG property, the capital budget might not be an issue - paying to relocate the garage could be part of the sale agreement.

The developer might be willing to pay for the land and relocation expenses, but not to build a garage (or at least, in FG's situation, to replace the fixed assets). And I wouldn't even count on that. In the case of the North and Cicero property, the city bought it from the CTA and then the city gave it away to the developer. The deal wasn't too much different for 69th. John Kass still hasn't gotten over that the developer of Limits wasn't the higher bidder, but part of that deal was that the developer assumed the cost of environmental remediation, which would be great in taking over any former transit facility with all that spilled oil, diesel fuel, etc.

[Buslover88]

I just hope what's being said about FG being moved is NOT true.

[Guest]

I truly believe FG will eventually leave their current site, the only question is when. FG needs to expand, it is the smallest garage in the system. They need a new facility where buses dont have to be idling half the night when the temps are below zero. I think in my opinion FG should be relocated to the benefit of the operators who work there and I think efficiency will be a key for the entire NW side area that the current garage serves.

[Busjack]

I truly believe FG will eventually leave their current site, the only question is when. ... They need a new facility where buses dont have to be idling half the night when the temps are below zero.

Supposedly, the big swap with K in 2001, so that FG got buses with preheaters, was to bring that to an end.

I'm not arguing with "eventually," but the question is when. The CTA budget 8 or 9 years ago said that anything over 50 years old needed to be replaced. However, nothing has happened from that, and 77 and Archer are now over 100 years old. Does Archer still have the sign "Serving the Neighborhood for 9 Decades" (or something like that) with the streetcar and trolley bus pictures?