Route 28 Brazier Drive

[qwantae]

I wouldn't be surprised. The flap over CTA initially dropping the ball on its agreement to serve the new Walmart in Pullman Park sure didn't stop him from angling for some political advantage among that area of south side voters.

I wouldn't be surprised. The flap over CTA initially dropping the ball on its agreement to serve the new Walmart in Pullman Park sure didn't stop him from angling for some political advantage among that area of south side voters.

If the 28 doesn't pass the agreement to serve the new Walmart, then it's always the 106 that can do the work.

[Busjack]

If the 28 doesn't pass the agreement to serve the new Walmart, then it's always the 106 that can do the work.

By only putting in the 111A, CTA has indicated what will "do the work."

The real question is what customers will use that Walmart. Obviously, 106 isn't going to generate any customers. 28 might, but then they may as well merge 28 and 106.

BTW, I have the feeling that 111 111-King Dr. was initially mentioned because it and 106 are laterally (E-W) closest to 109th, but the route that is actually closest to 109th and Doty is 115 115-Pullman (Cottage Grove).

[BUSANGEL#1]

I know some have questioned my point that there has been some development on 63rd after the L came down, but even at that, one wonders if the Y would have been developed at 63rd and Stony if that was turned into some underutilized transit center, as chicagp-l.org says was proposed, and what 63rd-Ashland turned out to be.

Not to mention whether the Green Line has a purpose (at least south of 35th) other than fortunately being there when the Red Line was shut down.

You can make the argument that until the south side approaches north lakefront density, the south Green Line has little purpose. Most riders take the Red Line. The branches are relevant still. Though to the east when the x3 and x4 were running you could say that the cottage grove branch lost it's purpose. To the west, the Ashland branch has a purpose. Though it irks me that it doesn't stop at Racine anymore but other stops on the same line like 43rd or indiana remains open.

Let's not underestimate the South Side Main and the power of gentrification. All those empty lots near the Green Line south are filling up with new development especially between 47th and 59th. 20 years ago when I was growing up in that area property values were really low. Last month me and my friend was searching for places and now it costs around 1500 for a 2 bedroom "Condo" (which is really an apartment in a rehabbed two flat or Graystone) near the 'L.' That wasn't really bad compared to the others near Washington Park. Me and my friend was shocked at how much things have changed in the Bronzeville and Washington Park areas. It is waaay more diverse now than its been in decades, with more young professionals of all demographics moving near the South Side 'L.' So I predict the Green Line will retain some of the attention it got during the Dan Ryan shutdown, even though ridership was already growing slowly. Its a shame it took almost 20 years to regain the ridership it lost before the rehab and shutdown.

[artthouwill]

Let's not underestimate the South Side Main and the power of gentrification. All those empty lots near the Green Line south are filling up with new development especially between 47th and 59th. 20 years ago when I was growing up in that area property values were really low. Last month me and my friend was searching for places and now it costs around 1500 for a 2 bedroom "Condo" (which is really an apartment in a rehabbed two flat or Graystone) near the 'L.' That wasn't really bad compared to the others near Washington Park. Me and my friend was shocked at how much things have changed in the Bronzeville and Washington Park areas. It is waaay more diverse now than its been in decades, with more young professionals of all demographics moving near the South Side 'L.' So I predict the Green Line will retain some of the attention it got during the Dan Ryan shutdown, even though ridership was already growing slowly. Its a shame it took almost 20 years to regain the ridership it lost before the rehab and shutdown.

I totally agree. I also wouldn't be surprised if the East 63rd branch gets rebuilt back to Stony Island in the next 20 - 25 years. The SSM has proven its value and will continue to do so IF CTA can stay on top of maintaining the rails and rail structure.

[Busjack]

I totally agree. I also wouldn't be surprised if the East 63rd branch gets rebuilt back to Stony Island in the next 20 - 25 years. The SSM has proven its value and will continue to do so IF CTA can stay on top of maintaining the rails and rail structure.

Besides the need tor you to clean up your post...

The only way that happens is if someone gets the money to purchase back all the easements of light and air impacted by an L in your front yard. I'm really sure that those who bought in Brazier's development really did so with that eventuality.

As I noted earlier, the Tribune had reported that those west of Cottage wanted the L out too, because of all the liquor stores under the tracks.

Also, at least the portion between 40th and 58th is in an alley, and anyone buying there knows what they are getting.

[jajuan]

Besides the need tor you to clean up your post...

The only way that happens is if someone gets the money to purchase back all the easements of light and air impacted by an L in your front yard. I'm really sure that those who bought in Brazier's development really did so with that eventuality.

As I noted earlier, the Tribune had reported that those west of Cottage wanted the L out too, because of all the liquor stores under the tracks.

Also, at least the portion between 40th and 58th is in an alley, and anyone buying there knows what they are getting.

And the real problem in your post was more all the darn liquor stores than the L itself, something the folks west of Cottage Grove you referenced were too darned misguided to see. The overwhelming sentiment at the time was that folks wanted CTA to put the Green Line back. And from what I remembered of what folks were saying back then upon them reopening the Green Line, folks who used the Jackson Park Branch felt cheated that that leg of the Green Line got cut back to Cottage Grove instead of being rebuilt to Dorchester as I remember CTA maps still suggesting was a possibility when the Green Line did get reopened. Instead they ripped out all the structure immediately east of the Cottage Grove, which we know explains the awkward way Cottage Grove Green Line is configured since it wasn't intended to be the terminal for the Jackson Park Green Line, and folks blamed, not thanked, Brazier for that just as Gene's post above does. For whatever good deeds Brazier may have been known for in his younger days, as an old man he earned himself a reputation among people in that part of the city of making moves that put money in his pockets and not for the betterment of the community as he portrayed it to be. Getting the Green Line chopped down to Cottage Grove ranks high on that list as far as a lot of people in that community is concerned. That shows one thing that I always say people should be careful of, which is it's always easy to be on the outside looking in and make a claim on what something is worth to a given community because that view is clouded by that outside perspective looking in. And it's also why I said from the start that Emanuel's renaming Stony Island proposal is nothing more than another one of his empty proposals that sound good on the surface only as a way to garner votes among a certain part of the city population.

[Sam92]

And the real problem in your post was more all the darn liquor stores than the L itself, something the folks west of Cottage Grove you referenced were too darned misguided to see. The overwhelming sentiment at the time was that folks wanted CTA to put the Green Line back. And from what I remembered of what folks were saying back then upon them reopening the Green Line, folks who used the Jackson Park Branch felt cheated that that leg of the Green Line got cut back to Cottage Grove instead of being rebuilt to Dorchester as I remember CTA maps still suggesting was a possibility when the Green Line did get reopened. Instead they ripped out all the structure immediately east of the Cottage Grove, which we know explains the awkward way Cottage Grove Green Line is configured since it wasn't intended to be the terminal for the Jackson Park Green Line, and folks blamed, not thanked, Brazier for that just as Gene's post above does. For whatever good deeds Brazier may have been known for in his younger days, as an old man he earned himself a reputation among people in that part of the city of making moves that put money in his pockets and not for the betterment of the community as he portrayed it to be. Getting the Green Line chopped down to Cottage Grove ranks high on that list as far as a lot of people in that community is concerned. That shows one thing that I always say people should be careful of, which is it's always easy to be on the outside looking in and make a claim on what something is worth to a given community because that view is clouded by that outside perspective looking in. And it's also why I said from the start that Emanuel's renaming Stony Island proposal is nothing more than another one of his empty proposals that sound good on the surface only as a way to garner votes among a certain part of the city population.

I'm sorry if these are stupid questions.... But when you say Cottage Grove Station is awkward as a terminal, is it because it's 2 side plattforms vs an island? Or the way te structure just ends so abruptly at the end of the plattforms? And hypothetically if the line was extended back to Stony Island would King Drive become a bidirectional stop rather than an inbound only boarding stop?

[artthouwill]

I'm sorry if these are stupid questions.... But when you say Cottage Grove Station is awkward as a terminal, is it because it's 2 side plattforms vs an island? Or the way te structure just ends so abruptly at the end of the plattforms? And hypothetically if the line was extended back to Stony Island would King Drive become a bidirectional stop rather than an inbound only boarding stop?

Moreso because of the abrupt ending of the structure. Cottage Grove was not intended to be a terminus, but Skokie-Dempster has two side platforms at its terminus, so that is not really an issue. Had the structure at Cottage Grove been extended another block or two east, then you could have the same effect that you have at Skokie and that would work better.

As to your second question, should the line somehow get extended back to Stony, I don't see any changes to the outbound platforms. In other words, King Drive and Cottage Grove stations would be boarding inbound only as always has been the case. Those traveling east along 63rd can always use the 63rd St bus.

[Busjack]

And the real problem in your post was more all the darn liquor stores than the L itself, something the folks west of Cottage Grove you referenced were too darned misguided to see. ..

Instead they ripped out all the structure immediately east of the Cottage Grove, which we know explains the awkward way Cottage Grove Green Line is configured since it wasn't intended to be the terminal for the Jackson Park Green Line..

I'm not going to comment on the pulse of the community, but:

• The thrust of the Tribune comment was with regard to the environment under the L. Like I said, there was the debate here before on how much development Brazier brought east of Woodlawn Ave. (and certainly not east of Maryland Ave., where the structure ends), but even if someone would vote West Woodlawn dry, nobody has said what developer wants to move into there.
• The L wasn't immediately demolished. The news reports at that time was that CTA was trying to get the FTA to pay for it, which it wouldn't. but it forgave any FTA money that went into anything east of Cottage. Then the city came in and destroyed it for CTA (and then delayed for about 5 years the then promised repaving of 63rd). But since the Green Line was down for reconstruction, anyway, CTA could have planned better. (art, that's also in response to your post that popped up while I typed this).

Essentially, though, if Emanuel can't come up with the money needed for the 130th extension, of which there is a demonstrated need based on bus loadings at 95th, he sure isn't going to come up with money for a Green Line extension to Stony Island, over what I suppose will be the Church's objection.

[artthouwill]

And the real problem in your post was more all the darn liquor stores than the L itself, something the folks west of Cottage Grove you referenced were too darned misguided to see. The overwhelming sentiment at the time was that folks wanted CTA to put the Green Line back. And from what I remembered of what folks were saying back then upon them reopening the Green Line, folks who used the Jackson Park Branch felt cheated that that leg of the Green Line got cut back to Cottage Grove instead of being rebuilt to Dorchester as I remember CTA maps still suggesting was a possibility when the Green Line did get reopened. Instead they ripped out all the structure immediately east of the Cottage Grove, which we know explains the awkward way Cottage Grove Green Line is configured since it wasn't intended to be the terminal for the Jackson Park Green Line, and folks blamed, not thanked, Brazier for that just as Gene's post above does. For whatever good deeds Brazier may have been known for in his younger days, as an old man he earned himself a reputation among people in that part of the city of making moves that put money in his pockets and not for the betterment of the community as he portrayed it to be. Getting the Green Line chopped down to Cottage Grove ranks high on that list as far as a lot of people in that community is concerned. That shows one thing that I always say people should be careful of, which is it's always easy to be on the outside looking in and make a claim on what something is worth to a given community because that view is clouded by that outside perspective looking in. And it's also why I said from the start that Emanuel's renaming Stony Island proposal is nothing more than another one of his empty proposals that sound good on the surface only as a way to garner votes among a certain part of the city population.

I totally agree. The University of Chicago is ever encroaching closer to 63rd and eventually will help gentrify the Woodlawn community up to 67th. At some point I expect the University and area residents to petition to get Green Line service back to Stony Island (or at least Dorchester). There is still enough vacant land east of Cottage Grove where you could route the tracks off of 63rd and run the tracks underground then back under 63rd to complete the route. Obviously Brazier's church would try to fight that, but they lack the political muscle and clout that the late Bishop had. Remember most of his congregation lives OUTSIDE of the affected community, thus his only mission of getting the line torn down to Cottage was in his economic interest for the land that he purchased between Woodlawn and Dorchester.

If Emanuel is so intent on naming a street after Brazier, let him rename 63rd St. Stony Island is an iconic name and is unique to Chicago. I actually think that renaming Stony would LOSE him votes as opposed to gaining any.

[jajuan]

I'm not going to comment on the pulse of the community, but:

• The thrust of the Tribune comment was with regard to the environment under the L. Like I said, there was the debate here before on how much development Brazier brought east of Woodlawn Ave. (and certainly not east of Maryland Ave., where the structure ends), but even if someone would vote West Woodlawn dry, nobody has said what developer wants to move into there.
• The L wasn't immediately demolished. The news reports at that time was that CTA was trying to get the FTA to pay for it, which it wouldn't. but it forgave any FTA money that went into anything east of Cottage. Then the city came in and destroyed it for CTA (and then delayed for about 5 years the then promised repaving of 63rd). But since the Green Line was down for reconstruction, anyway, CTA could have planned better. (art, that's also in response to your post that popped up while I typed this).

Essentially, though, if Emanuel can't come up with the money needed for the 130th extension, of which there is a demonstrated need based on bus loadings at 95th, he sure isn't going to come up with money for a Green Line extension to Stony Island, over what I suppose will be the Church's objection.

I think you misunderstood my use of the word immediately in this case. I meant immediately as in just past the station house everything was demolished. I wasn't speaking immediately in terms of length of time. So nowhere do I say the L structure was immediately demolished and there was nothing there for you to correct. The whole debate over development and how to fund any extensions I'll leave between you and art since I wasn't making that case. But I will say that art is right in one thing, the Church no longer has the clout it once had like it did when Brazier was alive. Yeah Emanuel would have to name funding for any fantasy Green Line extension (if he's even mayor when that hypothetical proposal is made) just as who has to explain how the Red Line will get extended to 130th Street, but generally speaking I'd wager that church congregation no longer has the stronger voice over a community of which most of its members are not residents.

[Busjack]

I think you misunderstood my use of the word immediately in this case. I meant immediately as in just past the station house everything was demolished. I wasn't speaking immediately in terms of length of time. So nowhere do I say the L structure was immediately demolished and there was nothing there for you to correct.

Thanks for the clarification. However, assuming art's scenario, I doubt that it would have made the lots from Maryland to Ingleside any more marketable.

The real issue may be that why they kept the Cottage Grove station with two platforms; to salvage the remaining FTA service life on the recent (then) renovation, perhaps?

[jajuan]

Thanks for the clarification. However, assuming art's scenario, I doubt that it would have made the lots from Maryland to Ingleside any more marketable.

The real issue may be that why they kept the Cottage Grove station with two platforms; to salvage the remaining FTA service life on the recent (then) renovation, perhaps?

The only thing I can think of is they cape the second platform for passengers to be able to get off an outbound train while the inbound one is boarding/laying over. They do have the crossover tracks west of the station to make this happen.

[dp1]

I thought Brazier purchased the land east of Cottage Grove to prevent the University of Chicago from getting it. Woodlawn will not gentrify, at least not without a fight. When I lived near that area, many over there wanted Woodlawn to improve, but not to the level of Hyde Park which would price many residents out. Brazier was looking out for himself as much as he was for Woodlawn in buying land east on 63rd.

As for the Green Line ever being extended to

Stony Island, back when I took that branch a lot, there were a lot of rumors that the CTA would

cut the Jackson Park branch entirely. Back then

we had the King Drive and Cottage Grove Express buses than ran more often than the L which was running at 15 minute intervals at best in the rush hour. Should CTA extend the line back to Stony Island, the CTA will likely terminate the 15 Jeffery Local there and probably split the 6 Jackson Park Express or have the 28 Stony Island assume the Wacker and Columbus routing, something I have always believed should have been done for south lakefront restructuring. The Stony Island Express should have gone to Wacker and Columbus and the Jackson Park Express to Union Station. That route is too short to have short turns at 63rd and Stony. Though to get back on the subject, I don't see CTA extending the L to Stony Island, and I have to see to believe Rahm extending the Red Line to 130th.

[Busjack]

The only thing I can think of is they cape the second platform for passengers to be able to get off an outbound train while the inbound one is boarding/laying over. They do have the crossover tracks west of the station to make this happen.

From chicago-l.org (I haven't been there)

"In late 1997, the decision was reached: the new elevated structure

and partially-built Dorchester terminal

were dismantled, making Cottage Grove the new terminus of the East

63rd branch. The structure was cut back to the station, meaning no

tail track was available east of the station for turning trains (this

has to be done at a diamond crossover west of the platforms). A

platform was built at the end of the elevated structure, across the

former location of the tracks to connect the north and south

platforms at their east ends. Although the north (former inbound)

platform is primarily used for boarding and alighting trains, since

this is where the fare controls are, this allows the former outbound

platform on the south to also be used for boarding as needed."

So, the "outbound" platform is still there, just that a train using it pulls in eastbound, then has to go westbound to the crossover, then go back eastbound to the "inbound" platform. Not horribly convenient, but use of the "outbound" platform is probably moot if most trains are every 20 minutes.

[Busjack]

I thought Brazier purchased the land east of Cottage Grove to prevent the University of Chicago from getting it. Woodlawn will not gentrify, at least not without a fight. When I lived near that area, many over there wanted Woodlawn to improve, but not to the level of Hyde Park which would price many residents out. Brazier was looking out for himself as much as he was for Woodlawn in buying land east on 63rd.

...

There was undoubtedly some of that, but also that he didn't want the area around the church to be a dump, and to that extent he succeeded.

There basically has been a love-hate relationship between The Woodlawn Organization and the U of C., but the U of C now has "a south relations officer." Basically, the U of C doesn't want to put its institutional buildings south of 61st, but obviously Woodlawn has to be "pacified" for the U of C to build on the north side of 61st. When I was more familiar with the area, the institutional buildings faced 60th, but the back yards and parking lots faced 61st, but obviously that's changing with the new dorm behind the old one at 61st and Ellis.

[Sam92]

So, the "outbound" platform is still there, just that a train using it pulls in eastbound, then has to go westbound to the crossover, then go back eastbound to the "inbound" platform. Not horribly convenient, but use of the "outbound" platform is probably moot if most trains are every 20 minutes.

Thats not.what hppens at Cotrage Grove.... If a train is on the Outbound platform and is going to be the next train out, they simply have the customers walk to the end of the platform and walk across to the other side (at the end of the structure, the platforms wrap around where the tracks end and form a walkway between sides. No need to move the train at all. However if the inbound platform is empty they usually end up sending the train to that platform first. The next train ends up on the outbound side if the first one hasn't departed yet. But moving it out to the crossover just to have it sent back to the inbound platform doesn't happen. Would be a little excessive when all passengers need to do is cross platforms as is done now

[Busjack]

Thats not.what hppens at Cotrage Grove.... If a train is on the Outbound platform and is going to be the next train out, they simply have the customers walk to the end of the platform and walk across to the other side (at the end of the structure, the platforms wrap around where the tracks end and form a walkway between sides. No need to move the train at all. However if the inbound platform is empty they usually end up sending the train to that platform first....

Thanks for the clarification. While I couldn't see all the backing up the train, being told to walk around can't be too convenient for the passengers though.

But if one wants to get to basics the ultimate cutoff was at Stony Island (especially according to chicago-l.org, which points out that the original Jackson Park station was on the fairgrounds). From the street I couldn't figure out how trains turned around then, until I learned that they were double ended. However, the track diagrams in CERA 115 indicate that it had a center platform.

And I don't remember Stony Island as far back as the picture on chicago-l,org, but I do remember when the Greyhound Station and Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation were there.

[pudgym29]

That's not what happens at Cottage Grove. If a train is on the Outbound platform, and is going to be the next train out, they simply have the customers walk to the end of the platform and walk across to the other side (at the end of the structure, the platforms wrap around where the tracks end and form a walkway between sides. No need to move the train at all. However, if the inbound platform is empty, they usually end up sending the train to that platform first. The next train ends up on the outbound side, if the first one hasn't departed yet. But moving it out to the crossover just to have it sent back to the inbound platform doesn't happen. Would be a little excessive when all passengers need to do is cross platforms as is done now.

Thank you for the clarification. I add that the Logan Square West-Northwest line terminus had a similar arrangement. I recall when mom, dad, & I would go downtown on a Saturday in the late 1960s, arriving at Logan Square would necessitate checking a display for the next departing train (and, even if it was a Congress train, it would likely be a 2000-series consist).

[Busjack]

Thank you for the clarification. I add that the Logan Square West-Northwest line terminus had a similar arrangement. I recall when mom, dad, & I would go downtown on a Saturday in the late 1960s, arriving at Logan Square would necessitate checking a display for the next departing train (and, even if it was a Congress train, it would likely be a 2000-series consist).

Was there any reason to expect different equipment headed to Congress or Douglas, or are you only pointing out the fact that 200 out of 240 cars would have been 6000s?

[Around the Horn]

If Emanuel is so intent on naming a street after Brazier, let him rename 63rd St. Stony Island is an iconic name and is unique to Chicago. I actually think that renaming Stony would LOSE him votes as opposed to gaining any.

theres my opinion

[artthouwill]

Was there any reason to expect different equipment headed to Congress or Douglas, or are you only pointing out the fact that 200 out of 240 cars would have been 6000s?

I don't know what he meant, but during those days it seemed like the Douglas branch always had 6000s on them, whereas you had a very good chance of getting a 2200 series on the Congress trains. The 6000s were nearly retired before I got to ride a Douglas branch train that wasn't a 6000 series.

[Busjack]

I don't know what he meant, but during those days it seemed like the Douglas branch always had 6000s on them, whereas you had a very good chance of getting a 2200 series on the Congress trains. The 6000s were nearly retired before I got to ride a Douglas branch train that wasn't a 6000 series.

That wasn't it, as the timeframe pudgym mentioned (late 1960s) was before any 2200s were put on the WNW (1970).

While most of the 2000s were on Lake in the 1960s, the books indicate that the last 40 were on the WNW.

CERA #115, page 115 has:

40 on WNW, 1965-1967.

80 on WNW, 1972, with all the 2200s on the LDR.

[trainman8119]

I don't know what he meant, but during those days it seemed like the Douglas branch always had 6000s on them, whereas you had a very good chance of getting a 2200 series on the Congress trains. The 6000s were nearly retired before I got to ride a Douglas branch train that wasn't a 6000 series.

Was there any reason to expect different equipment headed to Congress or Douglas, or are you only pointing out the fact that 200 out of 240 cars would have been 6000s?

I don't know if there was any reason behind it, but in my days of going to UIC (1979-81), there was a better chance of getting a 2200 or 2500/2600 on a Congress train vs Douglas. Although they ran them there a 6000 was a more likely on the Douglas. I don't know if it was some sort of extension of the so-called ban of 2000s on the Douglas because of weight restrictions or what, but there were more 6000s there then newer equipment.

[CircleSeven]

IMHO, there's no South Side of Chicago without "Stony Island". To me, the name itself is iconic, and highly known by many folks who live in that part of town, many who probably live near that busy corridor (from LSD & Cornell to the Bishop Ford Freeway (while I still call it the Calumet Expressway)). Although I'm not saying that Apostle Arthur Brazier shouldn't be honored, because he should be honored in some capacity, I don't think Stony Island should be one of those corridors to be renamed. To me, 63rd would've been a better street for obvious reasons. But many would still call it 63rd.

I mean, many South Siders know the names like Jeffery, Cottage Grove, Stony Island, South Chicago, Commercial, 63rd, 79th, 95th, etc. Many south siders loves familiarity. And not seeing Stony Island name would eliminate another iconic name in the city.

If this name change of major thoroughfare to be a political move for Rahm Emanuel to get more of black voters for his upcoming Mayoral re-election bid, I don't think I'll help all that much.