Red-Purple Bypass Project

[BusHunter]

There is an article 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.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140417/lakeview/ctas-belmont-station-bypass-16-lakeview-buildings-needed

[Busjack]

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.

[BusHunter]

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.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

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.

[Busjack]

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.

[BusHunter]

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.

[Busjack]

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

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.

[strictures]

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

Weird.

[mkohut]

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.

[Amtrak41]

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.

[ArcherRider]

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.

[Busjack]

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.

[geneking7320]

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?

[strictures]

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.

[Busjack]

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.

[Guest]

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!

[joechicago]

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.

[Busjack]

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.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

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!

[strictures]

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!

[Busjack]

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.

[strictures]

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.

[andrethebusman]

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.

[BusHunter]

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.

[artthouwill]

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.