Jump to content
BusHunter

Red-Purple Bypass Project

Recommended Posts

There is an article in Crain's today that talks about the brown line flyover. I'm surprised they have to demolish up to 16 houses for this? Can't they just build over the existing structure?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140417/BLOGS02/140419787/cta-moves-to-unsnarl-north-side-el-tracks#

The real question is why they didn't do this in 2005-2009 as part of the Brown Line project, but the buildings point probably has the answer.

Given that, apparently, the Purple Line still has to go through that junction on the outer track, there has to be a way to swing the Brown Line to the right to get sufficient elevation to clear the four tracks, and based on the turning radius of the cars, CTA probably needs to take out some buildings northwest of the junction (like the one with the painted advertising). Not much different than the rationale for the ramp arrangement at the Circle Interchange.

CTA condemned some property on Wilton Ave. to expand the Belmont station eastward, but maybe not far enough north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I changed the link to dna.info's link. It's a better link which goes into more details on the resident end of things in Wrigleyville. They even have the letter that was sent out to residents informing them of a possible eminant domain. I don't know about this sounds like a storm is brewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first ventured up to the Belmont station and Clark Junction and heard of the difficulties, my first thought was "why not make the northbound outer track higher than the other three at Belmont, then have the Purple Line track branch off of the flyover track and continue with the Red Line?"

This is probably more expensive, and removes the cross-platform interchange at Belmont for northbound riders.

Also, I'm not sure how this would affect the visibility from the Clark Junction tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I changed the link to dna.info's link. It's a better link which goes into more details on the resident end of things in Wrigleyville. They even have the letter that was sent out to residents informing them of a possible eminant domain. I don't know about this sounds like a storm is brewing.

That's a better link.

The real issue raised in the DNAinfo one is that for some reason CTA decided to serve notice on the affected property owners today and scare the #!#$@ out of them, "but the letter said the agency would not move to purchase private property until "funding is secured" and "the environmental review is complete,"" which certainly won't be for several years.

While there is usually nothing a landowner can do about preventing condemnation (and we know CTA won't be listening to them) there is the issue of "condemnation blight," i.e. the property owners are damaged because nobody else will buy their property while the threat of condemnation exists.

In the meantime, this is going to be way more expensive than CTA condemning a couple of gas stations and beauty parlors for the 95th St. Station project, if there are new condo buildings (which multiple owners) plus the need to pay relocation assistance under federal law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah just as I put up the Crains one they updated it to what is it now. I was like wth? The other one had pictures and a story about the length of dnainfo's. I like how dnainfo said a State Rep is living in the affected area. This is going to be a hard sell!! They are really pushing the ball back into CTA's court. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...They are really pushing the ball back into CTA's court. :lol:

As I indicated above, not really, unless the environmental impact process is enough to deter the feds from providing the money for which they have not yet made a commitment.

The illustration in the updated Crain's link better illustrated my point on why they have to swing right and then above the tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is why they didn't do this in 2005-2009 as part of the Brown Line project, but the buildings point probably has the answer.

Given that, apparently, the Purple Line still has to go through that junction on the outer track, there has to be a way to swing the Brown Line to the right to get sufficient elevation to clear the four tracks, and based on the turning radius of the cars, CTA probably needs to take out some buildings northwest of the junction (like the one with the painted advertising). Not much different than the rationale for the ramp arrangement at the Circle Interchange.

CTA condemned some property on Wilton Ave. to expand the Belmont station eastward, but maybe not far enough north.

If you think about it.Stations had to be redone due to it not being done right the first time.So i think it was a good thing that it wasn't done at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NIMBY's are carrying on how it will degrade their property values.

But we are talking of an area under Rahm whose has lost 27% of its cops from the Addison police precinct over the last few years, closed its lockup, and seen a 70% increase in beatings and robberies, most of the increase in daytime, and near riot conditions on the last Pride day. Belmont "L" station is a very dangerous area. There is a degentrification and slow residential evacuation going on in Wrigleyville and Boystown. The S-T and Trib are silent on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ideas was not new because I was reading Chicago L org about Clark Junction and 1976 CTA want the Flyover but the community did not want it and EPA vetoed it so CTA dropped the ideas in 1976 when they rebuild Clark Tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The illustration I saw on DNA Chicago shows the flyover being built something like the Calatrava tunnel through the IIT campus.

Weird.

Undoubtedly for soundproofing purposes.

The NIMBY's are carrying on how it will degrade their property values.

...

From the discussion above, it seems more like they don't want their new condos condemned, which seems a bigger issue. However, various things seem to indicate that Rahm doesn't mind teeing off his neighbors on the north side. Maybe he thinks there's no way they'd vote for a Shaw, for instance.

This ideas was not new because I was reading Chicago L org about Clark Junction and 1976 CTA want the Flyover but the community did not want it and EPA vetoed it so CTA dropped the ideas in 1976 when they rebuild Clark Tower.

Which basically gets down to the issue that if they expect federal money for this, the RPM, and Ashland BRT, it is going to have to get past environmental review. However, given that they put out a fraudulent environmental impact statement for Ashland, I think that one is in bigger trouble of being denied by the feds.

In any event, I still can't figure them out announcing in one day about $5 billion in projects supposedly from one new federal program without any commitment for funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two related questions:

1) What is the maximum grade CTA "L" cars can climb?

2) Given the answer to #1, how much running room is needed to clear the ROW?

There used to be a sign at the north end of the looooong State St. platform that read "3% grade down".

So I assume that the grade from the sunken tube under the Chicago River at State St. up to the Lake St. platform going southbound is a corresponding, 3% grade up, which we know the trains can do.

They also can do what appears to be the much steeper grade from the Eisenhower up to the Paulina Connector at Wood St. without a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be a sign at the north end of the looooong State St. platform that read "3% grade down".

So I assume that the grade from the sunken tube under the Chicago River at State St. up to the Lake St. platform going southbound is a corresponding, 3% grade up, which we know the trains can do.

They also can do what appears to be the much steeper grade from the Eisenhower up to the Paulina Connector at Wood St. without a problem.

I'm sure someone could come up with the specs.

During the rehab of the Green Line for diverting Red Line trains there, the incline south of Roosevelt was supposedly an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really cool project but I can only imagine all the crying and complaints by the residents of the noise and construction when this project begins! You know theres going to be opposition to this by the neighborhood just the way they protested when they tried to ban lights at Wrigley Field back in the 80s! Ald. Tunney is going to have his hands full again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project makes a ton of sense just from the logistics. I'm amazed there aren't more issues with the constant use of the switches at the Clark junction. The CTA must maintain them well.

Now, while they are at it, they should fix the Diversey kink as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project makes a ton of sense just from the logistics. I'm amazed there aren't more issues with the constant use of the switches at the Clark junction. The CTA must maintain them well.

Now, while they are at it, they should fix the Diversey kink as well.

From the L rider perspective, yes, but the $220 million cost, most of which I bet is for eminent domain, explains why it hasn't happened earlier.

But I assume that all the switches were replaced when switches were replaced for 3 track, needed to build the new Belmont station.

A really cool project but I can only imagine all the crying and complaints by the residents of the noise and construction when this project begins! You know theres going to be opposition to this by the neighborhood just the way they protested when they tried to ban lights at Wrigley Field back in the 80s! Ald. Tunney is going to have his hands full again!

They went for the construction noise when the station was rebuilt. But the issue is the taking of the 16 buildings, plus, whether Tunney in this case really is a voice of the community or just the fall guy for the Emanuel administration. Unlike the rooftop owners, I doubt that the condo owners on Wilton make any campaign contributions to Tunney. He certainly isn't going to be "up your butt" of Emanuel and Claypool like he said he would be of the Wrigley deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two related questions:

1) What is the maximum grade CTA "L" cars can climb?

2) Given the answer to #1, how much running room is needed to clear the ROW?

This was actually one of my concerns with the new flyover proposal. Thanks for bringing that up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project makes a ton of sense just from the logistics. I'm amazed there aren't more issues with the constant use of the switches at the Clark junction. The CTA must maintain them well.

Now, while they are at it, they should fix the Diversey kink as well.

The Kink was supposed to be straightened out during the Brown Line reconstruction several years ago, but that fool Kreusi was quoted as saying: "You really want to add $25 million to the project's cost, just to straighten out a couple of hundred feet of track?"

Well, yes, we should have, because over the next 75 years, the maintenance of the kink tracks will run far more than the $25 million!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kink was supposed to be straightened out during the Brown Line reconstruction several years ago, but that fool Kreusi was quoted as saying: "You really want to add $25 million to the project's cost, just to straighten out a couple of hundred feet of track?"

Well, yes, we should have, because over the next 75 years, the maintenance of the kink tracks will run far more than the $25 million!

Do you have a basis for that number?

I see that the stink on Wilton Ave. is getting bigger, including a DNAInfo listed on the home page, that to placate those on the east side of the street, CTA now proposes a development where it has or intended to evict the landowners.

Heck, I figured that when they built Fullerton, besides demolishing the Loyola gym, they should have taken the Dominick's, which apparently now will become a Whole Checkbook Market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a basis for that number?

I see that the stink on Wilton Ave. is getting bigger, including a DNAInfo listed on the home page, that to placate those on the east side of the street, CTA now proposes a development where it has or intended to evict the landowners.

Heck, I figured that when they built Fullerton, besides demolishing the Loyola gym, they should have taken the Dominick's, which apparently now will become a Whole Checkbook Market.

Which number?

The $25 million came directly from Kreusi. That would be far higher today as the entire SB Diversey platform would have to be re-engineered. The NB one could just have some steel welded & the planks extended outward.

It's just a guess, but it's obvious that $333,333 a year will be a conservative maintenance number 50 years from now.

Plus, that was DePaul's Hayes-Healy Gym, not the Loyola Gym that was flattened. Loyola took down their Alumni Gym on the east side of the tracks at Loyola Ave., a few years ago on their own. DePaul apparently was happy to get rid of it, something about the gym floor not being smooth or level anymore & costing a fortune to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure someone could come up with the specs.

During the rehab of the Green Line for diverting Red Line trains there, the incline south of Roosevelt was supposedly an issue.

That incline was in use from 1943 to when the Ryan Connection was built. If anybody was saying trains couldn't climb it, they had no concept of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next question:

I suppose the plan in a flyover is to build a 5th track from Belmont to the flyover itself. Hence the wilton demolition. This would mean removing the tower because it's in the way. Would they continue to use a tower there? I suppose the answer lies looking at the orange line connector in which it still exists but I believe it's unmanned. So it's still hard to say if one would be needed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure that a flyover is necessary. I know that this was considered in the past and nixed. I'm sure the reasoning then was that it was not justified based on the level of service the Ravenswood was providing then along with the Evanston Express. Nowadays the Brown Line is the third heaviest traveled CTA rail route. Even so, I don't think NB Brown Line trains crossing over causes delays significant enough to warrant a flyover. If nothing else, those trains can give a little separation between SB REd Line trains that are running at 3 minute intervals.

I don't know if there are practical reroutings available, like north side Red Line trains running current Brown to the Loop only and Brown line branch trains thru routed to 95th via the subway. Between Belmont and Fullerton, there are enough crossovers to have trains stop at either side of the platform at those two stations. Or perhaps just increase the amount of Purple Line service and terminate/begin some of that service at Howard. With less "Brown Line " trains, there would be less delays for crossing over and you would still maintain the level of service from Belmont south. Thus you can achieve reducing delays and no one has to lose their property and you don't have to spend unnecessary funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By newport
      (starting a new thread since this topic really didn't fit under the Red-Purple Modernization thread)

      It looks like the Dan Ryan branch track project is going to roll out as someone else originally projected many weeks ago – a complete shutdown of the south branch of the Red Line from just south of Roosevelt to 95th. Subsequent to that post, I had heard that the CTA was going to offer a second option of weekend-only work for 4 years, but that the preferred plan was the complete 5-month shutdown. They had decided to present the second, weekend-only option, in order to give the appearance that they were offering the community and aldermen an option.

      Well, it now looks like the weekend-only closures option is not seriously being considered. They are going with the complete shutdown plan. The complete Dan Ryan branch shutdown will begin in spring 2013 and last through the summer.

      The details are basically as Mayfield laid out weeks ago:
      Red Line will shut down completely from south of Roosevelt station to 95th in spring 2013 The shutdown will continue for 5 months Southbound Red line trains will be rerouted to Green line tracks after stopping at Roosevelt and will serve all Green line stops to Ashland/63rd Express bus shuttles will run from Garfield Green station to 63rd, 69th, 79, 87th, and 95th Red. there will be other additional supplemental bus service
      One thing that changed since Mayfield outlined this plan is that the CTA intends to offer some free and discounted fares to some riders affected by the shutdown. This helped to ensure the support of the aldermen, at least in one office I am aware of. Not sure of the extent of these free fares. This is still under discussion. I heard possibly free shuttle buses and free fares boarding at Garfield Greenline station.

      Also, the CTA has reached out to and received the support of the Chicago Urban League (for support on hiring issues?). As I hear it, the big selling point is the number of jobs this project will create.

      This information is for your information and discussion. I have no official proof I will post, and no official sources I will identify. Doing so would probably cut off my source of info.
      .

    • By BusHunter
      Looks like they are putting a switch in from track 1 to track 2, just south of Lawrence/Red line. I guess that's part of the preliminary work that needs to be done before the project will start. Looks like they are starting at track 1 and working they're way to four, unlike both Belmont and Fullerton/Red line which was the opposite.
    • By BusHunter
      I took a few pictures of the Clark/Division station on the Red line. At street level, on Lasalle, they already have concrete staircases in place and the big hole over Division has been filled. Looks like they want to open up the street for November. At platform level, they have now opened up an area on the east side of the station and we can now see the decorative ceiling tiles they are installing. They also have one light bar installed, and the marble sheeting on the floor of the station in that section. (pictures from left to right are: Lasalle SE corner, Lasalle NE corner, station ceiling, station lightbar, station floor)




    • By sw4400
      I'm trying to follow the logic about the CTA wanting to extend the Red Line to 130th via a shared elevated embankment with a Union Pacific Freight Line. Are they saying that they will lay third rail next to existing freight tracks and share said tracks with a freight line? Initially, I thought not and that would be impossible, but when you put "share" in the context, that changes the meaning.

      If this is being read correctly, does the CTA realize what kind of delays they are in for from 95th to 130th? Freight Trains can be anywhere from 100-200 cars in length and cause "Freight Delays" on all Metra lines where Metra and Freight co-exist.

      Story
    • By Kevin
      There was some discussion on CTA Tattler today regarding the upcoming Red & Purple Modernization Project public scoping meetings.

      There are more details about all of the proposed alternatives in the Notice of Intent filed with the FTA. (Credit to Hugh Bartling for finding this document.)

      First, there's the "No Action Alternative" which would do nothing. The "Basic Rehabilitation Alternative" would essentially put lipstick on a pig, while the "Basic Rehabilitation with Transfer Stations Alternative" would add Purple Line transfer stations at Wilson and Loyola.

      Both the "Modernization 4-Track Alternative" and "Modernization 3-Track Alternative" would permanently close four stations: South Blvd, Jarvis, Thorndale, and Lawrence. Both of these options would replace the existing structure and embankment with "modern concrete aerial structure" while also rebuilding most stations. The 3-Track option would allow for Purple Line Express service in only a single direction.

      The "Modernization 2-Track Underground Alternative" would replace most of the existing Red Line structure with a two-track subway. Trains would transition below ground after Belmont, following the Brown Line tracks and then running under Sheffield/Sheridan to the intersection of Sheridan and Broadway, where they would then run under Broadway until returning to elevated just north of Loyola. Subway stations would be constructed at Addison, Irving Park, Wilson, Foster, Bryn Mawr, Glenlake, and Devon/Loyola. Purple Line Express service would be discontinued in favor of more frequent local service. I created a map of what this proposed subway portion would look like. (Not that I actually expect this to ever get built.)

      Public meetings will be held in Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, and Evanston next week to get input on the alternatives.
×
×
  • Create New...