What Chicago’s Clybourn station study could teach London about transit accessibility and station relocation

When the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) launched a feasibility study for Metra’s Clybourn station in Chicago, the questions it posed were strikingly familiar to anyone who follows London’s rail network: should a century-old station be rebuilt where it stands, or moved a few hundred metres to improve accessibility, platform capacity, and connections to cycling and buses? The study, which held its first public open house on 24 July 2026, is still at an early stage, but the issues it raises – and the constraints it has identified – offer a useful case study for London’s own station upgrade debates, from Gospel Oak to Camden Road and beyond.

Built in 1900, Clybourn serves Metra’s Union Pacific North and Union Pacific Northwest lines and is one of the busiest commuter rail stops outside Chicago’s downtown. Yet it has received minimal investment in recent decades. The result is a station that fails basic accessibility standards, has platforms too short for modern trains, and offers poor connections for pedestrians, cyclists, and bus users. The study is examining two broad options: improving the existing station, or building a new station nearby that could serve as a properly integrated multimodal hub.

The parallels with London are not exact – Metra operates on a very different governance and funding model than TfL, and US rail stations often lack the kind of coordinated planning that London’s stations benefit from. But the core trade-offs – cost, disruption, community preferences, and the potential to unlock new housing and employment – are universal.

A station constrained by its own history

The existing Clybourn station is hemmed in by the Kennedy Expressway, surrounding streets, adjacent buildings, and the track layout. According to display boards shown at the open house, these constraints make it extremely difficult to extend the platforms, add lifts, or improve the station’s forecourt. The current station relies entirely on stairs, meaning there is no accessible route to every platform. This is a violation of the US Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is similar in intent to the UK’s Equality Act 2010 and the Department for Transport’s accessibility standards for stations.

London has its own share of stations that remain inaccessible or have only partial step-free access. According to TfL’s 2025 data, about 30% of London Underground stations still lack step-free access from street to platform. While the Overground and Elizabeth line have improved matters, many older stations – particularly those on the National Rail network that TfL does not control – remain challenging. The Clybourn study’s explicit focus on making the station accessible for everyone, including people with disabilities, is a reminder that London’s own station improvement programmes must continue to prioritise those who are currently excluded from the network.

Platform length and train capacity

Another major constraint at Clybourn is platform length. The existing platforms cannot accommodate all doors on modern Metra trains, forcing conductors to selectively open doors and requiring passengers to be in the correct carriage. This increases dwell times and reduces operational efficiency. Extending the platforms at the current site is blocked by adjacent tracks, structures, and limited right-of-way.

London faces similar platform-length issues, particularly on the Overground and some National Rail suburban services. At stations like Brondesbury Park or South Acton, platforms are too short for longer trains, preventing the operator from running more capacity. The Clybourn study is weighing whether a relocation could allow a purpose-built station with longer platforms, which would be far cheaper and less disruptive than trying to squeeze an extension into the existing site.

Multimodal connections and the role of cycling

Clybourn sits a short distance from the eastern terminus of the Bloomingdale Trail, a 2.7-mile elevated rail-trail known as the 606. The station is also near several on-street bike routes and Divvy bike-share stations. Yet the current station has only 14 bicycle parking spaces, which are frequently full during peak periods. The public open house identified a need for more secure bike parking, better wayfinding, and safer routes linking the station to the surrounding network.

In London, the connection between rail stations and cycling is a well-established policy goal. TfL’s Cycling and Walking Investment Plan calls for cycle parking capacity to be expanded at all major stations, and many Overground and Elizabeth line stations now have dedicated cycle hubs. But not all stations are well-served. The Clybourn study’s approach – mapping current gaps, collecting user feedback, and then designing a station that integrates cycling from the start – is a template that some London boroughs could adopt for smaller stations that are currently bike-unfriendly.

Development pressure and future-proofing

The Clybourn study is also mindful of future development. The station sits near the Lincoln Yards and Foundry Park districts, where major redevelopment plans could bring thousands of additional residents and workers. Scott Speegle, the IDOT representative leading the study, told the open house that the study is “focused first on improving the station for the current neighbourhood, but we are mindful of the development” and the possibility of more housing and residents.

This is a classic tension in London planning: transport infrastructure is often under-provided in areas that are then targeted for high-density housing. The Clybourn study’s willingness to consider relocation as a way to better serve future growth is a lesson for London boroughs and TfL. Too often, station upgrades are reactive and incremental, squeezed into existing sites at great cost. A more proactive approach – identifying sites where a station could be relocated to serve a growing area – could unlock significant value.

What remains unclear

The Clybourn study is still in its early stages. No design options have been proposed, and the open house was purely a fact-finding exercise. The timeline for a decision is not yet public, and funding for any eventual construction is far from guaranteed. In London, the equivalent process – a feasibility study followed by a business case, consultation, and then funding approval – often takes years, if not decades. The Clybourn study may prove to be a useful test case for how US and UK rail agencies handle similar trade-offs, but it is too early to draw firm conclusions.

Key facts at a glance

What this means for London readers

The Clybourn study does not directly affect London, but it offers a useful comparative lens. London’s station upgrade programmes – such as the Access for All scheme, the Overground station improvements, and the Elizabeth line’s step-free stations – have already tackled many of the same issues. However, the sheer number of stations still needing work, and the complexity of retrofitting historic sites, means that London can learn from how other cities approach the trade-off between renovation and relocation.

For London planners and transport campaigners, the key takeaway is that a station’s location is not sacred. The cost and disruption of a major retrofit can sometimes be greater than starting from scratch a few hundred metres away. The Clybourn study is worth watching as a real-world test of that calculus.

Source: https://chi.streetsblog.org/2026/07/24/station-to-station-could-metras-clybourn-stop-move-idot-begins-study-of-long-awaited-upgrades