[Chicago3rd]

Since I was the idjiot who started vicious unsubstantiated rumors about the Wellington L stop not being built I feel I should come clean and say it appears to be being worked on. They already have support beams going into place.

[ChicagoChicago]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/1400623,CST-NWS-transit28.article

In the stimulus bill, they have allocated $1.545B for Illinois transportation. That's $1B for roads, and $545mm for mass transit. Out of $90B, Illinois gets 1.7% of the total allocation...for a state that comprises 4.3% of the country's population. We need some representation.

[VivaLFuego]

I thought our $1.545B in transportation money is out of a total of approximately $30B, which is a more respectable 5% of the total. The $90B figure included some other non-transportation infrastructure spending, like upgrades to the power grid.

...I think.

[ChicagoChicago]

I thought our $1.545B in transportation money is out of a total of approximately $30B, which is a more respectable 5% of the total. The $90B figure included some other non-transportation infrastructure spending, like upgrades to the power grid.

...I think.Well, I have looked around, and every media outlet is posting a different number. Some say that the $90B includes funding of rthe electrical grid and federal buildings.

This website says the number is $43B. I suppose it’s always a bad sign when they can’t even decide how big the money tree is…

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-liloca286014616jan28,0,2061659.story

And this website has infrastructure spending at $334B.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/165009/Obama's-900B-Stimulus-'Post-Partisan'-It's-Not-But-Congress-Set-to-Approve?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,TLT,QQQQ,SPY,DIA

[the urban politician]

^ I heard $43 billion, which is directly for transportation

[ChicagoChicago]

^^^
Ok, the number pushed through the House was $1.8B. The breakdown is as follows:

The stimulus package earmarks, in Illinois:
• $1 billion for highways and bridges;
• $262.5 million for the clean water state revolving fund;
• $352.8 million for transit capital;
• $191.8 million for light rail or other fixed route mass transit.

From - http://www.bnd.com/372/story/634547.html

To me, that is woefully inadequate on the mass transit side. I hate to berate Daley, but he’s done the city a huge disservice taking Huberman out of the top spot right as the CTA stands to gain a boatload from infrastructure spending.

[ardecila]

Since I was the idjiot who started vicious unsubstantiated rumors about the Wellington L stop not being built I feel I should come clean and say it appears to be being worked on. They already have support beams going into place.

I emailed CTA about this a few weeks ago. Here's what I heard:

The Paulina station is scheduled to open in April of this year, while the Wellington station is scheduled to open in August. Please keep in mind that these schedules are subject to change and that even though the stations may be open, construction could continue at these sites.

[Nowhereman1280]

• $352.8 million for transit capital;
• $191.8 million for light rail or other fixed route mass transit.

From - http://www.bnd.com/372/story/634547.html

To me, that is woefully inadequate on the mass transit side. I hate to berate Daley, but he’s done the city a huge disservice taking Huberman out of the top spot right as the CTA stands to gain a boatload from infrastructure spending.

I don't know, its pretty good considering the massive hard-on the federal government has for subsidizing the automobile.

We could build quite a bit of transit with that money. Also take into account we may still be getting another 100 million for the BRT as well.

[Attrill]

I don't know, its pretty good considering the massive hard-on the federal government has for subsidizing the automobile.

We could build quite a bit of transit with that money. Also take into account we may still be getting another 100 million for the BRT as well.

I agree. Don't forget that this is NOT the federal transportation budget, it is the stimulus package. There will be separate bills to give additional money for long term transit projects. A lot of these projects are geared towards the type of employment they will create as well. There is a huge chunk for rebuilding schools, which makes a lot of sense since

a) it needs to be done
b) There are a lot of residential construction workers who can jump right into a school rebuilding job without much (if any) additional training.

[MayorOfChicago]

I don't know, its pretty good considering the massive hard-on the federal government has for subsidizing the automobile.

We could build quite a bit of transit with that money. Also take into account we may still be getting another 100 million for the BRT as well..

That total amount is basically what it cost to rehab the Brown Line.

I'm glad they re-did the Brown Line, but this package is being talked about like it's the next New Deal. For the entire state of Illinois...Metra, CTA, Pace, all those other cities, Metro East.....the equivient of funding for a Brown Line reconstruction really isn't too special.

That money would vaporize in a heartbeat concidering all the issues that desperately need money, let alone expanding any systems.

It's like winning the jackpot in the lottery and getting $200. Sure it's great to get it....but not really what you invisioned "winning the lottery".

[the urban politician]

^ I think the point people are making is that this is essentially extra money, which is on top of the money Chicago will already get from a separate Federal Transportation Bill. I imagine this kind of money could be used to buy badly needed buses, rail cars, perhaps upgrade some basic infrastructure (signals, etc)?

Plus, with Bagofshit finally out of office, perhaps there's hope that Quinn will work with the State legislature to pass a badly needed infrastructure bill. Fingers crossed, there is yet hope that Chicago area transit will finally get at least a chunk of what it needs towards becoming a better system.

[emathias]

Acting CTA President designated (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/default.aspx?Month=&Year=&Category=4&ArticleId=2283)

Dorval Carter. Anyone know anything about him? The press release about his initial hiring in 2000 (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/default.aspx?Archive=y&pg=6&All=y&ArticleId=1774) is still on the CTA's website. Reading that, I'm not especially hopeful about him, to be honest.

It's good he has federal experience, but it's kinda old unless he's done more with it lately. That he was hired by Kruesi almost 9 years ago doesn't bode well for infrastructure and service maintenance. If he's just interim, I guess that's fine, but I kinda hope the CTA goes outside the City to get a new permanent chief.

[the urban politician]

It's interesting that our new Secy of Transportation and, now, the head of Amtrak are from Illinois. Bode well?

Downstate mayor to be new Amtrak chairman (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32830)
By: Paul Merrion Jan. 30, 2009
(Crain’s) — Amtrak’s new conductor is from Illinois: Thomas C. Carper, former mayor of downstate Macomb, was unanimously named chairman by Amtrak’s board of directors yesterday.
Mr. Carper, a long-time supporter of passenger rail, has served on Amtrak’s board since last March. He was nominated to be a director by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Il., a leading advocate of Amtrak in Congress.

[lawfin]

^^^^I am curious since we are on the topic of money / expenditures......
just for shits and grins does anybody have any informed estimates of how much it would cost to say run line down ashland or western or both...?

Preferably subway.....I mean I think it would be great to allow transport among all the spoke lines instead of having to schlep downtown or at least to Belmont all the time

Subsidize it with doubling allowable density with say 2 blocks of a rail stop

Thoughts

[Attrill]

just for shits and grins does anybody have any informed estimates of how much it would cost to say run line down ashland or western or both...?


Studies of this were done as part of the Circle Line planning. You can find comparisons of bus, light rail, and heavy rail along both Western and Ashland here (http://www.transitchicago.com/news_initiatives/planning/circle.aspx).

I think Western heavy rail subway makes the most sense, but the study determined it was not cost effective.

[Busy Bee]

I hate those mandated bullshit comparison studies. Anybody with a brain knows that heavy rail is this obvious solution. All these federal mandated studies do is spend double digit millions telling us something we already know.

On a side note, can anyone tell me if quasi-federal socialist countries, i.e. France, Germany and to some extent UK are required to do these silly things or does it go from expert and political consensus to digging dirt?

[ardecila]

You act as if cities don't try to get more than what they need. The process is intended to prevent cities from building expensive transit systems when they don't have the density or the public consensus to build them.

For example, Miami's expensive heavy-rail line has 67,000 riders per day over 22.4 miles of track, or 3000 riders per mile. In contrast, Chicago's L has 620,000 riders over 106 miles of track for 6000 riders per mile.

On average, every mile of track built in Chicago serves TWICE as many people as a mile of track in Miami.

Let's look at Portland, which chose to build a cheaper light-rail system. They also have 3000 riders per mile per day, but because their transit system is cheaper to build and operate, the residents of Portland have gotten the same benefit as the residents of Miami for far less money.

Now look at New York City. They have a whopping 22,000 riders per mile per day, yet their system, with its extensive areas of 3 and 4-tracked lines, is to the L what the L is to Portland MAX Light Rail, an entire grade above.


Finally, let's take a critical perspective on this. Along the Western Corridor, from Berwyn to 79th, there is the 49 and the X49, which together have 31480 riders per day over 15.6 miles, or 2000 riders per mile per day. This isn't even high enough to justify a Portland-like light rail system, but even that would make more sense than a super-expensive subway line. Now, the ridership may be more concentrated within the Circle Line study area, but right now, it seems like the buses are doing a good job handling the traffic. The Circle Line alignment as it is currently chosen along Ashland allows costs to be reduced by using part of the Pink Line and by building elevated tracks through Pilsen instead of subway. Plus it avoids duplicating the bus service on Western.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ What you seem to be forgetting is that buses are the less preferable choice for most commuters. What really drives people to take the train is traffic, which grade separated trains are immune to. Western is absolute hell during rush hours, bumper to bumper gridlock. Who is going to take a bus when you can practically out walk it? Also, a Western or Ashland Subway (would probably have to be subway because of the scores of NIMBY's that would protest a noisy El in their neighborhood) or El would be way faster than busses without traffic and completely blow them away with traffic. Not to mention the fact that an Ashland would provide a connection to all the lines, driving up ridership on all other lines as well by making the El an even more convenient way to get around Chicago.

I really like the idea of running something down Ashland because you could run it along the Metra Row and have it meet up with the Red Line at Howard while retaining an optimal ~1 mile distance between the lines most of the way. It would also be able to run along the Pink Line tracks by United Center and could terminate at the Orange line Ashland Station.

I have a feeling that a subway down Ashland or Western from the Brown Line to the Orange Line would cost at least $5 billion, much more if the line went further north. The #7 subway extension in New York is costing about $2 billion for about two miles of tunnel. I imagine a 5 mile stretch with no major corners in Chicago would cost a little under 5 billion assuming there is nothing in our soil that makes it more expensive. Now I would be much happier with a $5 billion stimulus to build a new subway from the Federal government!

[honte]

^ @ Ardecila: To me, admittedly a total novice, the problem with this kind of analysis is that it cannot factor in true ridership increases or the potential upside to better improvements. In a city with extensive existing public transit ridership and poor interconnectivity, something like the Circle Line could draw far more ridership than current systems serve. Similarly, I do not trust the projected ridership studies very much.

[Busy Bee]

Just to clarify, I was stating that heavy rail was the obvious solution for a Western or Ashland alignment in Chicago, Illinois and was not referring to a preference of heavy rail for any and all other random cities.

[the urban politician]

^ Not building transit because it's not justified NOW is not a reason not to build it. To the contrary, our country builds expensive highways to nowhere without a second thought.

Many of New York's rail/subway extensions were to undeveloped areas which subsequently exploded with growth as a result of rail access to employment centers in Manhattan (ie the Bronx).

Point is, with proper planning and without blockades to development (Aldermanic stupidity, manufacturing districts as in the case w the Orange Line), a new rail line project should not be shelved just because current population densities do not necessarily support it.

[Abner]

I do not trust the projected ridership studies very much.

I always seem to be seeing news stories from various cities about new rail service vastly exceeding ridership projections. Does anyone know if this a general trend, or do projections get it more or less right most of the time, and I only see the stories because higher ridership is the exception?

On the specific case of a Western subway or Circle Line, it seems especially complicated to figure out how many riders the service will attract because they would be used so heavily for transferring between lines--they would create a lot of possible rail routes. The increased ridership on all the connecting lines would have to be taken into account in addition to the ridership on the new line.

TUP, some of Chicago's rail lines were built speculatively as well. The most speculative line of all: http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/lines/westchester.html

[Attrill]

It's important to remember that all of these studies were done a few years ago, in a very different funding environment but after we realized that over $5 billion was needed by the CTA for maintenance alone. Being conservative on what they could expect for federal funding was a pretty reasonable approach at that time.

In terms of best service remember that this is all part of the Circle line, the main purpose of which is to connect Metra, the Red Line, Blue Line, and Orange Line to create an outer Loop - not run a single line all the way up to Howard. I have to commute from Logan Square to Andersonville every day and would benefit greatly from a line running that far North, but from my experiences riding both the Ashland and Western buses if I miss the train (Metra from Clybourn to Ravenswood) the ridership on both lines isn't huge at rush hour, and seems to mostly consist of short trips. And anyways, this does not look at any service running north of Armitage.

I think part of why the Ashland corridor is preferred is that it is giving service to an area that is already an established commercial and residential area. Running it on Western (which I prefer) presumes that development will follow the line, as opposed to the lines following development. I can see the merit of both sides of that argument.

[Mr Downtown]

I've never understood the point of an Ashland alignment to tie together the radial routes; it's only about eight minutes out from the center. Unless you have (unrealistic) five minute headways, I think a simple spreadsheet calculation will show that a single downtown transfer from one radial route to another will on average be faster than two transfers so you can ride the Ashland subway. In fact, I thought CTA had done a study showing exactly that.

A Cicero corridor alignment starts to make more sense in terms of tying the lines together, but is probably best done with BRT along the Belt Railway.

At any rate, I wouldn't start picking out a color for the Circle Line. The only three guys at CTA who thought it was a good idea have all left the building.

[ardecila]

^ @ Ardecila: To me, admittedly a total novice, the problem with this kind of analysis is that it cannot factor in true ridership increases or the potential upside to better improvements. In a city with extensive existing public transit ridership and poor interconnectivity, something like the Circle Line could draw far more ridership than current systems serve. Similarly, I do not trust the projected ridership studies very much.

I knew this was poking the hornet's nest when I wrote it... in hindsight, seems like a bad idea.

Admittedly, my analysis was extremely simplistic. I tried to convey that sense. My purpose was to explain why an alternatives analysis is necessary. In a world of super-cheap construction, say in Shanghai, we could afford to build an entire extensive subway network for the city. But in a country where funds for transit are limited, transit agencies must work to get the most bang for the buck. Hence, they choose the most cost-effective solutions to transit problems.

I'm not too sure the Circle Line is dead. The project is definitely on the backburner, though. CTA has on their website that Stage 3 Alternatives Analysis will begin this spring. Something will come out of it, I'm sure, even if it's only money for Ashland or Western BRT, which would be a valuable addition to the CTA system. Since an Ogden alignment was also under consideration, we may end up with a BRT line along Ogden (which would necessarily include a replacement of the long-lost Ogden bridge, perhaps bus-only).

[VivaLFuego]

^ The Circle Line Alternative Analysis study area was extended all the way to Cicero to include the Mid-City corridor, so the "study corridor" now, amusingly, basically encompasses the entire city.

FWIW, I think that acquiring funding for some sort of BRT along Cicero, Western, or Ashland is by far the most likely outcome unless either 1) someone with serious clout in DC pushes for a very specific project/alignment, or 2) the FTA cost-effectiveness evaluation guidelines are changed such that the heavy rail option doesn't (almost) always lose, as has been the case for many years.

The relevant example is the WMATA extension to Dulles. Under the FTA guidelines there was no way it was getting built, until many congressmen, senators, and so forth pulled strings to make it happen.

[arenn]

I hate those mandated bullshit comparison studies. Anybody with a brain knows that heavy rail is this obvious solution. All these federal mandated studies do is spend double digit millions telling us something we already know.

On a side note, can anyone tell me if quasi-federal socialist countries, i.e. France, Germany and to some extent UK are required to do these silly things or does it go from expert and political consensus to digging dirt?

The purpose and need statement and the alternatives analysis are what the EIS is all about. Transit supporters did themselves in. By requiring extensive environmental work for roads and other public works, they did themselves in too.

I for one am glad we have environmental laws, though I'd say that the process is way too cumbersome, lengthy, and costly. Every major project probably doubles in cost from concept to implementation thanks to inflation alone.

BTW: In Europe, they also have strict environmental laws.

[alex1]

doesn't bus service become more expensive then rail ridership at some point? what was it? 20k?

obviously, creating the infrastructure to run trains isn't compared in this analysis but at some point, there is savings.

Theoretically, putting a train line on Chicago Avenue could pull in huge ridership numbers. Much larger then what you see now, although you'd also kill bus ridership along that and nearby bus routes (between grand and division).

[Abner]

A Cicero corridor alignment starts to make more sense in terms of tying the lines together, but is probably best done with BRT along the Belt Railway.


Is it the construction or the operation that makes BRT more cost-effective than heavy rail for a line along the Belt Railway? To an uneducated schlub like me, it doesn't seem like it should be that huge a deal (comparatively) to put in new tracks on an existing railroad embankment. Stations are expensive, but a BRT line would have to have them too, unless there were onramps and offramps at every station, which sounds even worse.

[Mr Downtown]

It's both. First, it's not clear that there's room or that FRA would permit new tracks alongside the Belt Railway. A rail line has to be signaled and have a power distribution system. It's doubtful that even a single grade crossing would be allowed. Somehow engineering and construction costs for rail projects have gotten way out of hand. The stations have become enormously expensive ($14 million to build ground-level platforms in Skokie). The equipment costs are even worse, now roughly eight times as much for a rail vehicle as an articulated bus. Yes, the rail vehicle lasts twice as long, but the cost of the midlife rebuild is more than buying an entirely new bus.

The biggest advantage of BRT over rail is that it doesn't have to just shuttle back and forth on a segregated guideway, forcing people to transfer to and from it. Buses can circulate through neighborhoods at either end, then run along the busway to various destinations at the other end. That means that there's a possibility for residents of West Lawn to have a one-seat ride to a Lincolnwood factory, or for Austin teenagers to have a one-seat ride to jobs at Ford City. Even someone going from Cicero to a job in Rosemont could have a two-seat ride rather than three.

[orulz]

It's both. First, it's not clear that there's room or that FRA would permit new tracks alongside the Belt Railway. A rail line has to be signaled and have a power distribution system. It's doubtful that even a single grade crossing would be allowed. Somehow engineering and construction costs for rail projects have gotten way out of hand. The stations have become enormously expensive ($14 million to build ground-level platforms in Skokie). The equipment costs are even worse, now roughly eight times as much for a rail vehicle as an articulated bus. Yes, the rail vehicle lasts twice as long, but the cost of the midlife rebuild is more than buying an entirely new bus.

The biggest advantage of BRT over rail is that it doesn't have to just shuttle back and forth on a segregated guideway, forcing people to transfer to and from it. Buses can circulate through neighborhoods at either end, then run along the busway to various destinations at the other end. That means that there's a possibility for residents of West Lawn to have a one-seat ride to a Lincolnwood factory, or for Austin teenagers to have a one-seat ride to jobs at Ford City. Even someone going from Cicero to a job in Rosemont could have a two-seat ride rather than three.

FRA has very recently started loosening rules for what they will allow in rail corridors. In Raleigh, we had a transit line planned (died in 2004, about 3 months from getting FFGA status due to tightened restrictions on cost effectiveness.) The line was to be in a railroad corridor, and the FRA refused to allow anything that was not FRA-compliant in the corridor without an unrealistic amount of separation, so the line was planned to use FRA-compliant DMUs. However, the transit line has recently been revived, but this time FRA is willing to accept LRV's. I see no reason why this recent change of heart should not also apply to Chicago.

BRT does allow circulation through neighborhood, but it's also not as good at focusing development. That is, if the neighborhoods will allow it. It's a trade-off. You do make a good point about the obscene construction costs of transit infrastructure, but I can imagine that pretty much the same thing applies to busways too, though maybe not to the same degree.

[ardecila]

"Focusing development" as you call it, requires the cooperation of the city with regards to zoning. So far, we've gotten no indication that the city is willing to upzone land around even the existing train stations. The aldermen have a great deal of control over the zoning patterns in their own wards and nobody wants denser development in their wards.

Currently, anybody wishing to build a dense development near a rail station will have to submit their projects as a "planned development", which means that it will be considered individually by the City Council. This adds a good deal of cost in terms of time and money spent.

[Rational Plan3]

I hate those mandated bullshit comparison studies. Anybody with a brain knows that heavy rail is this obvious solution. All these federal mandated studies do is spend double digit millions telling us something we already know.

On a side note, can anyone tell me if quasi-federal socialist countries, i.e. France, Germany and to some extent UK are required to do these silly things or does it go from expert and political consensus to digging dirt?

Well things are different from country to country. But the UK is a sort of halfway house between the US and Mainland Europe. We never abandoned the railways as a means of moving passengers, the way you did in the US, but we are a very crowded Island, and we abandoned most of our plans to slice new roads through our cities.

The problem in the UK is that in the last few decades we don't seem to spend a lot on our Railways or our Roads. Planning for transport schemes seems to go on for decades. Most of the proposed new Tube routes in the London have been knocking round in one shape or another since the Second World War.

Often a scheme will be mooted and everyone agrees its a very good idea, but a bit expensive. It needs to be evaluated properly. So a study will be launched looking at the total transport planning needs for an area, then all the possible options will be looked at. What's the best route, technology, cheapest to build, easiest to get through planning without too much protest etc. Each stage of course takes many months, and will often have it's own public consultation round.

Then decisions will bounce around government departments, with the Treasury putting strong pressure to cancel anything that might cost money.

If your lucky it might only take 10 years from first thinking about it to it actually opening. Often though a new political whim or change of government will require everything to be re-examined, or budgetary crises elsewhere means that the funding has disappeared. Often the department of Transport own civil servants are the biggest enemy as they have their own departmental prejudices. (bloody buses are cheaper!)

After many years, when they can delay it no longer and existing routes are bursting at the seams a new line, or road is opened. By the time this has happened it has often been valued engineered down. So the stations are smaller with fewer escalators, the route has jumped about to satisfy changing redevelopment priorities. Within a few days it is rammed and the whole process starts again to relieve the overcrowded network.

To give you an idea of some of the documents available to look at I have a couple of a couple of big projects linked that are about to start.

Crossrail is the big one potentially with a potentially £15 billion price tag. Utillity relocation has started and a some properties are being vacated I won't believe this one is safe until the tunnels are being bored.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/

Thameslink is £5.5 billion scheme that is split into two stages, to avoid the Olympics.

http://www.tl2000inquiry.org.uk/

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/thameslinkreport/

[arenn]

London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

[Attrill]

London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

Unless there is a dusting of snow, then they don't carry anyone ;)

[Mr Downtown]

London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

I wonder if there's any city in the world where that's not the case.

[Rational Plan3]

London does carry significantly more passengers on bus than rail.

That's true of most cities, but not London.

London is different from most other UK cities in that Public transport plays such an important role in getting people to work.

For example in 2006, the percentages for the main mode of travel to work broke down as this.

Across the city as whole 37% of people travelled to work in a car or truck, 14% by Bus, 19% by commuter train and 16% by underground or tram and 6% walk (the remainder is covered by bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes).

For jobs in Central London, that share brakes down to 11% for Cars, 12% Bus, 40% Commuter train, 28% underground and 4% Walk.

For Jobs in the Suburban outer boroughs, that share breaks down to 63% car 14% Bus 5% Commuter train 5% Underground 10% Walk.


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx

[VivaLFuego]

I wonder if there's any city in the world where that's not the case.

Washington, DC?

[the urban politician]

This news makes one somewhat happy... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/adult/jackoff.gif

Quinn sets April deadline for capital bill (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32876)
By: Paul Merrion Feb. 03, 2009
(Crain’s) — In office less than a week, Gov. Patrick Quinn is setting April 3 as his goal to enact a long-delayed capital bill to fund Illinois road projects and other improvements.
“It will give us a target to shoot at and keep an urgent approach,” he said after a 50-minute meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with members of Congress from Illinois.

[whyhuhwhy]

This news makes one somewhat happy... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/adult/jackoff.gif

Quinn sets April deadline for capital bill (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=32876)
By: Paul Merrion Feb. 03, 2009
(Crain’s) — In office less than a week, Gov. Patrick Quinn is setting April 3 as his goal to enact a long-delayed capital bill to fund Illinois road projects and other improvements.
“It will give us a target to shoot at and keep an urgent approach,” he said after a 50-minute meeting Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with members of Congress from Illinois.

Is April 3 too late to get federal matching funds? And how much does IL have to put up in order to get the $6 billion in federal funds? Anyone know the specifics of all of this? Thanks.

[Taft]

For jobs in Central London, that share brakes down to 11% for Cars, 12% Bus, 40% Commuter train, 28% underground and 4% Walk.

For Jobs in the Suburban outer boroughs, that share breaks down to 63% car 14% Bus 5% Commuter train 5% Underground 10% Walk.

Granted, Chicago's transit system couldn't handle percentages like that. But gods, I'm drooling over those ridership numbers. Here's hoping that any growth in the city over the next few decades is smart growth with adequate planning and funding for sensible transit options.

Taft

[the urban politician]

Is April 3 too late to get federal matching funds? And how much does IL have to put up in order to get the $6 billion in federal funds? Anyone know the specifics of all of this? Thanks.

^ I don't want to sound too starry eyed hopeful, but I'm pretty sure the new Governor isn't going to commit that monumental of a screw up by missing the federal matching date

[ChicagoChicago]

I have what is likely by many of you a stupid question, but I was curious if anyone knows the answer.

Many valets have signs posted (speaking of fines) that occupy parking meter spots. I’ll try to take a picture next time I’m down there (River North) to show what I’m speaking of. My question is, how can a private enterprise stake claim to city streets? Do they pay the city for these spots?

[emathias]

I have what is likely by many of you a stupid question, but I was curious if anyone knows the answer.

Many valets have signs posted (speaking of fines) that occupy parking meter spots. I’ll try to take a picture next time I’m down there (River North) to show what I’m speaking of. My question is, how can a private enterprise stake claim to city streets? Do they pay the city for these spots?

I don't think they're supposed to reserve spots like that. But that doesn't usually stop them. City council just passed an ordinance (or is debating, I forget) that requires valets to have a higher number of off-street parking spaces.

[emathias]

Daley Releases A Few Details About Stimulus Plan Requests (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/daley-releases-a-few-details-about-stimulus-plans.html)

What 15 miles would that be? North Main by itself isn't that long. I suppose if you added in Evanston you'd get closer, but still not to 15. I wonder what he has in mind. Getting North Main fixed out of this would be pretty amazing. I wish he'd added in all the subway stations, too - there are enough of them still needing rehabbing that'd it be nice to add them in.

Repair or reconstruct 15 miles of public transit lines
Retrofit and improve more than 200 schools for the 21st century
Resurface more than 150 miles of arterial city streets
Retrofit more than 200 miles of city street lights
Install or repair 75 miles of sewer and water mains
Install solar panels in more than 200 city facilities
Repair a substantial number of bridges and viaducts
Expand broadband access to over 22,000 homes, including 10,000 Chicago Housing Authority units
Enhance technology at our schools and healthcare system
Weatherize thousands of homes to improve energy efficiency
Train workers for the new economy, including nurses and health care professionals
Improve education … by providing tutoring or remediation services, special education programs and continued training for teachers
Provide additional Head Start and early Head Start programs for children
Provide meals to children and seniors
Provide new funding for police

[Attrill]

I don't think they're supposed to reserve spots like that. But that doesn't usually stop them. City council just passed an ordinance (or is debating, I forget) that requires valets to have a higher number of off-street parking spaces.

My understanding is that they're supposed to use loading zones.

[MayorOfChicago]

I have what is likely by many of you a stupid question, but I was curious if anyone knows the answer.

Many valets have signs posted (speaking of fines) that occupy parking meter spots. I’ll try to take a picture next time I’m down there (River North) to show what I’m speaking of. My question is, how can a private enterprise stake claim to city streets? Do they pay the city for these spots?

It's most definitely illegal, and you're suppose to call 311 to report violations.

My friends call every day to complain about the restaurant on Oakdale and Halsted, Erwins or whatever.

They steal up the meters and then freak out at people who try and park there when it's temp. open.

Two months ago an alderman tried to park her car in River North and was screamed at by a parking guy who said he had a permit for that spot. She of course mentioned to him that she works for the city and there ARE no permits for metered spots to businesses.

The city is "suppose to be cracking down", although I highly doubt that's high on their list.

[emathias]

...

They steal up the meters and then freak out at people who try and park there when it's temp. open.

Two months ago an alderman tried to park her car in River North and was screamed at by a parking guy who said he had a permit for that spot. She of course mentioned to him that she works for the city and there ARE no permits for metered spots to businesses.

The city is "suppose to be cracking down", although I highly doubt that's high on their list.

This illustrates how the ordinance Reilly enacted will likely do next to nothing to improve things on the ground except make valet parking more expensive.

His ordinance requires valets to have more off-street parking, but they reason they "reserve" street spaces is that it's more convenient for them. More off-street parking doesn't help with convenience.

I emailed his office that I thought his ordinance was wrong-headed, and even realizing more about what people disliked about valets and parking spaces it's obvious his ordinance is wrong-headed on even more levels than I thought it was.

Instead of making new laws, it would be a lot better for the Aldermen to simply force the city to better-enforce existing laws.

[ChicagoChicago]

This illustrates how the ordinance Reilly enacted will likely do next to nothing to improve things on the ground except make valet parking more expensive.

His ordinance requires valets to have more off-street parking, but they reason they "reserve" street spaces is that it's more convenient for them. More off-street parking doesn't help with convenience.

I emailed his office that I thought his ordinance was wrong-headed, and even realizing more about what people disliked about valets and parking spaces it's obvious his ordinance is wrong-headed on even more levels than I thought it was.

Instead of making new laws, it would be a lot better for the Aldermen to simply force the city to better-enforce existing laws.
Will the city be the one’s still enforcing the fines once Morgan Stanley takes them over? I’ll be curious to see how they react with the implementation of 24 hour rules on the meters as well.

[Taft]

Instead of making new laws, it would be a lot better for the Aldermen to simply force the city to better-enforce existing laws.

I agree completely. The problem, I think, is that there is likely a political disincentive to enforcing these types of laws. I mean, if you think about it, the city is looking to fill budget holes by nickle and diming us, with auto-oriented income being high on the list. So why wouldn't they be collecting income from abusers of laws around valet parking? My guess is that restaurant owners and the association that represents them probably give a ton of money to alderman who make sure these laws aren't enforced.

I mean, Erwin's (Halsted and Oakdale) valets regularly abuse metered parking and I know several individuals (counting Mayor of Chicago's friends) who have called 311 because of it. So why isn't the city picking up that revenue? Something bigger is at work, I think. I can't see it as being an issue of enforcement priorities given its ubiquity.

Taft

[Mr Downtown]

So why isn't the city picking up that revenue?
Maybe because it's nighttime and no Dept. of Revenue aides are on duty in that area?

[aaron38]

Okay I've wasted enough time on this, considering it was only for my own amusement. But after falling in love with New York's subways, I wanted to see what a dream subway system for Chicago would look like, one that could get you anywhere in the city in two transfers or less and allow for car free living.
Yes this is probably impossible to build, yes I ripped out the Brown line and the Loop, but efficient transfer stations have to be underground. Anyway, if I was going to run up massive debt stimulating the economy and rebuild the CTA, this is my plan.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/misc/AaronsChicagoSubwayMap.jpg

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ You see the problem I have with that is that this is not New York, the city proper here has 1/3 the population. There is absolutely no need for much more than what we have right now. And you can get most places around here with only one transfer if you know how to use the buses.

[orulz]

Not a Chicago native here, but - I see no reason why the city's population shouldn't increase by 50% or more over the next 100 years. A population increase like that probably would justify a vast transit network like that.

But that doesn't mean that it WILL increase so much. That would require a huge change in land use and zoning policies and it's questionable that, even given 100 years, the city would change so much.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^^^ You see the problem I have with that is that this is not New York, the city proper here has 1/3 the population.

Well, yeah, but convenient, comprehensive mass transit systems help grow cities...

[ChicagoChicago]

And you can get most places around here with only one transfer if you know how to use the buses.There are numerous "dead spots" in this city that are are not realistically accessable and the areas are dilapidated because of it.

The phrase "if you build it, they will come" rings true. That said...they ain't gonna build it.

[schwerve]

its not a bad plan but as people have said, those E-W, N-S which don't hit the center of the city would be a poor use of resources due to population distributin... make those BRT and well....

[arenn]

That's true of most cities, but not London.

London is different from most other UK cities in that Public transport plays such an important role in getting people to work.

For example in 2006, the percentages for the main mode of travel to work broke down as this.

Across the city as whole 37% of people travelled to work in a car or truck, 14% by Bus, 19% by commuter train and 16% by underground or tram and 6% walk (the remainder is covered by bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes).

For jobs in Central London, that share brakes down to 11% for Cars, 12% Bus, 40% Commuter train, 28% underground and 4% Walk.

For Jobs in the Suburban outer boroughs, that share breaks down to 63% car 14% Bus 5% Commuter train 5% Underground 10% Walk.


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx

The figures I have show daily ridership on the Underground at about 3 million, while daily bus ridership is about 5.4 million. I'm sure there are large numbers of commuter rail passengers commuting to London, but are there 2.4 million daily? My numbers are from a secondary source (the book "The Global City"). Your modal breakdown is interesting, but how does it account for multi-modal trips? London's train stations are spread out and getting to the end place of employment or other journey probably involves another mode trip (bus, tube, taxi). Also, if you count commuter trips only, that probably skews the numbers. My hypothesis is that commuting skews more heavily to rail than off peak service.

Just a few thoughts.

Mr. Downtown, doesn't DC carry more on rail than bus? I don't have all the figures, but it would be interesting to run the numbers.

[doggdetroit]

Like it or not, busses have a bad stigma attached to them. They are slow, they get stuck in traffic, etc. And for a more novice mass transit user, it requires an understanding of bus routes, (which for the majority of the public / tourist,) is more complicated than looking at a single train map and knowing where to transfer from one color to another color.

Trust me, more people would ride the train in Chicago if the system featured more connectivity between the lines, and if it was easier to just pay your $2.25 and go anywhere. Right now, you have to pay that for a bus, then pay that again for a train. Eventually, if your paying 5 bucks for a bus and train, you might as well take a cab for a few dollars more and save the time, especially if you are in a group.

Clearly New York, (being three times as large and twice as dense,) is going to have a much higher ridership and higher demand for further expansion, but that doesn't mean that Chicago can't expand and build upon its current system. Look at DC, which is smaller and less dense than Chicago. I believe its daily ridership is now over 1,000,000, and growing, because it is so easy to move from one line to another. Hence, the reason why more people use rail there than bus. There is no reason why Chicago, with a larger and denser population, and the CTA rail system, already the second most extensive system, can't have a daily rail ridership of over 1,000,000. Unfortunately, it would require a substantial amount of money to make the necessary improvements.

[ChicagoChicago]

Trust me, more people would ride the train in Chicago if the system featured more connectivity between the lines, and if it was easier to just pay your $2.25 and go anywhere. Right now, you have to pay that for a bus, then pay that again for a train. Eventually, if your paying 5 bucks for a bus and train, you might as well take a cab for a few dollars more and save the time, especially if you are in a group.


That's incorrect. As it stands, buses are currently $2 to ride, with a 25c transfer to trains. If going the other way, trains are $2.25, with a 25c transfer to the bus.

[doggdetroit]

My mistake, for some reason I thought they did away with the transfers, with all the budget cuts.

[Mr Downtown]

There are numerous "dead spots" in this city that are are not realistically accessable and the areas are dilapidated because of it.

Yes, just look how dilapidated Streeterville, Hyde Park, Belmont Harbor, or Bucktown are, especially when compared to the bustling areas next to stations along the Green Line.

doesn't DC carry more on rail than bus?

Yes. Weekday ridership is about 760,000 on rail, about 460,000 on buses.

[emathias]

My mistake, for some reason I thought they did away with the transfers, with all the budget cuts.

Can't buy a transfer on the bus, but that's really the only major change to them, and that went into effect last year.

[Rational Plan3]

The figures I have show daily ridership on the Underground at about 3 million, while daily bus ridership is about 5.4 million. I'm sure there are large numbers of commuter rail passengers commuting to London, but are there 2.4 million daily? My numbers are from a secondary source (the book "The Global City"). Your modal breakdown is interesting, but how does it account for multi-modal trips? London's train stations are spread out and getting to the end place of employment or other journey probably involves another mode trip (bus, tube, taxi). Also, if you count commuter trips only, that probably skews the numbers. My hypothesis is that commuting skews more heavily to rail than off peak service.

Just a few thoughts.

Mr. Downtown, doesn't DC carry more on rail than bus? I don't have all the figures, but it would be interesting to run the numbers.

I used the term commuter rail because it is a familiar american term, and a lot of commuters do use the system. But most of the rail lines in London have multiple routes running along the same lines. All services in London are have a half hour service pattern throughout the day. Many stations are serviced by several different routes and so have 4 to 8 trains an hour off peak. While that is not the 18 to 32 trains an hour of the tube network it is good enough to attract a lot of off peak riders. The fastest growth in passengers for all public transport use has been in the off peak hours. I'm astonished that New York's or Chicago's commuter system does not provide frequent service outside the rush hours.

If you follow the link provided and go to the report page for Transport for London and read the latest 2007 report, it has a wealth of data for the nerdiest transport geek. Information of different transport use patterns of different races, ages, sex, occupation. Modal shares between inner and outer districts, maps showing where jobs are concentrated, where most walk or cycle to work.


Another way of looking at the transport for London is to look at journey stages across the city. Many peoples journeys are made up of different modes of travel. The previous figures quoted were just for the main mode people used. When looking at all modes used, the figures break down as this:

23.8 million journeys stages per day.

39% car and truck

20% Walk

20% Bus and Tram

11% Underground and DLR

8% Rail

2% Bike

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That's not true, Most of Chicago's trains run almost all night (except between like 2am and 4am on weeknights) and the Main Lines (Red and Blue) have at least 4 trains an hour even in the dead of night and service stations that are shared with another line (red and brown) or near/within walking distance of another line and capable of serving it (Blue and Green to the west or how the subways still serve the loop and river north when the elveated trains are not running at night.)

[ChicagoChicago]

Yes, just look how dilapidated Streeterville, Hyde Park, Belmont Harbor, or Bucktown are, especially when compared to the bustling areas next to stations along the Green Line.
And there's equally plenty more that are bustling because of mass transit. I was moreso speaking to the areas very close to downtown on the north side that are not in close proximity to trains, specifically the Elston and Clyborn corridors.

And FYI, Bucktown is served by the Blue Line.

[mcfinley]

Okay I've wasted enough time on this, considering it was only for my own amusement. But after falling in love with New York's subways, I wanted to see what a dream subway system for Chicago would look like, one that could get you anywhere in the city in two transfers or less and allow for car free living.
Yes this is probably impossible to build, yes I ripped out the Brown line and the Loop, but efficient transfer stations have to be underground. Anyway, if I was going to run up massive debt stimulating the economy and rebuild the CTA, this is my plan.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r86/aaron38/misc/AaronsChicagoSubwayMap.jpg

I've put way too much though and time into this too. I've noticed you fixed the tragedy of the blue line moving off Milwaukee. And dammit, every time I take the metra electric, I wish it could just push across the river to Claire st (might be possible with the Canadian national railway abandoning 2 of their tracks after the EJ&E acquisition). BTW, as a someone without a car who has lived in both NY and Chicago, east-west line would by no means be underutilized or underappretiated. Buses are less frequent, less reliable, get delayed through traffic, and don't run from many night spots after-hours.

Changes I would suggest:

Where your orange line begins to turn southwest at Cermack, I would like to see the red line cross over to the metra tracks running along the 400W block. I think communities west of the highway would use it more if they didn't have to stand atop of 94. (the tracks running between the Dan Ryan could then be used for other things like POV lanes or, dare i say it, a dedicated high speed rail corridor.)

Much of the North ave track west of 94 can be run along an abandoned rail line two blocks to the north.

If Chicago persuade the residents Lincolnwood, I'd like to see your Lincoln ave Line to the yellow line. I'd also like to see it connect the other way to North and Clark (BTW, I think that line's stretch from Lawrence to downtown would become the new busiest subway in chicago)

Finally, and many might disagree, but I'd like to see a line run along Cicero if the city could expand or secure rights to the tracks that run along the 4600 block.

[Mr Downtown]

Most of Chicago's trains run almost all night

You're talking about rapid transit or metro, and Chicago was historically second only to New York in having late-night or 24-hour service. In London, Washington, etc., late-night revelers must keep track of the last train.

Rational Plan3 was talking about commuter trains or suburban rail, which in Chicago run very infrequently (every two hours, or worse) in midday and after the PM rush. Service is better during off-peak hours in cities that run their systems as regional rail rather than commuter trains, but I'm not aware of any city where those run all night. Tokyo's capsule hotels are for salarymen who've missed the last train.

[Abner]

BTW, as a someone without a car who has lived in both NY and Chicago, east-west line would by no means be underutilized or underappretiated. Buses are less frequent, less reliable, get delayed through traffic, and don't run from many night spots after-hours.

I think the 79th bus is the busiest bus route in the city. I would think a rail line down 79th to the Red Line would be pretty busy, and actually the Mid-City corridor (the one that would use the tracks east of Cicero) would turn east around Ford City and run on the tracks near 75th, then southeast to the 79th Red Line stop. Maybe in your dream scenario it could continue east from there--four miles east it would hit the north end of the South Works site that supposedly will some day be developed. That would be a pretty serious east-west line.

[Chicago Shawn]

I think the 79th bus is the busiest bus route in the city. I would think a rail line down 79th to the Red Line would be pretty busy, and actually the Mid-City corridor (the one that would use the tracks east of Cicero) would turn east around Ford City and run on the tracks near 75th, then southeast to the 79th Red Line stop. Maybe in your dream scenario it could continue east from there--four miles east it would hit the north end of the South Works site that supposedly will some day be developed. That would be a pretty serious east-west line.

79th is always, by far, the busiest single route in the city, occasionally surpassing 1 million riders per month. A rail line down 79th, plus linking to Ford City and Midway *cough* mid-city transitway's south leg*cough* would be huge with ridership. The next busiest route is often the #9 Ashland, which of course has additional riders on the X9, that are not tallied onto the local route's high count.

[arenn]

Rational Plan3 was talking about commuter trains or suburban rail, which in Chicago run very infrequently (every two hours, or worse) in midday and after the PM rush. Service is better during off-peak hours in cities that run their systems as regional rail rather than commuter trains, but I'm not aware of any city where those run all night. Tokyo's capsule hotels are for salarymen who've missed the last train.

Thinking about something like the Paris RER system, perhaps? Ah, to dream.

[Marcu]

Chicago's final Olympic bid announced yesterday lacks any transit redevelopment plans. The Olympic financial costs and guarantees were pushed through because of the promised transit improvements that were to go along with the bid. Now, Chicago essentially gave the Olympic Committee a "take it or leave it" stance on its transit. A clear case of bait and switch. For the money the city is promising to spend on the Olympics and the inevitable cost overruns, I'd rather take a functioning transit network and pass on the 2 week global pep rally known as the Olympics. Frankly, it's shocking that more people on this board aren't outraged.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02/analysis-no-transit-overhaul-in-citys-olympic-bid.html

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Most of the Olympics-transportation discussion has been going on in the Chicago 2016 Olympic Bid thread under City Discussions. Maybe you should check that out first before you judge people's reactions.

[Marcu]

^ That thread has devolves to arguments about whether the Tribune is anti Daley or not. And I thought this thread would be more appropriate for a transit discussion, since it is entitled "Transit Developments".

[Rational Plan3]

Thinking about something like the Paris RER system, perhaps? Ah, to dream.

Yes, well why not. Chicago is a great city, and should have a great rail system. But the problem seems to be that the politicians don't seem to care that much about public transport. Or am I misreading the situation?

Chicago has a strong city centre with, for america, a good commuter rail system. The Metro has its strengths and weaknesses. The lines built in the favoured Northern neigbourhoods are seriously overcrowded, while the some of the Southern and Western lines, now serve relatively depopulated neighbourhoods and have poor loadings.

Recent trends in Chicagos development, has seen a massive rise in city centre living, but crucially this has not been followed by a massive rise city centre employment, (In comparison to the growth of suburban employment).

What is the solution towards a more sustainable future?

If people want Chicago to go down this route, then the city centre has to become more important in the region. Employers need to have a reason to stay in the centre and there needs to be a good reason for suburban jobs to relocate there as well. Employers will locate where there the best advantage to them.

In the UK the trend in recent years has been for employers to locate in areas that staff want to work. This has meant that locations with good public transport and decent retail and restaurants have seen the highest growth. The largest out of business parks have tried to respond by providing retail on their sites but these are hard to sustain with just a few office buildings, so sites with sufficient land banks have diverisfied their development plans and now often propose a thousand housing units or two to proved the base for some shops and a school. But trends in office locations are favouring truely urban environments whether that is in existing town centres or in new Urban Office parks built next to existing rail stations (i.e. Chiswick Park in London).

Smaller employers draw on a smaller commuter hinterland, but the bigger the employer or the more specialised his workforce the bigger the commuter hinterland needed to provide a recruitable skills base. Chicago's extensive freeway system has allowed large office complexs to disperse next to major interchanges to provide a good catchment area, but what is going to happen to these supposed locational advantages when traffic becomes unbearable.

For the city to stay competitive it needs more transport infrastructure. What transport it provides will the shape the future. Since the 70's the USA has not spent very much on infrastructure and it shows. No one has been willing to spend the money. But things have come to pass, that the political landscape is changing, people want their roads and rail lines fixed, and the money may now come. If a massive increase in spending occurs on rail infrastructure then locational advantges will shift towards the centre.

You guys know Chicago better than I, where should that money be spent? Sure the existing maintenence shortfalls need to be made good, but where should new capacity go? Towards high transit dependent neighbourhoods (i.e. the poor) or towards areas where the highly skilled and paid actually live. Bus, Metro or Metra? For the city centre to grow in importance, it needs to maximise the skill base it grows on.

My preference would be for a sustained investment in the Metra system. Starting with good off peak services, but eventually providing a near Metro frequency on most lines, to at least a ten to fifteen mile radius. This would require more four tracking and grade seperation of lines and eventually new tunnels near the city centre.

The eventual aim would provide frequent local stopping trains between the centre and all stations in at least Cook and Du Page counties, 4 trains an hour off peak and 6 to 8 per hour peak. Alongside this the outer stations would have semi express service bypassing the inner sections of track, shortening commute time from the outer suburbs, thereby boosting patronage. These lines should, were possible run at half hourly service through out the day, with longer trains in peak.

With such intensive service, not only would it attract more office occupiers, but retail and leisure would grow as more people travelled to the centre for entertainment or shopping.

Some would argue that by developing around the Southside lines better use would be made of existing infra-structure. And while it would boost the the usage of these lines it would not widen the cities catchment area that much.

To get there from here is the difficult part. New signalling is needed to boost train frequency and as more lines are rehabilitated longer trains can be run.

To really boost numbers on the system integrated ticketing between the Bus, Metro and Metra system needs to be introduced. It was the introduction of the Travel Card in the London area in the 1980's that caused massive growth in public transport usage. The ability to buy this a one day, weekly, monthly or annual card meant it was so much easier to pop into London by train and if you needed to go to several different places, then no big deal. It made shopping and leisure trips more likely as it was ease to nip between different districts for a museum or lunch or a particular shop.

[the urban politician]

^ Recent years have seen plenty of companies moving offices downtown.

The problems seems not to be lack of infrastructure (sorry, but when it comes to commuting to Chicago's central area, I think it's incredibly well served by transit--arguably as well as any city out there), but lack of utilization.

Those major lines running through half-abandoned neighborhoods, yet still costing tons of money to maintain and keep active, are a leech on the system. Chicago could perhaps add a million people to its population and not overburden its transit system (IMO) much by simply attracting more development to its south and west sides.

[denizen467]

Chicago could perhaps add a million people to its population and not overburden its transit system (IMO) much by simply attracting more development to its south and west sides.
Amen. The new slums will probably be the first-ring suburbs like Dolton, Harvey, etc. (I don't know much about this though).

[Rational Plan3]

^ Recent years have seen plenty of companies moving offices downtown.

The problems seems not to be lack of infrastructure (sorry, but when it comes to commuting to Chicago's central area, I think it's incredibly well served by transit--arguably as well as any city out there), but lack of utilization.

Those major lines running through half-abandoned neighborhoods, yet still costing tons of money to maintain and keep active, are a leech on the system. Chicago could perhaps add a million people to its population and not overburden its transit system (IMO) much by simply attracting more development to its south and west sides.

It's hard to do a direct comparison. As finding the percentage of employment in of the Urban area has proved impossible for me to find for Chicago, and was quite difficult for me to find for London. London's city area has 7.6 million people (8.6 built up area and 13.2 in Metro) and 4.6 million jobs in the city. One third of which are based in Central London. I don't know, but I don't think that a third of Cooks counties jobs are in central Chicago.

This chicken and egg problem, it's difficult enough to fund maintenance of the existing system, never mind expand. To increase funding you need to increase political support, if there is nothing for the suburbs, why will they care.

Investment in the Metra system is scalable, expansion in capacity does not have to run too far ahead of demand. If the system was constantly investing in trains, extra track and grade separation schemes, before you knew it, you would have a regional metro system. The easier and quicker it is for people to commute from the ever further flung suburbs the more companies will locate in the centre.

That's not to say that the Western and Southern neighbourhoods can't be revived. But what is actually being done about it? Inner London lost over half of its population between the end of the War and the 1970's. It was official government policy. 2 million people were resettled in New Towns in this era. During this time it was government policy to force employers out of London. While this worked for the London's industrial base, it luckily did not work for its office sector.

This meant that when government woke up to the problems it had created in the inner city, there was still a strong employment base in the centre to attract people back, trading their commute for city life. It did not matter for many that a lot of inner London schools as are atrocious. For the upper middle class in inner London the cost of Private education is the price of living in the city. To get a million people to move back to Chicago, what is going to drag them back? To me, it is employment growth at the centre that will do it.

A dozen different strategies are probably needed. Your policy response will have to suit Chicago's current situation. If these areas are still losing population, it can't because of their existing transport. The problem is that the people their are not employable in the city centre. Blue collar jobs have moved to the suburbs and they are following them. Unless the schools in these areas can equip for employment in what future is there for them?

To get more jobs in the centre does not just mean improving transport from the suburbs.

Business taxes need to fall, and residential will taxes will need to rise. I know in New York and Philadelphia, their city governments have raised taxes on employers much faster than residential rates. After all businesses don't vote, oops except they can move. Are there enough upper middle class jobs able to pay for private education? Public schools need to improve in the city, you won't attract the middles classes back from the suburbs if the schools are not good. I know there is a charter movement in Chicago. Do surburbanites think they are good enough?

[the urban politician]

^ A very complicated discussion that is beyond my scale. I do not have a Masters in Urban Studies ;)

Having said that, I think it is simply unfair to compare a European city to an American one. I do know this:

Chicago's downtown has a very healthy chunk of the region's office space and professional employment (if not total employment--but then how many car mechanics, gas station attendants, car salesmen, factory workers, etc can you employ downtown?) especially for an American city.

Chicago's infrastructure for getting people downtown from the tri-state metropolitan area is far beyond adequate. If you take a look at the CTA, Metra, and South Shore Commuter Line maps as well as its dozens of bus routes you simply cannot ask for much more.

But getting back to my original point, the kinds of top-down Government-mandated policy-making that is the way of life in Europe just doesn't work in America. You've got cities pitted against suburbs, suburbs pitted against suburbs, metros versus rural areas, State Govts against metros, and a Federal Govt that is completely out of touch with urban issues. One size fits all is the way our Govt deals with issues such as transportation and development (lets build more beltways!). As long as American political leaders prioritize highway over rail spending, there is no chance in hell that Chicago can improve at more than a snail's pace.

You talk about the British Govt "making" employers move from A to B, etc but it just doesn't work that way in the US. Cities have advantages and disadvantages in this arena, and they are pitted against their suburban hinterlands to attract jobs; there is really only so much the Government can do about it. Right now, if a corporation in downtown Chicago wants to decamp to the suburbs and build a huge, sprawling office park in the midst of a cornfield, the Govt simply will not stand in its way.

In the same fashion, a city can't simply make people move into its south and west sides, nor can it simply make employers move to these areas so as to attract more residents. Is that something that can be done in Europe?

Taking all that in, and when comparing Chicago to other American cities, I think it has been remarkably successful. In fact, I believe its central area is the most balanced & successful one in the US outside of New York. Special mention goes to Washington, DC but in fairness, DC will never have to deal with the Federal Govt decamping to the suburbs; that is a luxury Chicago will never have--and it shows in Chicago's aggressive, top-heavy leadership.

[Busy Bee]

Dolton and Harvey are going to be the "new" slums? Ha!

[Nowhereman1280]

And FYI, Bucktown is served by the Blue Line.

Not really, the west edge of it is, but for the most part you would have to walk 5 or more blocks to reach it. That's like Saying Portage Park is served by the Blue Line when it only touches the Eastern Edge. I lived right in the middle of there this summer, and there was no way in hell I was going to hike over to the blue line to catch a train when I could shoot downtown on the Kennedy (as long as its not in the middle of rush hour) in 10 minutes.


Chicago's final Olympic bid announced yesterday lacks any transit redevelopment plans.

The reason it has devolved into a "is the Tribune pro or anti Daley" debate is because that article you presented was basically a lie. The Tribune is misleading Chicagoans because they didn't do their research. Cities in the United States never get Federal Transit Improvement dollars allocated until after they win the bid. That is what happened in Salt Lake City and in Atlanta. The bid says this and gives it as a reason as to why there are no specific plans. So please stop spreading false rumors like that shoddy rag Tribune (OT, but seriously, has anyone noticed how crappy the Tribune has gotten over the past 6-12 months?).

[Rational Plan3]

^ A very complicated discussion that is beyond my scale. I do not have a Masters in Urban Studies ;)

Having said that, I think it is simply unfair to compare a European city to an American one. I do know this:

Chicago's downtown has a very healthy chunk of the region's office space and professional employment (if not total employment--but then how many car mechanics, gas station attendants, car salesmen, factory workers, etc can you employ downtown?) especially for an American city.

Chicago's infrastructure for getting people downtown from the tri-state metropolitan area is far beyond adequate. If you take a look at the CTA, Metra, and South Shore Commuter Line maps as well as its dozens of bus routes you simply cannot ask for much more.

But getting back to my original point, the kinds of top-down Government-mandated policy-making that is the way of life in Europe just doesn't work in America. You've got cities pitted against suburbs, suburbs pitted against suburbs, metros versus rural areas, State Govts against metros, and a Federal Govt that is completely out of touch with urban issues. One size fits all is the way our Govt deals with issues such as transportation and development (lets build more beltways!). As long as American political leaders prioritize highway over rail spending, there is no chance in hell that Chicago can improve at more than a snail's pace.

You talk about the British Govt "making" employers move from A to B, etc but it just doesn't work that way in the US. Cities have advantages and disadvantages in this arena, and they are pitted against their suburban hinterlands to attract jobs; there is really only so much the Government can do about it. Right now, if a corporation in downtown Chicago wants to decamp to the suburbs and build a huge, sprawling office park in the midst of a cornfield, the Govt simply will not stand in its way.

In the same fashion, a city can't simply make people move into its south and west sides, nor can it simply make employers move to these areas so as to attract more residents. Is that something that can be done in Europe?

Taking all that in, and when comparing Chicago to other American cities, I think it has been remarkably successful. In fact, I believe its central area is the most balanced & successful one in the US outside of New York. Special mention goes to Washington, DC but in fairness, DC will never have to deal with the Federal Govt decamping to the suburbs; that is a luxury Chicago will never have--and it shows in Chicago's aggressive, top-heavy leadership.

I was simplifying about making employers move. In the interventionist eras of the 1940's to 1970's government believed in the power of the plan. London dominates England and it sucks in power money and resources from hundreds of miles around. The problem was seen as that the South Ease region and London grew too fast while the industrial North languished. It was often seen the interest rates were often raised to cool of an over heating economy in the South before the North had felt the benefit. Development policy had generous tax breaks in the North, but restrictions on growth in London. Any factory or office building above a certain size had to get permission from a central government department and it had to show it could not do its business just as well from outside central London. The effects of this policy can be seen in the rash of 60's and 70's office blocks in quite suburban locations around London. In the Eighties this was all swept away in the wave of deregulation and coincidentally enough this coincided with regrowth of London's population and employment numbers.

Also the UK's local councils have often been reorganised by central government to reflect changing population levels and the perceived correct size for efficiency. Central government shares revenues from rich areas to poor areas.

Effectively none of this exists for greater Chicago. But rationalisation could occur if there was a political will for it. The creation of the Greater London Authority and the Mayors office and the London assembly arose after years of campaigning for better London government. There were packed lecture theatres all other the city held by various groups, the city's newspaper and eventually televised debates.

Discounting the possibility of Cook and Du Page counties merging into a new Metropolitan council. What is the way forward. Illinois State surely must want it's most important city to prosper.

What was successful in the UK in kickstarting development in derelict industrial areas in the UK was the creation of Urban development corporations, these entities had access to government funds but most importantly companies locating here faced zero capital investment taxes and zero commercial property taxes for 10 years, but also local planning control was taken from the local city council and few controls were placed on what could be built. Canary Wharf would never of happened without it. To say these were controversial was putting it mildly, local democracy was pretty much upsurped and the nimbies crushed.

Could a deregulated and tax free zone on the South side work?

The politics of regenerating these areas revolves around gentrification. I can see it soon getting mired in the politics of race and class. The people who will travel to the centre are predominately college educated and white. While new condo towers around existing stations could attract the young and elderley, people with kids are not going to go to the existing schools. One way to attract them would be brand new schools that are not only well funded but have high academic standards. The down side of that is that it would be seen as elitist, discriminating, because other inner city schools are not getting the same funding and racist because it was effectively designed to get suburbanites to come back to the city. The best hope is to continue with the charter movement that uplifts the standards in the city's schools.

I would think that transport is your best bet at the moment as there is a metropolitan agency that covers it, and at least their is a method of communication. The city and the suburbs need to find common ground to fight for funds from the State to make any progress. Metro wide rapid transit could become a clarion for the city. But the both sides of the political spectrum will need to reach a consensus for it to happen.

[Taft]

...
The reason it has devolved into a "is the Tribune pro or anti Daley" debate is because that article you presented was basically a lie. The Tribune is misleading Chicagoans because they didn't do their research. Cities in the United States never get Federal Transit Improvement dollars allocated until after they win the bid. That is what happened in Salt Lake City and in Atlanta. The bid says this and gives it as a reason as to why there are no specific plans. So please stop spreading false rumors like that shoddy rag Tribune (OT, but seriously, has anyone noticed how crappy the Tribune has gotten over the past 6-12 months?).

Well, maybe this Hilkevitch piece will redeem the Trib a bit: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-olympics-transportation-15feb15,0,5090334.story

The Trib has been diluted over the past year or so. The "breaking news" that appears all over the Trib's front page online has a lot to do with it, IMO. It is basically a red eye light. Terrible.

[Marcu]

The reason it has devolved into a "is the Tribune pro or anti Daley" debate is because that article you presented was basically a lie. The Tribune is misleading Chicagoans because they didn't do their research. Cities in the United States never get Federal Transit Improvement dollars allocated until after they win the bid. That is what happened in Salt Lake City and in Atlanta. The bid says this and gives it as a reason as to why there are no specific plans. So please stop spreading false rumors like that shoddy rag Tribune (OT, but seriously, has anyone noticed how crappy the Tribune has gotten over the past 6-12 months?).

Ok. Let's continue to fantasize about transit expansion plans. Draw lines across maps and dream about new transit lines slicing through the region. And when anyone bothers to question Daley's priorities, we'll just brush it off as pro-suburban tripe. We'll ignore the Kreusi appointment, the prioritization of the pink line and the dysfunctional airport express idea over timely slow zone reductions, and the fact that the only thing this administration has ever done for transit is use the parking fee stick to force people to the train (of course only out of revenue necessity). And of course when we do win the bid, we'll get that much needed red line expansion to 130th street where the population density is lower than that of Waukegan or Elgin. It worked really well for Atlanta. Their trains are wizzing by as we speak. I just can't wait.

Oh wait. Almost forgot. We are planning for the future - 20 years from now when people will want to live off the green line stop at 43rd street. Nevermind that exurban Kendall county has gained exponentially more people over the past 8 years than Chicago. We'll just continue to dream until Chicago once again reached 4 million people.

[Marcu]

Could a deregulated and tax free zone on the South side work?



Not so simplify your post down to one line, but the UK never had the crime and school issues that are present in the much of the far South Side. Rational planning just can't work when construction workers need police escort to and from site. And some would argue that pockets of the South Side are overserved by transit already compared to the more undersrerved and denser North and Northwest sides. For example, the CTA is considering expanding the red line to 130th street while Streeterville continues to go unserved by any rail line.

[ardecila]

The South Side is mostly served by Metra, an agency that is based around serving suburban commuters and catering to their desires. If that means running Metra trains non-stop through dense, impoverished black or Hispanic neighborhoods, so be it.

The Red Line extension to 130th is a response to this stupid infighting. If CTA provides the service to the Far South Side instead of Metra, then stops can be placed frequently and there will be no denial of service.


You talk about the British Govt "making" employers move from A to B, etc but it just doesn't work that way in the US. Cities have advantages and disadvantages in this arena, and they are pitted against their suburban hinterlands to attract jobs; there is really only so much the Government can do about it. Right now, if a corporation in downtown Chicago wants to decamp to the suburbs and build a huge, sprawling office park in the midst of a cornfield, the Govt simply will not stand in its way.

In the same fashion, a city can't simply make people move into its south and west sides, nor can it simply make employers move to these areas so as to attract more residents. Is that something that can be done in Europe?

TUP, firms (and people) respond to incentives. This is one of the fundamental tenets of economics. If incentives are provided in sufficient quantity to overcome the disadvantages of a South or West Side location, then businesses will respond. This is the whole notion of the city's Planned Manufacturing Districts, which have preserved industry within the city. One advantage of a South or West Side location is that, since commuters hate to make transfers, the employees would start to live either downtown or in the South or West suburbs to have a one-seat ride to their jobs. One of my favorite ideas is the creation of a business cluster around the United Center.

New York, IIRC, has attempted to do similar things in Long Island City and in the downtown of Jersey City. Both places now have gleaming office buildings (and converted warehouses) that rely on the transit accessibility that already existed in those places. These buildings largely house "back-office" functions that in Chicago are scattered along the Tri-State and out in Downers Grove/Schaumburg/Naperville.

[sammyg]

Not so simplify your post down to one line, but the UK never had the crime and school issues that are present in the much of the far South Side. Rational planning just can't work when construction workers need police escort to and from site.

What? Have you heard of Brixton? The south side isn't unique in being a high-crime area that needs work, and the UK's got plenty of crime-ridden areas, especially in the North.

Besides, 25 years ago, you could have said the same thing about Lincoln Park.

[arenn]

Hello, while we are dreaming, I put together my thoughts on a Midwest high speed rail system.

http://theurbanophile.blogspot.com/2009/02/chicago-reconnecting-hinterland-part-1b.html

[Abner]

the dysfunctional airport express idea

This is the single best example I can think of of absolutely ridiculous transit planning on the city's part. I still don't understand how anybody ever thought for a second that the airport express as envisioned by Daley's people was ever going to happen, or that it would be net beneficial if it did.

I completely disagree with you about the Red Line extension though. The 95th Red Line stop is the busiest el station in the city, something most North Siders (not necessarily you) refuse to believe. If you take income (transit reliance), population density, and distance to the nearest train station into account, the Red Line extension area is exactly where the greatest unmet transit need is. If you live in Streeterville, you can walk six blocks to your home from the Red Line or from any of the constant stream of buses on Michigan, and you are directly adjacent to the Loop. If you live on 130th, you have to take a slow, infrequent bus five or six miles just to get to the last stop on the line.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I agree, I still don't see why people continue to claim that Streeterville needs a subway line. I have to go to Streeterville very often for various things and never once has it occurred to me that it would be easier to get there if there was a train line... There is no traffic in streeterville, so why do we need a train? The Michigan Ave. buses are way better than any train and its at most a 3 or 4 block from those buses. If you had a train going through streeterville you'd probably have to transfer to get on it and you could out walk the train in the 5-10 min it'd take to wait for it. Not to mention its almost entirely residential so its not like there are going to be a ton of commuters coming in and out of there, most people that live there are either retired or live within walking distance of their jobs (I know several people who live there and either work on Michigan or in Illinois Center and just walk to work).

Ok. Let's continue to fantasize about transit expansion plans.

I'm not sure if you are responding to me or not, this seems to be about something completely different than what I was talking about? I was just saying the people need to shut up about the supposed lack of transit in the Olympic bid because they are simply wrong, there is no lack of transit, we just don't plan for things that haven't been allocated yet, but if history serves as an example we will be allocated money if we win...

[Chicago3rd]

This is the single best example I can think of of absolutely ridiculous transit planning on the city's part. I still don't understand how anybody ever thought for a second that the airport express as envisioned by Daley's people was ever going to happen, or that it would be net beneficial if it did.

I completely disagree with you about the Red Line extension though. The 95th Red Line stop is the busiest el station in the city, something most North Siders (not necessarily you) refuse to believe. If you take income (transit reliance), population density, and distance to the nearest train station into account, the Red Line extension area is exactly where the greatest unmet transit need is. If you live in Streeterville, you can walk six blocks to your home from the Red Line or from any of the constant stream of buses on Michigan, and you are directly adjacent to the Loop. If you live on 130th, you have to take a slow, infrequent bus five or six miles just to get to the last stop on the line.

95th street is the busiest station because it is a hub for all those buses coming from all directions...that being said the Redline Dan Ryan only has half the usage as the Redline northside.....and the southside is longer.

Rather than building the Redline out too low density areas we should just make CTA/Metra passes usable on both transit systems and increase the Metra trips and add stations on existing lines.

[Chicago3rd]

RTA projects huge tax-revenue shortfalls for CTA, Metra and Pace
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/autocorner/chi-getting-around-16-feb16,0,5244322.column (Complete Article found with link)

Jon Hilkevitch | Getting Around
February 16, 2009

The sinking economy is driving Chicago-area mass-transit agencies into the ground, according to new data marking a quick return to budget crises.

The new numbers are so bleak that the "doomsday" service cuts and fare increases threatened more than a year ago appear mild in comparison to the sweeping measures that would be needed to fill gaping budget holes the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace are facing.

That's the grim scenario, even though riders may be under the impression that recent fare increases at all three transit agencies have erased funding worries.

Tax revenues the CTA receives for its operating budget are estimated to fall below projections by $58 million for 2008 when the final figures for December are received and $155 million less than targeted for 2009 out of a $1.3 billion budget, according to Regional Transportation Authority documents obtained by the Tribune.

Jon Hilkevitch Jon Hilkevitch Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

The RTA is also eyeing big funding reductions in the Metra and Pace budgets based on shrinking tax receipts: a $27 million reduction in funding in 2008 and $45 million in 2009 for Metra and $9 million in 2008 and $16 million in 2009 for Pace.

The 2009 numbers represent 7 percent of Metra's $642 million operating budget and nearly 8 percent of Pace's $204 million operating budget.

The dwindling tax revenue also means the $107 million budgeted for Pace to provide paratransit services to people covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act in 2009 would be cut by $5 million.....

[Taft]

OK, I'm getting pretty sick of every budget shortfall facing the RTA being described as a doomsday by the local media. Its like they are trying to stoke the fires between the RTA and its customers.

Chicken little syndrome...

Taft



RTA projects huge tax-revenue shortfalls for CTA, Metra and Pace
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/autocorner/chi-getting-around-16-feb16,0,5244322.column (Complete Article found with link)

Jon Hilkevitch | Getting Around
February 16, 2009

The sinking economy is driving Chicago-area mass-transit agencies into the ground, according to new data marking a quick return to budget crises.

The new numbers are so bleak that the "doomsday" service cuts and fare increases threatened more than a year ago appear mild in comparison to the sweeping measures that would be needed to fill gaping budget holes the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace are facing.
...

[Chicago3rd]

^^^So you don't think there is a real issue with the projected tax revenues dropping because of the economic crises? That take on the situtations seems a little clueless. The issue on how the media reports it is a different topic matter...how about the actual article? It has far worse ramifications to countless tens of thousands of people than a bi-line in the newspaper.

None of us like the idea of another funding crises with Mass Transit in Chicago....but seems like this will be the first of many large governmental budget problems in the near future....because of the economy..which I personally am sick of.

[arenn]

Transit is heavily funded by sales and real estate transfer taxes - highly variable revenue sources in a down economy.

[the urban politician]

UP the parking tax! Daley was about to institute that about a month ago but it fizzled away.

[Taft]

^^^So you don't think there is a real issue with the projected tax revenues dropping because of the economic crises? That take on the situtations seems a little clueless. The issue on how the media reports it is a different topic matter...how about the actual article? It has far worse ramifications to countless tens of thousands of people than a bi-line in the newspaper.

None of us like the idea of another funding crises with Mass Transit in Chicago....but seems like this will be the first of many large governmental budget problems in the near future....because of the economy..which I personally am sick of.

I do think there are serious problems which I am likely just as sick of as you. The city, state, RTA and--to a lesser extent--the feds need to sit down and figure this out ASAP.

I am just reacting to the sensationalism with which this is billed and general poor reporting. The word "doomsday" gets trotted out and all of a sudden you have several million downstaters yapping about the dysfunction of CTA and grumbling about their perpetual "doomsdays." The media sells these problems to the public as problems that can be fixed only by huge influxes of cash. No one really details the long term funding changes that need to be made to make public transit in Illinois tenable. And so, as we go round again on the funding-go-round, the public is perpetually surprised about the next "doomsday" which pops up and asks, "didn't we just fix this?"

Sigh.

[Abner]

I think the headline was more sensationalist than the body of the story, which at least makes clear in the first sentence that the economy is the culprit here. Let's hope that federal assistance will plug the gap.

[VivaLFuego]

To some extent, increased Federal dollars for the capital budget will allow RTA to divert local capital dollars to the operating budget to avert/mitigate a subsequent doomsday. The stimulus may indeed help tremendously.

[ChicagoChicago]

To some extent, increased Federal dollars for the capital budget will allow RTA to divert local capital dollars to the operating budget to avert/mitigate a subsequent doomsday. The stimulus may indeed help tremendously.

The idea that capital spending from a “stimulus” package could be diverted just to pay the bills makes me want to vomit.

The state needs to secure a permanent, recession proof way to fund transit. Come on Pat, it’s been a week. Whatcha got?