transport – The Yard Social Club

*2024 rendering of the proposed ONE Central megaproject*

As of late, Chicago seems to be caught up in something of a megaproject fever:

The latest iteration of Lincoln Yards, Foundry Park, was approved by the Chicago Plan Commission back in January
The Chicago Fire FC is finally kickstarting development of The 78, breaking ground this week on a new soccer stadium
The Quantum Park at the old South Works site continues to progress, with a new coalition of supporters emerging this week
The 1901 Project, surrounding the United Center, is planning on breaking ground later this year
The Chicago Park District is pitching $630 million in improvements for a post-Bears Soldier Field

While the Bears continue to suck most of the political oxygen out of the room with their current will-they-or-won’t-they soap opera between Arlington Heights and Indiana, thankfully the city still has a few major irons in the fire regardless of wherever the McCaskeys end up deciding to ~~exploit~~ build.

All eyes might be on Soldier Field, but just across DuSable Lake Shore Drive lies another potential megaproject site: ONE Central. A true megaproject, ONE Central was first pitched back in 2019 to add a bunch of skyscrapers over the Metra Electric tracks between McCormick Place and the Field Museum. With a site spitting distance from the Lake and adjacent to the burgeoning South Loop neighborhood, a megaproject to add thousands of commercial, office, and residential tenants on railroad air rights seems to make a lot of sense… unless the pedestal to build it on ends up costing $6.5 billion.

Of course, any rational developer would try their hardest to get the state to pay for that instead of having it come out against their bottom line, and the best way for a developer to make a case for state support to build that sandbox for them to play in is to play up the public benefits of the project. In this case, ONE Central’s pedestal wasn’t simply the base for supertall skyscrapers, but rather it would actually be a world-class transit center for CTA, Metra, NICTD, Amtrak, and anyone else the developer could think of. As a result, the General Assembly passed the Public-Private Partnership for Civic and Transit Infrastructure Act, authorizing the State of Illinois to contribute nearly $6.5 billion for the project.

Unfortunately for the project, transit and transportation advocates were extremely skeptical of ONE Central’s transit-oriented claims, and many of the initial transit projects themselves were dubious: the project would include an ‘L’ branch from somewhere in the vicinity of 17th Junction (where Midway-bound Orange Line trains currently split off from the Green Line), but with no clear indication of how the service would actually operate: is it a new line? Are we adding a branch to the Orange Line or Green Line or Red Line or something totally different? Would these trains go to the Loop or to Midway? Is anything actually constructable over — or under — Canadian National’s freight tracks? Would additional properties beyond the project envelope be needed to tie into the existing network?

On the commuter rail side, the project called for reverse-branching Metra’s busiest line (BNSF), meaning half of Metra’s busiest trains would now miss downtown entirely, cutting across the St. Charles Air Line and terminating at ONE Central rather than Union Station. This would almost certainly be a non-starter for Metra (to say nothing of the significant additional amounts of operating funding, logistics, and additional infrastructure needed to turn and/or lay over rush hour trains somewhere near McCormick Place, also not included within ONE Central’s footprint), and for the suburban communities along the BNSF.

Many readers may also remember that in 2020, there was a global pandemic that dramatically upended day-to-day lifestyles and work patterns in urban cores around the world. Additionally, with the Bears announcing their intent to vacate Soldier Field, the fundamentals of the ONE Central project became even shakier. As part of the state’s due diligence, Illinois commissioned a feasibility study on the project, which was completed in 2025. The results of the study convinced Gov. JB Pritzker to pull the plug on public support for the project entirely. Today, the OneCentralChicago.com website is still live but only consists of a static “coming soon” page that appears to have not been updated since 2023.

Alas, today ONE Central remains a megaproject in search of a megaproject.

A Brief Post-Mortem

Let’s dive back into the latest transit proposal for ONE Central. Prior to the feasibility study’s initialization, ONE Central modified their proposal to drastically lower the public-facing cost to an estimated $2.75 billion, or a 58% decrease from the previous $6.5B price tag. The modified proposal relies on far less decking over the Metra tracks, with more of the key vertical infrastructure on terra firma rather than a bridge deck by shoving the Metra tracks and the McCormick Busway¹ as far west as possible within the site envelope.

*“Civic Build” ONE Central proposal as published in the 2025 Feasibility Study (that is publicly available online).*

In addition to reducing the amount of decking required, the latest ONE Central proposal also gives up any direct CTA ‘L’ connection, now relying on a “CHI-Line Rail Shuttle”, a train that would connect ONE Central to the Red Line (a new transfer station in the southern portion of The 78 is proposed, but not included in the cost) and to Union Station.

“CHI-Line Shuttle” concept, with trains connecting ONE Central to the Michael Reese Hospital site, The 78 (with a Red Line connection at a future infill station), and Union Station. (Source: Feasibility Study)

Huh, that map looks vaguely familiar…

The feasibility study notes some potential impacts that could negatively impact the potential success of the CHI-Line Shuttle: namely, the concept relies upon Amtrak’s completion of CHIP, being able to use the St. Charles Air Line bridge, and negating potential conflicts with Metra at the Rock Island crossing as well as freight traffic on the Canadian National line.

Not mentioned in the feasibility study but also a concern: whether a Red Line station at The 78 is financially (and physically) feasible. Where the CHI-Line Shuttle would cross the Red Line, the Red Line is on a downward curving slope between the subway portal near 16th Street and the Roosevelt subway station. Notably, some local neighborhood groups have shifted towards advocating for an infill Orange Line elevated station rather than a Red Line subway station.

Can’t help but wonder if there’s an alternative to the CHI-Line Shuttle that could avoid those potential pitfalls…

Zooming Out

Let’s quickly take a look at some of the other megaprojects discussed in this post:

Foundry Park

Waguespack acknowledged that significant transportation challenges remain for the “vastly different” plan for Foundry Park.

But he said those problems will require a “more holistic approach,” adding that he’s confident residents will “see results as the project moves forward.”

*Google Maps aerial, near the Clybourn Metra station*

The 78

While Mansueto’s private investment will fund the stadium’s construction, public tax increment financing, or TIF, funds are expected to drive the creation of surrounding infrastructure. As it stands, the stadium site is largely empty, with few bus and train stops, roads and sidewalks.

*Google Maps aerial, near the Roosevelt CTA ‘L’ station*

Quantum Park

Given the high level of state support for Quantum, working with Metra and the CTA to upgrade the branch should be in [Quantum]’s developing plans and budget.

*Google Maps aerial, near the 87th Street Metra station*

The 1901 Project

Wirtz and Reinsdorf also said they are committed to covering the entire $7 billion price tag with private funds.

Where the planners are turning to the city for help, however, is when it comes to providing additional public transportation options.

*Google Maps aerial, near Ashland Avenue*

Soldier Field

Sources say the money breaks down to […] half a billion in surrounding infrastructure to tackle traffic management and parking.

*Google Maps aerial, near the 18th Street Metra station*

Arlington Park

“We are helping businesses build infrastructure, for example, which (the Bears) would need, along with other things available to any business that is growing in the State of Illinois,” Pritzker said.

Strategically investing in infrastructure to support and leverage private investment is a smart move for the public sector, especially if those infrastructure investments are proactively coordinated, seamlessly integrated with the regional network, and will provide all-day, seven-days-a-week, year-round benefits to Chicagoland residents, workers, shoppers, and visitors.

ONE Central’s transportation proposals didn’t pencil out at least partially because they largely failed to account for regional benefits. But, if the CHI-Line Shuttle instead looked something like this…

…and if these trains connected not only ONE Central and Union Station but also:

Foundry Park (Clybourn)
and The 78 (Roosevelt)
and the Quantum Park (87th/Baltimore)
and The 1901 Project (Ashland-Ogden)
and Soldier Field (18th)
and Arlington Park (Arlington Park)
(and Northwestern University)
(and O’Hare)
(and the University of Chicago)
(and Sox Park)
(and… well, you get the idea.)

Regional rail is the megaproject’s megaproject: with a handful of strategic projects to connect the infrastructure we already have, we can stretch our public investments far beyond what was previously possible to better leverage private-sector capital throughout all of northeastern Illinois.

Strategic, transformative, ambitious-yet-attainable transit investments to unlock Chicagoland.

It’s time for CrossTowner regional rail. It’s time to #BuildTheTunnel.

More CrossTowner Regional Rail Resources

What is regional rail?
Why is regional rail right for Chicagoland?
How can we implement it?

The revised transit proposal includes the previous “CHI-Line Circulator” bus corridor concept utilizing the McCormick Busway to connect ONE Central to Lakeshore East. In the interest of brevity, this post does not detail the Circulator, but additional detail can be found on pages 14-16 of the feasibility study. ↩︎

While NITA’s forthcoming mandate includes regional rail — a prospect that can truly connect our region like never before — it’s also important to honor the humble workhorse of our public transportation network: the bus. Buses are the real backbone of our transit network — CTA’s 2025 ridership ended up being roughly a 3:2 ratio between bus trips and rail trips, and improving our bus network will be one of the most important tasks NITA will need to address very early on in the agency’s tenure, so it’s never too early to start thinking about what a better bus network should look like.

However, there’s no silver bullet to better buses, as “better buses” will mean different things in different parts of the region:

In the densest parts of Chicago, “better buses” need to focus on improved reliability with a focus on faster speeds and more frequent service. To do this, NITA will have to work more closely with CDOT, IDOT, Cook County, and other agencies to get buses out of traffic with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) elements and to keep buses moving at frequent, balanced headways with other creative measures, above and beyond the other staffing and maintenance issues we know the CTA needs to continue focusing on. (The CTA currently has a survey out seeking public input on specific implementation strategies included in their Better Streets for Buses plan.)
Further out in the outer neighborhoods and much of suburban Cook County, “better buses” need to focus on breaking down the silos between the CTA and Pace networks, creating a seamless, agency- and geography-agnostic integrated network of buses. Other than for quirks of history and politics, there’s no inherent reason why the bus network of Austin and Little Village should be fundamentally different than Berwyn and Cicero, and NITA’s role here will be steering processes required to, ideally, spearhead a reimagining of the “middle tier” of the bus network in an operator-agnostic manner. While well-known transit consultant Jarrett Walker has recently completed network redesign concepts for the CTA and for Pace, these studies were inherently flawed (at no fault of the consultant) since they largely looked at each agency’s system in a vacuum rather than taking a regional approach to how our network is fundamentally structured. With new boards being seated later this year, and with a clear mandate to think regionally with the oft-quoted “one network, one timetable, one ticket” mantra that shows up in the NITA legislation three times, we should once again reimagine our bus network but more holistically: on the urban fringe, routes should first be planned at the regional level and then the agencies are assigned to operate the respective routes based on the most efficient and effective ways to operate the service.
Finally, out in the collar counties, “better buses” should focus on creating any sort of cohesive network at all. Besides the small legacy urban systems Pace inherited in Waukegan, Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, etc., there is little rhyme or reason to how many of our regional buses are structured beyond Cook County. Routes generally have little regard for regional connectivity, and Metra stations are treated as just another amenity to be served — like a doctor’s office or a grocery store — rather than a crucial transfer node in a regional network. In some cases, Pace service actively competes against parallel Metra service (e.g., Interstate 55 service vs. the Heritage Corridor) when these mainline operations should be complementary, allowing for rail riders to more seamlessly be able to use the bus when trains are not able to operate and vice versa. The collar county bus network needs a clear hierarchy of routes that can support intra-regional connections as well as core local bus services: above and beyond simply connecting suburban residents with local amenities like health care, educational opportunities, recreation, and job access, collar county buses need to also create a true network throughout Chicagoland. At a regional level, suburban buses need to proactively function as an extension and expansion of the Metra rail network to provide usable suburb-to-suburb trips without riders needing to come all the way into the urban core to change trains, just to go all the way back out again on a different line.

Given the pockets of resistance from suburban politicians during the crafting and passing of SB 2111, NITA will have to take the collar county bus network task very seriously, and will have to devote a fair amount of resources to ensure reforms do end up providing an improved experience for suburban riders, especially for collar-county suburb-to-suburb trips that are near impossible to make on transit today.

There are plenty of additional concerns that also need to be addressed with the bus network, and this is by no means an exhaustive list:

How does our bus network maintain mobility and accessibility for all Chicagolanders, including riders who also rely on paratransit services?
How does Pace’s Pulse network scale, both in the suburbs as well as within the city proper?
Should the “Pulse” branding be expanded to include existing express/limited-stop CTA service?
What is the appropriate role of on-demand and/or subsidized TNC service, if any?

It should be clear that there will not be any one-size-fits-all solution to “better buses” region-wide, but nevertheless the bus network should be the bread-and-butter of our transit network from McHenry and Midlothian to Michigan Avenue. NITA will need a robust toolbox of techniques to refer to and implement to successfully improve the bus network in every corner of Chicagoland.

Unfortunately, it’s also very easy to see how a blanket “better buses” mandate can end up splitting back down the city-vs.-suburban silos that NITA is ostensibly being created to tear down. As we enter this crucial transition period, as a region we need to make sure NITA, and the constituent service boards, are structured and populated by members who are committed to better buses throughout the region, but also with the full acknowledgment that what works in one part of the region won’t necessarily work elsewhere.

NITA’s mandate for better buses should be: one frequent and reliable network, one coordinated interagency timetable, one unified regional ticket.

Tag: transport

Diverging Approach: Revisiting ONE Central