Goodbye Englewood, Hello CP 515 (Englewood Flyover)

justalurker66 wrote:

JLJ061 wrote:I wonder if that would involve utilizing the old NKP overpass south of Grand Crossing, if it's still usable?

That is part of the plan - although I expect the bridge will be replaced.

Wouldn't want to use a perfectly usable bridge when politicians have an opportunity to funnel money to their buddies.

Is it usable? I don't know but most likely is. if it were in danger of collapsing, it wouldn't still be sitting across the MED and CN tracks. And there really hasn't been anything to stress it since the N&W dropped the last of the old NKP passenger trains.

So you're assuming that something that hasn't been used in more than 40 years is still in good shape? It may or may not be useable. Seems like some testing would be in order before saying, "Yeah, no sense in building a new one. It was good enough for the NKP."

75th St. CIP EIS's - the Record of Decision (ROD) shows the Locally Preferred Alternative:

• A second Metra track near Landers Yard
• A north-south CSX flyover at Forest Hill Jct. with a grade separation at 71th St.
• A track connection between the 75th St. tracks and the Rock Island line.
• A new bridge over 88th St. parallel to the existing bridge there.

The next page states that construction could start in 2017 and be finished in 2021.

Englewood Flyover Dedication Ceremony - YouTube -- pans around the gathered politicians and officials to show the flyover bridge.

CHTT1 wrote:So you're assuming that something that hasn't been used in more than 40 years is still in good shape? It may or may not be useable. Seems like some testing would be in order before saying, "Yeah, no sense in building a new one. It was good enough for the NKP."

Thank you. My reply wasn't going to be as civil.

A few years ago I knew someone who was working for Amtrak as a civil engineering intern for the summer, and got some internal exposure to the Grand Crossing project. He said that the diagonal viaduct over the CN/Metra was usable but that the smaller bridges to the northwest (paralleling South Chicago Ave) would need to be replaced in order to raise bridge clearances on the streets they cross. However, the latest .pdf on the "Preferred Alternative" (find it here: http://www.grandcrossingrail.com/project_resources.html indicates that the diagonal bridge will be replaced. I imagine if money is going to be spent on it, they want the longest lifespan possible for the structure.

byte wrote:A few years ago I knew someone who was working for Amtrak as a civil engineering intern for the summer, and got some internal exposure to the Grand Crossing project. He said that the diagonal viaduct over the CN/Metra was usable but that the smaller bridges to the northwest (paralleling South Chicago Ave) would need to be replaced in order to raise bridge clearances on the streets they cross. However, the latest .pdf on the "Preferred Alternative" (find it here: http://www.grandcrossingrail.com/project_resources.html indicates that the diagonal bridge will be replaced. I imagine if money is going to be spent on it, they want the longest lifespan possible for the structure.

More like they want to create as much graft opportunity as possible. One of my friends who works in transit capitol planning said the goal of his job was to spend as much Federal $ as possible. Whether it was actually needed or not was unimportant.

Jersey_Mike wrote:

byte wrote:A few years ago I knew someone who was working for Amtrak as a civil engineering intern for the summer, and got some internal exposure to the Grand Crossing project. He said that the diagonal viaduct over the CN/Metra was usable but that the smaller bridges to the northwest (paralleling South Chicago Ave) would need to be replaced in order to raise bridge clearances on the streets they cross. However, the latest .pdf on the "Preferred Alternative" (find it here: http://www.grandcrossingrail.com/project_resources.html indicates that the diagonal bridge will be replaced. I imagine if money is going to be spent on it, they want the longest lifespan possible for the structure.

More like they want to create as much graft opportunity as possible. One of my friends who works in transit capitol planning said the goal of his job was to spend as much Federal $ as possible. Whether it was actually needed or not was unimportant.

Name the company. Do the country a favor. Oh, wait. Was it actually a friend of a friend.

Guys this isn't a surprise. You ask for as much money as the feds will give you (probably ask for a lot more) and then you make sure you spend it all that year, or they take it back and reduce your budget next year by that amount. It's SOP for any gov't funded organization.

Tadman wrote:Guys this isn't a surprise. You ask for as much money as the feds will give you (probably ask for a lot more) and then you make sure you spend it all that year, or they take it back and reduce your budget next year by that amount. It's SOP for any gov't funded organization.

I work for one for whom it isn't. We over-budget each year due to the possibility of major fluctuations in need, and in fact return hundreds of thousands of dollars to the county each year. And I'm in your metro area, so I find it really offensive that you would say that. It's ignorance masquerading as wisdom. There are elected officials that allow such practices, and others that don't. One of your duties as a voter is to distinguish between them. Not to just assume everyone does and idly sit back and whine.

You're as much a part of the problem as anyone for saying crap like this.

As I said, if someone knows something, they should name names. Otherwise, it's so much BS.

Can we get back to Englewood (CP 515) and away from Chicago style politics?