CTA Tattler

Huh. I walked past that on Saturday, coming back from the printer's row farmer's market, and I thought it was neat to get to crane my neck and see inside there and see an unexpected part of the system... but I didn't think to ask the workers what was going on, I just figured it was a maintenance entrance. I wonder where the other set of steps to the street is? I'll have to pay more attention to the sidewalk next time I walk past there. It would be great if they reopened that as an entrance/exit!

Actually, if they were rehabbing and reopening old closed auxiliary exits with new roto-gate-turnstiles, like the ones at some north side L stops (I'm thinking of Wilson), that seems like it would be a (relatively) cheap and easy way to make some major improvements throughout the whole system -- there are so many stops with old exits blocked off, and increasing access would make folks happy. So it would be cool if that was a wider initiative. A little slice of history. :) (Although I'd give it about 5 minutes before the first complaint rolled in...)

I'm not understanding the need for this stairway.
Harrison doesn't have that many users, unless they expect a huge number of Jones HS students there in September.

What's needed is to reopen the exit at Loyola on the east side of Sheridan & build the desperately needed north exit stairs at the northbound Davis St. platform.

I find the whole concept of closed auxiliary entrances and exits puzzling. With the availability of high-barrier rotogate entrances, any auxiliary entrance or exit could be reopened and make for greater access and ease-of-use. Since it is no longer necessary to pay a person to stand at each entrance to collect fares, it only makes sense to open them up.

Some history. The Harrison Red Line stop was part time till about 1999, long after the neighborhood had begun its huge population increase. I just tried to confirm the date at Chicago-l.org, and was surprised to see he doesn't mention the part-time status.

I remember suggesting to an aldermanic candidate (or was it st. rep.?) that he make re-opening the stop 24/7 a campaign pledge. He didn't, and lost the South Loop big. Well, he probably would have lost the South Loop anyway ...

[build the desperately needed north exit stairs at the northbound Davis St. platform.]

"Desperately needed," lol.

A quick guide to determining UC-c's CTA priorities:

Desperately needed: any and all potential improvements that affect UC-c directly, regardless of project feasibility or expense.

Why do we need that?: everything else

This is one of the subway stations that hasn't gotten rehabbed yet, no? An auxiliary entrance might be intended to provide more flexibility for conducting renovations.

The South Loop is also one of the faster growing areas of the city... if use of Harrison is increasing, it could just be an effort to shorten the walk to the train for people coming from the areas to the south of the station.

I rarely get off the L at Davis.
I usually go to Linden.
Why don't you stop making your smartass cracks about me & get off the L at Davis during the afternoon rush one day & you'll learn why there is a desperate need for an additional exit stairway at the north end of this platform?
When a six car train empties out half its passengers who then all have to funnel to a single, although double width stair, closer to the south end of the platform. They then have to go all the way around the station, even though roto-gates could be installed to let them directly out to Benson Ave. & the bus.
This is another in a long, unfortunate series of badly designed CTA L stations.
The CTA has absolutely no understanding of how people walk, none!

Exactly my point about the "newly redesigned" sedgwick station.....try getting out in a rush period...5 entry/exit stations and no exit only turnstiles and all they would have had to do to add them was to displace some flowers and not put up an expensive grate that covers half of the front of the station. I'm not a design person, but my 8 year niece in magnet school could have figured out that one...

KevinB

"and not put up an expensive grate that covers half of the front of the station. I'm not a design person, but my 8 year niece in magnet school could have figured out that one..." KevinB

Agreed. But maybe your niece (or you?) should have been on the vocal community group that demanded these pretty touches to make the station fit in with their upscale neighborhood. Apparently, the 'L' was dragging down their property values. (Except that the 'L' is probably the reason most of them bought there anyway.)

Clarification. I should have said "newly-upscale".

They still have room for lots of flowers and stuff....and no one says that it can't be visually pleasing and functional. Well, maybe the CTA is against that, but hey, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt...

KevinB

Flowers?! Since when does the CTA decorate L stations with flowers?

I suppose if one were willing to foot the bill one's own self through the adopt-a-station program or something like that...

But green, plant and flower-friendly stations sure would be nice :-)

Umm, as I remember, there is a flower bed in front of the metal grating at the sedgwick station...just to the right of the entry/exit turnstiles on the east entrance.

I was only there one time and it was during the cold, but I remember planters and dirt. I guess I assumed the flowers...

I was going to go back with a camera and get a picture but haven't had a chance.

KevinB

Wow, you're absolutely right. It's clearly visible in the main picture on chicago-l.org's site for the sedgwick station:

www.chicago-l.org/stations/sedgewick.html

Flora. Whoulda thunk. Yay :D

How many people actually get out at Sedgwick during rush hour? Like five? I don't see any great need for auxiliary exits at that station, and obviously KevinB is not a regular visitor to the station, since he's only been there once. Yet I've seen that complaint come up time and time again -- so, KevinB, you went there once, saw something you could complain about indefinitely, and have proceeded to do so repeatedly -- correct?

What's wrong with a station looking nice, anyway?

I think all of the rehabbed stations have some kind of artwork. I assumed they had to spend a percentage of the total budget on that.

I can recall that the CTA took a poll of people who used brown line stations before the reconstruction started and plotted where they lived and published the map on their website (maybe it's still buried in the 'Countdown to a New Brown' somewhere...) in an effort to determine where station patronage was coming from. I know they used this info to add an auxiliary exit to the new Addison station that deposits people onto Lincoln (exit only). But as far as Sedgwick is concerned, it's possible that if they had added an aux entrance, the majority of users would've still used the front because they all live on that side of the platform. But I'm just speculating.

And don't give KevinB a hard time. He may come across as a hopeless curmudgeon, but he does want what's best for the CTA and us riders, despite his (sometimes) unrealistic expectations.

[When a six car train empties out half its passengers who then all have to funnel to a single, although double width stair, closer to the south end of the platform. They then have to go all the way around the station, even though roto-gates could be installed to let them directly out to Benson Ave. & the bus.]

Well, if you get out there "rarely" then it's likely that I get out there more than you. And what I've seen is that, yes, the stairway gets quite busy. Although in my experience most people would take that exit anyway because a) it's fairly centrally located on the platform, and b) most people are exiting out to Benson anyway, where they proceed to wait for a bus (usually only a few people) or cross Benson on their way east.

I imagine the need to "walk all the way around" the station is due to the need for a measure of crowd control. Installing roto-gates at the bottom of the stairwell could cause problems, because they slow down traffic. Bunched-up foot traffic is always bad news at the bottom of a busy staircase. Not as bad as at the bottom of escalators, but the principle is the same. Hence, it's designed to fan out traffic into a larger area.

I actually don't have a problem with auxiliary entrances/exits. I'm incredibly thankful for the one on the Lunt side of the Morse station, for example, and I've also had good use for the north entrance at the Irving Park Blue Line and the south exit at the Addison Red Line, to name a few. I'm glad that the new Brown Line stations have them. They're sure convenient on the Congress branch of the Blue Line. And I agree that one at Davis would be nice.

But what I was reacting to is your constant need to make every problem bigger than it is. It makes me laugh when you say that a busy stairwell is a "desperate" problem.

When I worked in software development, we called minor requests "wishlist" items. And that's where I'd put requests like this one. It'd be nice to have, but I don't see any mission-critical reason for it to be there. If the CTA finds themselves with the resources to do it, and there's nothing else particularly pressing, great, let's do it.

Although I should note that a new exit at Davis would still be a low priority to me, even relative to similar exits at other stations, because there's no street crossing that would be avoided by adding this.

I would like to nominate KevinB and Unindicted Co-Conspirator for heads of the CTA. That way, we can see how little they know what they are talking about and then we can all complain about how they know nothing.

Seriously guys, I realize the CTA is far from perfect, but you just sound ridiculous when you say they know nothing about anything in regards to public transportation. NOTHING? Exaggerations are one thing, but you lose all credibility when you say things like that.

If it's so bad, don't use it or move to another city you feel is run so much better and efficiently.

More stairs = more maintenance.

Cleaning, painting, de-icing, de-bummifing, etc.

And more security issues.

We can get everyone riled-up today, and clammoring for all kinds of new staircases and auxillary exits, but a year and a half from now, we could get those same people riled-up about the lack of security, and how these little used pathways need to be shut down so another injury or assult or whatever won't happen again.

And then the lawsuit will follow... suddenly that easy to install auxillary exit becomes expensive.

And what about ADA? My experience with it is with private facilities. I may have ADA access in the front, but if I add a new side door, that new side door has have ADA access. I can't just put up a sign pointing to the ADA door in the front like I could if the side door was an existing non-accessable door.

So does anyone know if the same applies to public transit stations? If they put in a front and side door, do both need to be ADA accessable as they would be in a private facility? If so, that certainly adds to the cost and complexity of adding these simple auxillary exits.

And what's the benefit? Save a handful people 30 seconds of walking for a few hours each day when the existing exits are at capacity?

On the very surface adding an auxilary exit may seem simple, but it doesn't take much to see that it's actually a pretty complex issue, with not very much to gain.

Again, where should the spending priorities be? I don't think these extra exits justify their costs. They barely qualify as "wish list". More like "pipe dream" projects that don't really need any consideration until even the wish list projects are done.

Don't worry about people giving me a hard time...I'm used to it, it sucks being right most of the time :)

My experience was once, but at the same time it was memorable enough to use as an example.

There were about 20 people trying to get through the turnstiles to exit and about 6 people trying to get in to get to the train. One of them was a little old lady who was essentially being run over by the people coming out from the train. I'm kind of a big guy and I situated myself in front of the exit so the poor lady could get through without getting trampled. Exit only turnstiles where the big useless grate is, would have helped out alot. If they put flowers right outside the turnstiles imagine how many people would have seen them!

I can't believe that the volume is a fluke. I guess I could have stood outside and waited for a while and see if the same thing (minus the little old lady) happened again, but the smart money would say yeah.

Secondly I didn't say that they shouldn't look nice. I'm all for aesthetics and functionality and I said as much above. It shouldn't be a choice and if you have to choose, I'll go for functionality 100% of the time.

And yes, I have mentioned it before. It's very descriptive of the mindset of how things work at the CTA. It's not the only example I'm sure (I just saw a couple others above) but now with the picture everyone can see what I mean. If I'm over that way again I'll take a pic of the inside where the turnstiles are....

Poor design is a specialty of mine. I tend to notice it and when appropriate, point it out.

Also, fair warning I'll probably mention it again at some point, just like I mention the Washington street station and transfer point fiasco and the monogrammed trashbags...and there's a simple way to get me to stop...and thats for the issues to be addressed...pretty simple.

Yes, these are things that affect me. I mention them because they are right in front of me. I liked the transfer point, because I could swipe my 30 day pass at washington, go through the transfer point or walk the platform down to Lake and travel the underground pedway all the way over to the Thompson center and stay out of the elements (snow and rain). I have to go over there alot and I met alot of people who worked in buildings near me who did the same. Will I live without it? I guess so.

One of the things that I've learned in my life is that sometimes people will do what you want them to do (and when its the right thing, that's even better) just so you'll go away :) That little piece of advice has served me well these 45 years :)

KevinB

I wonder if Rusty's ADA requirements apply to already existing (but shuttered) aux exits, like at Harrison and Grand. Since it already exists, is re-opening the same as building new?

"And what about ADA? My experience with it is with private facilities. I may have ADA access in the front, but if I add a new side door, that new side door has have ADA access."

Rusty, we have a designated accessible doorway into this building, and many other doors that aren't ADA compliant. Also, at the L stop near my house, there's a wheelchair ramp on one end of the station and a non-ADA compliant exit at the other end. This is one of the new Brown Line stations, the ones that there were re-built to make them ADA compliant.

"I wonder if Rusty's ADA requirements apply to already existing (but shuttered) aux exits, like at Harrison and Grand. Since it already exists, is re-opening the same as building new?"

No, actually. Subway stations are a unique situation. If you can't physically go up or down stairs, you would not be able to use either the primary OR the auxiliary exits at these stations. You would use the elevator from the street to the mezzanine, and then the second elevator behind the turnstiles down to the platform. If the auxiliary exits were exit-only (no high-barrier gate), then you would have no mezzanine, fare collection turnstiles, or staff at that exit, and so an elevator at the aux exit would have to go straight from the platform to the street, which would be a security risk and a free entrance to the station.

So, a conundrum: if all the CTA does is open the shuttered exit (like they could at Harrison), they don't have to worry about installing an elevator there. But, the ADA requires that if you're doing extensive renovations (like what they're doing at Grand right now), you HAVE to make ALL entrances/exits accessible.

Waaaay more than 5 people exit at Sedgwick at evening rush hour! More like 20-30++. And yes there is an aux exit at Hudson street under construction, that should help out some. But I do see KevinB's point this time. There needs to be more exit only places around the system, especially outside of downtown. My Berwyn station can become crazy to get out of at times, especially when there is a night Cubs game and there are quite a few trying to go IN the gates while at least 20+ people go out them. There isn't really any room to add exit only gates at Berwyn, but I do appreciate when certain station attendants open the big gate to allow quick exit during PM rush hour. But yea, a brand new station with a traffic problem is not good.

The CTA could get a lot more aggressive and open-minded with the adopt a station program. I wouldn't mind flower boxes and neighborhood school artwork up at my station. However, if memory serves me correctly when a neighborhood group tried to paint the exterior of the station once, the CTA threatened to call the police and have them ticketed/arrested for tresspassing or whatever. How nice of them.

Yeah, I too worry about security concerns, unless the exit gates are at the top and visible from the street (or heavy camera coverage) in the case of subway auxilliary exits. It's safer when above ground and there is visibility into the stairs.

How would they add an exit to Loyola on the east side of Sheridan? Build a tunnel? Building a tunnel would mean elevators, escacalators, security, closing Sheridan etc...

I think I've found the solution to my own conundrum (please bear with me, I can be tenacious :D)

Cheryl says: "at the L stop near my house, there's a wheelchair ramp on one end of the station and a non-ADA compliant exit at the other end. This is one of the new Brown Line stations, the ones that there were re-built to make them ADA compliant."

I assume that she's either talking about the new Spaulding entrance to the Kedzie station, or else the new Sacramento entrance to the Francisco station, both of which are indeed not ADA-compliant - only stairs lead up to the platform.

Here's the kicker: persons with disabilities are entitled to use reduced fare permit cards. Reduced fare cards won't work on a turnstile unless you show a special ID to the station attendant, who then (somehow or other) tells the turnstile to go ahead and accept the reduced fare card. This is to prevent people from giving reduced cards to people who aren't entitled to use them. A completely unstaffed entrance (high-barrier gate), then, cannot accept reduced fare cards at all, and so if you're working under the assumption that all disabled persons use reduced fare cards, then those entrances don't have to be ADA compliant! This, however, must count as a loophole in the law, because of the fact that disabled persons can choose to use full fare cards.

Does anyone know of any examples of any L stations that have unstaffed entrances that allow wheelchairs through or otherwise accept reduced fare cards? I'd love to be proved wrong on this one, the whole issue can get so strange.

it's been a few years since i've had to deal with compliance to the ADA of 1973 but if i remember correctly not every entrance/exit needs to be compliant as long as there is a means of egress that is compliant.

the architectural barriers act of 2005 might have changed this, i dunno, by that time i was focusing more on other areas.

nd: There is a covered up entrance on the east side of Sheridan at Loyola.
Go up to the northbound platform & walk towards the south end. You will see a rectangular piece of concrete in the middle of the platform. That's where the exit/entrance used to be. And it was a staffed entrance in the morning rush.
The original Loyola platform from 1910 had 4 stairs, two in the middle & 1 at each end. Now there is only one to exit down for each platform. To all those who think this is good design, ride in the first car of any afternoon rush train & watch all the people stand up at the doors to exit at Loyola, except they're getting up there at Thorndale, thus making it difficult for those getting off at Granville.
This is atrocious design!
It shows a total lack of understanding of how people use the system.
Another "quirk" at Loyola. There are two roto-gates leading out to Loyola Ave. One leads to a slightly ramped sidewalk, the other to a step down. Yet right next to the stepped section, is a glass wall leading to a slightly ramped sidewalk. Why doesn't the second roto-gate exit at the ramp? Only the incompetent designer knows!

As for strannix & his insistence that Davis is fine, it's not.
1. The auxiliary stairwell should have been built when the station was rebuilt.
2. Circumstances often cause me or anyone else to end up in the first car of a six car train, even though we want to get off at Davis & need to catch a bus. But the train is late & the bus runs every hour & while I gave myself 20 minutes leeway, the train is late & then there's a crowd walking down the stairs that's slow as shit & I miss the bus & the appointment.
Remember, I can't easily change cars anymore as the CTA has decided to have the cops arrest people for walking from car to car, even though I was doing this since I was 8 or 9 without a problem.
Another problem at Davis, Loyola & many other rebuilt stations are pigeons. This was caused by the use of I &H beams everywhere, which the pigeons love. So all sorts of pigeon repellent devices are all over the place. At least Howard is getting closed box girders.
3. Berwyn, Thorndale, Argyle, Bryn Mawr all had auxiliary exits on the side of the street across from the entrance. All have been closed, but you can see where they were from the steel posts on the platform. I assume they were closed due to the fear of crime, but it's time to reopen them.

I will repeat this over & over again whenever it comes up & as long as I comment on this page:
The CTA has no concept of good station design!
NONE!
They have no idea of the proper way to move people through a station in the most efficient way.
Every time a station is rebuilt, you end up walking farther to enter or exit, not a few feet, but often much longer distances.
Most stations have nothing but these two way turnstiles than can be close to impossible to go through if you're going in the opposite direction of a crowd of people.
At one time, almost every escalator in the system was equipped with controls at the top & bottom that allowed the escalator to go in either direction, when someone stepped on the switchpad. it was a mess when one person used it to go down when a busload of people then walked in & had to walk up the stairs. It took years before they finally got the concept that when there is only one escalator, it only goes UP!

UC,

I have been exiting on the auxiliary exit across from the Bryn Mawr station for 2 years now. It's been closed all this time? Why doesn't the CTA put signs up? And what do I tell all of the people that have been using that exit so they can hop on the westbound Peterson bus?

:)

===
I assume they were closed due to the fear of crime, but it's time to reopen them.
===

Why?

I know that in general, many crimes are down in many areas, but this could be because safety issues -- like these dangerous exits -- were addressed, and action taken. Now you want to undo something that apparently worked?

And let's be real here: The first time a serious crime happens in one of these places, you'll be leading the pack in complaining that they never were designed right, and the CTA never should have re-opened them.

Oh... And where is the money going to come from? Both the capital funds to re-open them, and the operating funds to maintain them? Perhaps from that big pot of money that's been earmarked to tear down some buildings at Irving Park and Sheridan?

(Well, at least additional exits would help neighborhoods, unlike buying-up buildings for pipe-dream station rebuilds.)

And if there is only one escalator, it should go in the direction that the mobility challenged passenger needs to go, and the able-bodied passengers can use the stairs. For many people, going down stairs is a bigger strain than going up stairs. The change made to the escalators has everything to do with maintenance costs, and nothing to do with accessability.

"Ed: Waaaay more than 5 people exit at Sedgwick at evening rush hour! More like 20-30++. And yes there is an aux exit at Hudson street under construction, that should help out some."

Even if 20-30 people regularly exit at Sedgwick during rush hour -- which would be the most at a time, by far (and that's being generous) -- that's really not very many people at all. The existing turnstiles/exits can *easily* handle that many people without much delay. And when would more people ever exit at that stop? Why would auxiliary exits be needed?

"KevinB: My experience was once, but at the same time it was memorable enough to use as an example.

There were about 20 people trying to get through the turnstiles to exit and about 6 people trying to get in to get to the train. One of them was a little old lady who was essentially being run over by the people coming out from the train. I'm kind of a big guy and I situated myself in front of the exit so the poor lady could get through without getting trampled. Exit only turnstiles where the big useless grate is, would have helped out alot. If they put flowers right outside the turnstiles imagine how many people would have seen them!"

So, you had the exact same experience that everyone has had at every stop ever -- when the train drops people off, there are sometimes people trying to get out of the station at the same time people are coming in. If the helpless, little old lady would have waited 10 seconds, the handful of people exiting the station would have been gone, and she could have made her way through the gates just like everybody else. Sorry, Sedgwick just isn't such a high-traffic station that every wall needs to be replaced with more exits. It's not a valid complaint!

Brown Line Rider:

You win. Ed and I are wrong. 5 dual purpose entry exit turnstiles are enough and let's let those little old ladies get run over cause they oughta know to wait. Besides we all know that if we had additional exits the terrorists might use them too...

Sorry, but it is a very valid complaint and not just at sedgwick. The station is not well designed and needs exit only turnstiles next to the station. The cost would have been minimal and the benefits many...

Feel free to disagree....lol...

KevinB

Actually, Brown Line Rider and KevinB are both right.

5 turnstiles is a lot for Sedgwick and more than enough. MUCH busier stations only have two or three (most of the Dan Ryan stations used to have only two. That was a nightmare).

But KevinB's point is valid - there should always be exit-only options in order to avoid situations where little old ladies and others get stampeded despite the fact that there are plenty of turnstiles.

If the neighborhood wants a wall of plants next to the station instead of ugly exit gates, I don't blame them. But, there are plenty of turnstiles downtown that are clearly marked exit only, I don't see why Sedgwick can't have one or two, even if only in the afternoon. To be fair, all new things have bugs to work out. People who use Sedgwick all the time should complain that these bottlenecks are happening all the time, and I'm sure the situation would eventually get addressed.

Okay. How many trains per day drop off more than 10 people at one time? How often are people trying to enter the station delayed by them all exiting at once, and how long are they delayed?

Let's say that 10 times a day you get that kind of a mob (based on the description, riotous mob would be better, but I'll de-escalate the seriousness to a simple mob). And of those 10 times, 5 times there's someone coming the oposite direction. Because of the mob, they're delayed, oh, let's say the mob is slow, so we'll make it 45 seconds instead of 30 seconds.

So 5 times 45 seconds is 3.75 minutes. Let's make it an even 4 minutes. There are about 250 work days a year, so that's 1000 people minutes.

So how much does an extra turnstyle cost? How much does it cost to make the necessary renovations to install it? How much does it cost to maintain it?

Is all that really worth saving just 1000 people minutes total per year?

If that's where we're setting the bar, all the necessary changes that need to be made are problably going to require as much capital funding as building the entire circle line would require, and the operating funds needed would require a huge fare increase, as well as some really generous people in Springfield.

All this to fix all the minor inconviniences out there.

If they applied the same kind of funding to road building, the Edens would be 48 lanes wide. 40 of those lanes would only be needed a few minutes each day, but by golly, they'd better be there so no one ever gets delayed!

But tell you what: I'd be in favor of adding an extra turnstile at Sedgewick -- even two or three extra turnstiles -- if you could raise the money yourself. Get the real, actual numbers, and show them to some people, and see if anyone is willing to spend good money on something that benefits so few in such a minor way.

The little old ladies wouldn't be blocking the exits for the taxpayers and using the Sedgwick station if they had not wasted millions on the elevators. There are special vans just for them, I have seen them with my own eyes! I wish i could have a nice comfy air conditioned minivan come pick me up for a few dollars and drop me off at work each day. The governor will probably make the vans free next year anyways, so whats the big deal?

Tell the little old ladies to stop trying to go through the turnstiles while people are trying to exit. It takes 10 seconds. There is absolutely no need for auxiliary exits at Sedgwick. It's a complaint without warrant. Not everything you want to complain about is needed or necessary..

>>>Brown Line Rider:

You win. Ed and I are wrong. 5 dual purpose entry exit turnstiles are enough and let's let those little old ladies get run over cause they oughta know to wait. Besides we all know that if we had additional exits the terrorists might use them too...

Sorry, but it is a very valid complaint and not just at sedgwick. The station is not well designed and needs exit only turnstiles next to the station. The cost would have been minimal and the benefits many...

Feel free to disagree....lol..

Wow, was I totally wrong about opening auxiliary entrances making people happy. Apparently it only makes me happy, and makes everyone else cranky.

Oh well. If it's true that they are reopening the south Harrison red line entrance, it'll save me a block and a half walking, so at least they'll have made one person's life easier.

I do find the threadjack about Sedgwick funny, though. Y'all have *flowers* at L stops up north, and you're *complaining*?? Admire those rosebuds while ye may; soon you shall be on the south or west side with nothing but rust patches on the platform supports. :-)

So, school's been out since Friday the 13th. I've been in the great north woods chopping wood, carrying water and walking everywhere. I return home today to find that people are still falling in front of trains and the Tattler faithful are still arguing transit minutiae. It's good to be home.

Martha, I'd like to say we saved you your place, but we did a pretty good job of filling it in your absence. Now that you're back, we can all slightly reduce our quota of posts so you can have your place again. ;)

Well, even if I was willing to admit that 5 turnstiles are enough, it still doesn't leave any room for expansion...you'd think if they spent all that money they might actually think that more people might ride someday and the exit only deal makes sense....in addition I can't imagine that one or two or even 3 would break the capital budget.

Its poor planning all around and I'm sticking with that.

KevinB

"KevinB: Well, even if I was willing to admit that 5 turnstiles are enough, it still doesn't leave any room for expansion...you'd think if they spent all that money they might actually think that more people might ride someday and the exit only deal makes sense....in addition I can't imagine that one or two or even 3 would break the capital budget.

Its poor planning all around and I'm sticking with that."

The Sedgwick stop could *easily* be expanded to either feature: an auxiliary exit at Hudson, or, with some minor work, auxiliary exits AT SEDGWICK ITSELF. Honestly, when will it ever be needed? I don't see much chance of the population density around the station increasing much more than it already is. It's a heavily populated neighborhood already -- it's not getting much more popular. Your compaint will never ring true!

"sabrina: PMI do find the threadjack about Sedgwick funny, though. Y'all have *flowers* at L stops up north, and you're *complaining*?? Admire those rosebuds while ye may; soon you shall be on the south or west side with nothing but rust patches on the platform supports. :-)"

It's kind of like the people that would pop in every once in a while to say, "THEY'RE BUILDING ESCALATORS ON THE BROWN LINE! WHEN WILL THE 79TH STREET ESCALATORS BE FIXED?" And, the answer is, "There are already escalators on every south-side red line stop anyway?! Why are you complaining that Brown Line stops are finally getting them?"

You have to understand the basic fact that EVERYONE wants something to complain about. Once you get past that fact, it's much easier to respond..

Re: More turnstiles vs. Flowers/Deco Wall at Sedgwick

As part of the federal funding requirement for the Brown Line rehab, every re-built station had to have public art. That's how we got the (primarily)federal money to get 8-car platforms, ADA stations, etc.

However, when put out to bid, all the contractors came in over budget, so CTA cut back costs at each and every station, and rebid with scaled back designs at each station.

So..... while turnstiles, exits, and canopies COULD be cut to reduce costs, flowery deco art at Sedgwick, Ron Santo scores at Addison, or "Street Names Art????" at Montrose COULD NOT be cut or we would not have gotten the funding.

Sedgwick Platform revisions:
• Platforms moved east approximately 40-ft
• Historic rehabilitated canopies only will be provided
• Delete third exits

Sedgewick Station house revisions:
• Installed less glass in elevator enclosures
• Removed masonry façade on Hudson Street at emergency exits
• Relocated Emergency exits to platform level
• Increased turnstiles from 2 to 4
• Electrical substation will remain

My best guess is that turnstiles were increased at the Sedgwick station house because an entire third exit was eliminated (maybe across the street?). This also implies that Hudson is to be used as an emergency exit only.

Here's where you can see the before and after design cutbacks pictures for Chicago, Sedgwick, and Armitage stations:
http://ctabrownline.com/pdfs/communitymeeting_4-18-05.pdf

Look at the bottom of this list, under Community Meeting Presentation Archive, for all the other stations' design updates:
http://ctabrownline.com/community.html

Oh, c'mon, KevinB, That's not fair.

According to Wikipedia (which IS often right I tell ya!), Sedgwick served about 900,000 passengers last year. Sedgwick has 5 turnstiles and no exit-only rotogates. By comparison, Lawrence-on-the-Red-Line served about 950,000 passengers, and it only has 2 turnstiles and no exit-only rotogates. That's living proof that not only are 5 turnstiles more than enough for Sedgwick's patronage, but it's also sufficient for a 150% increase in patronage. That counts as room for expansion.

Now, that unfortunately still leaves the problem of entrants and egressors trying to use the same turnstiles at the same time, but that's more of a nuisance than a catastrophic system design flaw. Like I said earlier, reconfigure one or two of the existing turnstiles to be exit-only (e.g. State/Lake), and the problem is eased. Crowding/pushing/shoving at the turnstiles during rush hour is endemic to public transportation everywhere, and will never go away.

[If they applied the same kind of funding to road building, the Edens would be 48 lanes wide. 40 of those lanes would only be needed a few minutes each day, but by golly, they'd better be there so no one ever gets delayed!]

This is funny and a good analogy to boot. Nice work, Rusty.

[There are two roto-gates leading out to Loyola Ave. One leads to a slightly ramped sidewalk, the other to a step down. Yet right next to the stepped section, is a glass wall leading to a slightly ramped sidewalk. Why doesn't the second roto-gate exit at the ramp? Only the incompetent designer knows!]

You do understand that Loyola was rebuilt over 25 years ago, right? Talk about water under the bridge. It's painful to think of you still bitching about Davis in 2020.

Really, it's time to stop saying what "should" have been done a decade or three ago. If you want to offer up rationales for changing it *now*, that's one thing, and we can argue about that as we have been.

But come on. What's done is done.

[I will repeat this over & over again whenever it comes up & as long as I comment on this page:
The CTA has no concept of good station design!
NONE!]

Well, at this point, here's what I would recommend to you.

Team up with KevinB, and start drawing up plans for the north side Red Line redesigns NOW. Don't wait.

Then let the CTA know that you'll give them your awesome plans for pennies on the dollar. You'll still make out OK, and smartasses like me will be forced to eat their words.

I'm semi-serious about this, by the way. At least you can put your designs up on the web to show us how much better off we'd be if they'd only listen to you.

By the way, what are your thoughts on the new Southport stop? I really like it, but I'd love to know what's wrong with it.

And what should I be angry about with the new Belmont and Fullerton designs? I know you're in a tizzy because they didn't go the cost-effective route of seizing more land from DePaul (which they would surely have been happy to give to the CTA anyway) at Fullerton, but in terms of the actual station designs, what are they screwing up? I obviously need to keep my eyes open for these things.

As a daily commuter through the Sedgewick stop, I would like to point out that they have already had to redo work on the station. Who didnt love those highly polished hardwood floors in the winter! Its yet another case of ignorant people demanding that the public areas they moved in next to be changed to suit them and not show any concern for the true function of the space.

Is Sedgewick THAT busy? No its not. BUT, the area is prone to special events and gives easy access to the North Ave beach thus making it a higher traffic area during certain times of the year. I remember clearly going to work last year on marathon weekend. You could NOT get off the trains without bowling people over. An aux exit would be very appreciated during these times of high traffic for the station.

Some things are constant, death, taxes, and Kevin B complaining about everything under the sun. He "claims" he will stop complaining if they fix his few gripes with the CTA. What, you don't think he'd find new gripes? Naw... I'm sure he'd be a happy camper.

If the CTA did not exist, would Kevin B's life be pointless or would he find something else to bitch about?

for the record - the sedgwick stop has 4 entrances/exits - and one of them is the handicapped one, so in essence - there are 3 that everybody uses.

the highlight of the sedgwick design was the hardwood flooring put in the entrance that lasted about 5 weeks until the water that people tracked in from the melting snow caused a huge bubble to form in the wood. so, for about a month as they replaced it, the sedgwick stop was down to 2 turnstiles to handle all of the people entering and exiting.

Gee strannix, that Loyola was rebuilt a couple of decades ago proves that the CTA has no concept of good station design, then or now. Why would you put one exit at a step, when a ramp was available?
Howard bus design is insane, I'm going up there & I'm going to measure the distance between bus stops with my rolling ruler. It goes up to 999.99 feet, I hope that's enough. That's hyperbole, if you don't understand it.

And to whoever said last week it was only 200 feet between buses at the Howard terminal, I measured it.
From the 22 bus stop sign at the north end to the 206 bus stop sign at the south end it's not 200, not 300, not 400, not 500, but 570 feet.

That shows a total disregard for the ability of many passengers to travel that far to change buses & will cause many to just miss a connection.