[arenn]

Lots of politically driven routes versus reality driven routes on HSR. Why a 3C route in Ohio? Better to connect Columbus to Chicago via Indianapolis (intermediate stop in Dayton). The Pensy line is abandoned there, but since the only real viable high speed line is new terrain anyway, no problem. This route could share trackage with the Cincinnati line coming out of the southeast side of Indy.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ The goal of the 3 C's line is not to connect Chi-Col. It is to connect the 3C's and pick up Dayton also.

Anyway this is the Chicago Transit thread.

[denizen467]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ride-along-transit-18apr18,0,5347805.story

Legislators get a taste of the worst of transit system
Crumbling facilities show need for more funds, agencies say
By Richard Wronski | Tribune reporter
April 18, 2009

At the risk of getting rust in the eye, eight lawmakers gazed Friday at the rougher edges of the Chicago area's mass transit network—a corroded metal roof at the Cicero Metra station; a decrepit, century-old 'L' platform and a cluster of beater-looking cars used on the Electric District line.

. . .

"We looked at the [CTA 'L'] station upstairs—how aging and ... falling apart it is," Sandoval said, referring to the 100-year-old 'L' platform at Madison and Wabash, which is overdue for a $50 million makeover.

. . .

---------------

What's the latest on the Wabash el stations rebuilding?

[Nowhereman1280]

How about this excerpt from the article:

Legislators have until May 31 in the legislative session to produce a public works program. The Regional Transportation Authority has called for a five-year, $10 billion state capital program to maintain, enhance and expand mass transit.

But legislators Friday hoped for a more modest $1 billion-a-year capital program financed chiefly by a hike in the state gasoline tax.

Even if its just $1 billion a year for Mass Transit, we could see an amazing amount of improvement in Chicago area transit very rapidly. I mean combine all the potential and already locked in federal transit dollars and renewed support on a state level and we are talking about probably almost $2 billion a year put into capital improvements on Chicago area transit alone...

[the urban politician]

^ With the May 31 deadline looming, it makes one all the more thankful that loony bin Blago is out of office

[emathias]

I was thinking today about how LSD cuts Grant Park and the Loop off the the Lakefront. Has the City ever considered radically re-routing LSD?

For example, where it splits into Columbus, instead of splitting east, descend into the trench currently used by South Shore and Metra Electric lines. To accomodate that, they could first dig a trench in the right of way to accomodate a new lower level for the Metra tracks until south of the Art Institute where the new LSD would veer back NE under the field to the east of the AI to return to ground level about where it curves now. If needed, once Metra Electric was one level down, another trench could be added for the express buses that run there now. Since LSD would branch east south of Monroe, it wouldn't even interfere with any future under-Monroe transitway. If you worked in ramp entrances/exits at Congress and Monroe or Randolph, you could do away with stop lights and increase the traffic flow. If the city gets rid of the stoplight at Chicago Ave per the Central Area Action Plan, LSD could become stop-light free from the Museum of Science and Industry to Hollywood. I'm guessing it'd cost upwards of a billion dollars, but it'd be far, far less expensive than the Big Dig was in Boston.

This would leave us with over a full mile of unobstructed access to the Lake. Car people would be happy, parks people would be happy, usability of Grant Park would increase.

Red could be LSD, yellow could be a lower trench for the rail lines.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3300/3453041985_ded02160a0_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/3453041985/)

[simcityaustin]

So if the Quad Cities are connected via rail to Chicago does that mean I live in a suburb of Chicago? ;)

[Chicago Shawn]

^ You're the expert, but to me it would seem to make sense for the BRT to go straight downtown and have stops in the Loop and Streeterville.

One, it avoids any need to transfer, and two, it's not all that easy to get to Streeterville using the Orange Line unless one made a second transfer at Roosevelt to the Red Line, rode it to River North, and then walked several blocks over.

Instead, take people straight downtown and let them ride the train west to the Illinois Medical District if that's their final destination.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. The problem is though, routing the bus express all the way to the Loop. It might be possible to continue eastbound via the shoulder all the way to LSD, and north up to Columbus Drive, with stops at Illinois Center and Streeterville; but I am pretty sure that the shoulder becomes too narrow once you reach the Dan Ryan. The issue with creating point to point service in the Loop is well, where exactly does the bus discharge the passengers for optimal point to point service, that would also have easy access. LaSalle Street station comes to mind, right off Congress and pretty close to the heart of the financial district. I think using the Loop elevated as a final distributor would work very well, giving a greater amount of accessibility to more destinations within the Loop, and time wise would probably be the same if not quicker than taking the bus all the way into the congested city center during rush periods.

Oh, I don't consider myself to be an expert, but thanks for the compliment. ;)

[honte]

If the city gets rid of the stoplight at Chicago Ave per the Central Area Action Plan, LSD could become stop-light free from the Museum of Science and Industry to Hollywood. I'm guessing it'd cost upwards of a billion dollars, but it'd be far, far less expensive than the Big Dig was in Boston.

emathias, as a true transit novice, I am all in favor of burying LSD. But since you're burying it anyway, I'd rather keep it in place and see the cash spent to bury Columbus and some of the east-west streets too.

I can't express what wonders the Big Dig has done for Boston. I agree that it would be a worthwhile project.

[honte]

Has Chicago ever considered creating a real bus terminal for public transit, similar to those in many US cities (aside from the West Loop Transit Center fantasy)? It seems the old Greyhound station, with its connection to Lower Wacker and easy connection to the State-Lake transfer station, would have been a perfect model and location.

As much as I love lower Wacker, I suppose I would give it up for true BRT and a real transfer station downtown.

I don't think people mind too much transferring between lines. I think what discourages it in Chicago is the relative lack of nice and convenient places to do it. Most places to transfer are out in the elements, kind of dingy, lacking amenities, etc.
relative lack of nice and convenient places to do it. Most places to transfer are out in the elements, kind of dingy, lacking amenties, etc.

[the urban politician]

Oh, I don't disagree with that. The problem is though, routing the bus express all the way to the Loop. It might be possible to continue eastbound via the shoulder all the way to LSD, and north up to Columbus Drive, with stops at Illinois Center and Streeterville; but I am pretty sure that the shoulder becomes too narrow once you reach the Dan Ryan. The issue with creating point to point service in the Loop is well, where exactly does the bus discharge the passengers for optimal point to point service, that would also have easy access. LaSalle Street station comes to mind, right off Congress and pretty close to the heart of the financial district. I think using the Loop elevated as a final distributor would work very well, giving a greater amount of accessibility to more destinations within the Loop, and time wise would probably be the same if not quicker than taking the bus all the way into the congested city center during rush periods.


^ Sounds okay, although it still doesn't address the Streeterville issue. Perhaps I am overestimating the importance of a transit connection to Streeterville? I have always felt that the large number of University, research, healthcare, and (to a small degree) media jobs in Streeterville deserved better transit access..

[Nowhereman1280]

TUP no one from the suburbs is going to be commuting to Streeterville to work... There are only a handful of offices there and almost all of them are in that city services building on Columbus made of Corten steel. The bigger concern I think would be getting people to River North as more office buildings are built in that area...

[alex1]

emathias, as a true transit novice, I am all in favor of burying LSD. But since you're burying it anyway, I'd rather keep it in place and see the cash spent to bury Columbus and some of the east-west streets too.

I can't express what wonders the Big Dig has done for Boston. I agree that it would be a worthwhile project.

I spend a lot of my free time in Boston so I can attest that the Big Dig has been a very successful project on multiple levels. But I still wonder if it was worth the $15 billion. I don't think it was.

LSD is perhaps the best designed water-edge highway I've ever seen built and naturally, Columbus Dr. is a smaller and more pragmatic problem to solve.

[alex1]

TUP no one from the suburbs is going to be commuting to Streeterville to work... There are only a handful of offices there and almost all of them are in that city services building on Columbus made of Corten steel. The bigger concern I think would be getting people to River North as more office buildings are built in that area...

?. Is this really accurate?

[emathias]

?. Is this really accurate?

It partly depends on what you define as "Streeterville," I suppose, and what you consider office jobs. Many jobs in hospitals are basically office jobs. Doctors probably mostly drive, as do the majority of shift workers, but that still leaves a lot of workers who do/can/could commute via transit. Most jobs in universities are basically office jobs. For specific buildings, the Onterie Building is partly commercial, as are Avenue Hotel building, NBC Tower, Time-Life Building, 680 N Lake Shore Drive, Affinia Hotel, 633 N St. Clair, Streeterville Center, 676 N St. Clair, ADA Building, AOA Building, 211 E Ontario, Searle Building, 233 E Ontario, Arthur Rubloff Building. In the Michigan Ave area, some of which a lot of people consider partly Streeterville, there's also 900 N Michigan, the Hancock Building, Olympia Center, 1 Magnificent Mile, City Place, FCB Building, Lewis Tower, and on the southern end, Equitable Building, 625 N Michigan, 500 N Michigan, 444 N Michigan, Tribune Tower, Wrigley Tower, and Realtor Building.

Additionally, there used to be more, but as someone else pointed out a while back, the wave of offices in Streeterville/N Michigan ebbed back after the subway to Streeterville fell off the Chicago transit radar. I think it's already heavily medical, education and marketing offices, but there could be more, especially along Wabash and St. Clair, and on the south on the empty parts of blocks near the NBC tower and Wrigley Building.

Currently, I think most suburban people who work outside the actual Loop probably drive. Not everyone, but most. I've known people in the Merchandise Mart who take Metra Electric from Frankfort and people who worked in the FCB building who took the Blue Line from Berwyn, but they're the exception and they still did drive sometimes.

[the urban politician]

TUP no one from the suburbs is going to be commuting to Streeterville to work... There are only a handful of offices there and almost all of them are in that city services building on Columbus made of Corten steel. The bigger concern I think would be getting people to River North as more office buildings are built in that area...

^ You don't think Northwestern University's Professional schools, the new Children's Memorial, Prentice Hospital, NWU Hospital, and its affiliated research institutions, the ABA, the ADA, etc don't make up a massive employment district?

And don't tell me they already have parking, because the whole point of improving transit access to that area is to reduce its parking needs so that we don't see more goliath parking garages envelop Streeterville.

[the urban politician]

It partly depends on what you define as "Streeterville," I suppose, and what you consider office jobs. Many jobs in hospitals are basically office jobs. Doctors probably mostly drive, as do the majority of shift workers, but that still leaves a lot of workers who do/can/could commute via transit. Most jobs in universities are basically office jobs. For specific buildings, the Onterie Building is partly commercial, as are Avenue Hotel building, NBC Tower, Time-Life Building, 680 N Lake Shore Drive, Affinia Hotel, 633 N St. Clair, Streeterville Center, 676 N St. Clair, ADA Building, AOA Building, 211 E Ontario, Searle Building, 233 E Ontario, Arthur Rubloff Building. In the Michigan Ave area, some of which a lot of people consider partly Streeterville, there's also 900 N Michigan, the Hancock Building, Olympia Center, 1 Magnificent Mile, City Place, FCB Building, Lewis Tower, and on the southern end, Equitable Building, 625 N Michigan, 500 N Michigan, 444 N Michigan, Tribune Tower, Wrigley Tower, and Realtor Building.

Additionally, there used to be more, but as someone else pointed out a while back, the wave of offices in Streeterville/N Michigan ebbed back after the subway to Streeterville fell off the Chicago transit radar. I think it's already heavily medical, education and marketing offices, but there could be more, especially along Wabash and St. Clair, and on the south on the empty parts of blocks near the NBC tower and Wrigley Building.

Currently, I think most suburban people who work outside the actual Loop probably drive. Not everyone, but most. I've known people in the Merchandise Mart who take Metra Electric from Frankfort and people who worked in the FCB building who took the Blue Line from Berwyn, but they're the exception and they still did drive sometimes.

Just saw this post now, but this is my point exactly. The notion that "oh, people just drive* there anyhow" is not a reason not to improve transit to the area. Do you want to see 5 or 6 more massive garages go up in Streeterville?

Besides, of course people are going to drive--you kind of have to when there is no other way to get there. But I still think it's a very very poor excuse.

* BTW, the notions that doctors "are going to drive anyhow" may be in fact true, but 1) doctors-in-training and medical students are much more likely to use mass transit if it's available, and 2) it's false to assume that doctors represent anything even close to a majority of employees in a hospital, let alone all of Streeterville.

[Chicago Shawn]

Many of the suburban commuters to Streeterville use the rush period express CTA routes from Union and Ogilvie which run to Navy Pier via Lower Wacker. There is an additional express route up to Illinois Center from Union/Ogilvie as well. North Michigan Avenue has the #125 Water Tower Express bus, as well as the #33; and the local 124 services Streeterville as well and can be accessed by poeple who use the Metra Electric/South Shore Line. There are specific Metra monthly passes that one can buy allowing for a free transfer to these specific express runs serving the train stations. Additionally, Northwestern which is by far the largest Streeterville employer, provides its own commuter bus to the train stations.

Anyone who makes this commute from the Suburbs either uses the services provided or currently drives to work. I don't think a point to point Pace express will make too many car drivers suddenly switch over, as they will first drive to a park and ride and then switch to a bus. Many will say, "just may as well drive the whole way".

[the urban politician]

Anyone who makes this commute from the Suburbs either uses the services provided or currently drives to work. I don't think a point to point Pace express will make too many car drivers suddenly switch over, as they will first drive to a park and ride and then switch to a bus. Many will say, "just may as well drive the whole way".

^ I think this is a dangerous assumption, don't you?

After all, don't hundreds of thousands of Chicago suburbanites already drive to Metra park n rides instead of saying "well, I may as well drive the whole way"?

My whole point is, sure perhaps there may not be a demand for a bus from the SW suburbs to Streeterville, but Streeterville is a legit employment district downtown and it would behoove the city to not take it for granted that more and more parking can keep being provided. Even the new Central Area Action Plan does little to address transit to Streeterville besides the already existing bus service. The proposed Lakefront busway, for example, stops way too far south of the job-rich NWU/Prentice/Childrens Memorial area.

[Chicago Shawn]

^ I think this is a dangerous assumption, don't you?

After all, don't hundreds of thousands of Chicago suburbanites already drive to Metra park n rides instead of saying "well, I may as well drive the whole way"?

My whole point is, sure perhaps there may not be a demand for a bus from the SW suburbs to Streeterville, but Streeterville is a legit employment district downtown and it would behoove the city to not take it for granted that more and more parking can keep being provided. Even the new Central Area Action Plan does little to address transit to Streeterville besides the already existing bus service. The proposed Lakefront busway, for example, stops way too far south of the job-rich NWU/Prentice/Childrens Memorial area.

Yes, again I do not disagree, but my point is there already are services providing transit connections between Streeterville and Metra, including Northwestern's own bus. If someone drives in despite all of these services already being provided, then I yes, would assume they will still probably drive. Assuming the Pace express would take the same path as the current I-55 flyer, then the park n' ride location in Romeoville is really not that much farther away from existing Metra stations on the Heritage Corridor. Would more people ride the bus if commute time was guaranteed with didicated lanes? I certainly believe so. Will many more people ride it if the bus goes all the way up to Streeterville to justify the additional cost when other service already exists? Doubt it, although I could be wrong. I suppose a survey could be distributed among Northwestern's staff to determine if any live in the southwest suburbs, how they currently get to work, and would they chose to ride an additional bus option?

[Nowhereman1280]

^ You don't think Northwestern University's Professional schools, the new Children's Memorial, Prentice Hospital, NWU Hospital, and its affiliated research institutions, the ABA, the ADA, etc don't make up a massive employment district?

And don't tell me they already have parking, because the whole point of improving transit access to that area is to reduce its parking needs so that we don't see more goliath parking garages envelop Streeterville.

Well I had forgotten about northwestern, but I don't really think a lot of people who work there commute from the South/ south west side suburbs. I would not say most of them drive, I would say that anyone who has decided to make the foolish choice to live on the South West side and try to commute to Northwestern already drives. From my experience most of the workers in the Northwestern Hospital district seem to have made the wise choice to live on the north side and take the train or express buses since its virtually inaccessible in any other way. Northwestern is a very North-Centric employer due to the Evanston campus location. Many of the academics and doctors and nearly all the students there either have to keep an office in Evanston or live/take classes there.

In any case, my point was primarily that, compared to just about every other sector of downtown, Streeterville is relatively devoid of office jobs that would draw large numbers of commuters from the suburbs. No hotels and other service industry jobs of that nature do not count since most "service sector" (think maids and janitors and bellhops) jobs are filled by the lower and lower-middle class of Chicago which usually uses a bus or train to reach their jobs.

[Mr Downtown]

Other than the transportation census package, the best source for employment location in Chicago is the Illinois Dept. of Employment Security's publication Where Workers Work. Here are the numbers for downtown ZIP codes from the 2008 edition:

http://i40.tinypic.com/b4bw2x.png

In Streeterville ZIP 60611, the number includes:

Retail 10,000
Professional 12,100
Health 10,800
Hotel/Restaurant 24,000
Information 7,600

[the urban politician]

^ AWESOME graphic, Mr D!

THis emphasizes further why investment in transit in the Loop proper shouldn't be the city's only priority, even though it clearly is the much larger center of employment for the central district.

I'd really love to see Chicago's mass transit system less fragmented downtown. More connections quickly linking commuters at various stations (CTA stops as well as Union/Ogilvie, LaSalle, Millennium) to eachother as well as parts of downtown outside of the Loop proper are the way to go.

Hopefully the city can get the Monroe & Carroll/Clinton Ave transitways up and running eventually (ie we shouldn't still be having this conversation in 25 years!).

[Chicago Shawn]

^Yes, that is a seriously awesome source of information.

I will have to refer to that anytime anyone argues that we should stop investing in downtown Chicago. Over half a million people work in the Central Area, in a area of what, less than 8 square miles?

Lets say the average annual salary of these workers is $20,000 a year, a conservative estimate, but you have to factor in all of the low wage service employees. $20,000 x 520,300 employees x 3% flat IL State income tax rate= $312,180,000 annual revenue for the state; which of course does not even include any business taxes or sales taxes from purchases within the same area for office supplies, food, clothing and hotel stays for out-of-town clients.

[the urban politician]

^ Nor does it include property taxes

[Mr Downtown]

Shawn hints at why I've come to the opinion that an income tax surcharge might actually be the fairest way to pay for transit. Besides the fact that income taxes (unlike property taxes) are related to ability to pay, consider the vaguely Georgist concept that the reason people in northeastern Illinois enjoy such good incomes is the business nexus that public transport makes possible. Therefore, if the state constitution allowed such a thing, I would put a small additional income tax on residents within the RTA service area.

The property transfer tax is a similar idea, based on the idea that downtown office buildings trade for such high values because of the transport converging there. The problem with that theory is that office rents in Oak Brook or Prairie Stone, with virtually no transit, are not dramatically different from rents in the East Loop, which has some of the planet's best transit connections. So obviously there are other very localized factors at work.

[emathias]

Just saw this post now, but this is my point exactly. The notion that "oh, people just drive* there anyhow" is not a reason not to improve transit to the area. Do you want to see 5 or 6 more massive garages go up in Streeterville?

Besides, of course people are going to drive--you kind of have to when there is no other way to get there. But I still think it's a very very poor excuse.

* BTW, the notions that doctors "are going to drive anyhow" may be in fact true, but 1) doctors-in-training and medical students are much more likely to use mass transit if it's available, and 2) it's false to assume that doctors represent anything even close to a majority of employees in a hospital, let alone all of Streeterville.

I'm not sure why you're griping at me - I have repeatedly advocated a subway to Streeterville on these pages. I think doctors and senior nurses are likely to always drive, as are a lot of executive-level people, of which there are a lot in Streeterville, but at the same time I don't see that as an excuse by any means. Even at my most cynical, I'd still advocate a subway to the area so that the super-high-skilled types can still conveniently drive there and keep it attractive to them, while everyone else has a more efficient, reliable way to get there.

[Abner]

TUP already pointed it out, but it's worth repeating that doctors are an extremely small proportion of health care workers, and by extremely small I mean typically less than 5%. In fact BLS statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm#table2) show that people who provide medical services, including doctors, nurses of all kinds, and technicians (not everybody in this category makes a large salary), are only about 44% of health workers, with almost all the rest (besides administrators, basically) being taken up by medical support staff, office workers, and assorted other semi-skilled or working-class workers. I don't know for sure, but I would wager that the health sector does not employ relatively more high-wage, high-skilled workers than the legal or financial sectors so heavily represented in the Loop and West Loop. There's no reason to think hospitals would have fewer workers taking transit than other places of employment.

[sentinel]

That's a very informative graphic - thanks for that Mr. Downtown!

[denizen467]

Since there's not much debate or posting here the last day or two, I thought I'd ask a sort-of-transportation-related trivia question (to which I do not know the answer):

Is there a specific place where the Chicago River South Branch ends and the Sanitary & Ship Canal begins? (Eyeballing the straightness of the waterway around Western seems to suggest it might be around there.)

[ardecila]

The Encyclopedia of Chicago (http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1684.html) says it begins at Damen. Historic maps of the South Branch show the river curving to the north at Damen; this remains in some form and you can see a little bit of the river's former curve in the outline of the turning basin that exists there.

[ardecila]

TONIGHT is the Orange Line Alternatives Analysis meeting at Daley College. Sorry about the late reminder - I'm sure y'all have different plans for tonight....

The Yellow Line meeting will be on the 30th at Niles North High School.

Screen 2 Open House Presentations

The Chicago Transit Authority invites the public to an open house on preliminary Screen 2 findings and recommendation of a locally preferred alternative, which will conclude the Alternatives Analysis study for the Orange Line Extension. Previously in Screen 1 of the Alternatives Analysis study, CTA presented an assessment of transit improvement options which included a selection of transit vehicle types and potential corridors for an Orange Line extension. Extending the Orange Line from its existing south terminal at Midway Airport to a new terminal near the Ford City Mall would streamline bus-to-rail connections for numerous CTA and Pace bus routes.

An open house is scheduled as follows:

Wednesday, April 22, 2009
6:00 PM – 8:00 PM (presentation will begin at 6:15 PM)
Richard J. Daley College
Lobby adjacent to auditorium
7500 South Pulaski Road
Chicago, Illinois 60652

*Facility accessible to people with disabilities.

[Mr Downtown]

[Sanitary & Ship Canal] begins at Damen.

Close enough, though we should remember that there was no street there at the time. The South Branch of the Chicago River forks just east of Ashland into the South Fork (Bubbly Creek) and the West Fork, which once originated a couple miles west of there, somewhere around Pulaski. Once the Sanitary & Ship Canal opened, the city asked to have the West Fork declared non-navigable, and it was later filled in except for the part between Ashland and Damen.

[Chicago3rd]

Shawn hints at why I've come to the opinion that an income tax surcharge might actually be the fairest way to pay for transit. Besides the fact that income taxes (unlike property taxes) are related to ability to pay, consider the vaguely Georgist concept that the reason people in northeastern Illinois enjoy such good incomes is the business nexus that public transport makes possible. Therefore, if the state constitution allowed such a thing, I would put a small additional income tax on residents within the RTA service area.

We can do that only after the northeast part of the state stops subsidizing the rest of the state.

[sammyg]

The prototype trainsets were supposed to arrive "sometime in 2009" for testing before the full order arrived in 2010. Any news on when we might start seeing the prototypes? Probably not until the second half of the year, but I don't think I've heard anything since last summer.

[Mr Downtown]

^I'm told that some are on the test track in New York, but I don't think any have yet arrived at Skokie Shops.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-loop-plan-city-zone-24-apr24,0,3827781.story

Chicago revitalization plan: Despite uncertainties, $15.5 billion proposal for downtown is moving forward
Transportation, parks and commercial space would be rejuvenated and expanded
By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter
April 24, 2009


...........Yet the Chicago Central Area Action Plan¿a road map filled with visions and goals as well as dozens of specific projects, construction timetables and estimated costs¿is expected to be approved by the City Council as early as next month.

Public transportation projects valued at $14.2 billion make up the bulk of the plan, which the Daley administration hopes to complete by 2020. Some elements would be fast-tracked if Chicago is selected this year to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

............The needed transportation investment, which would come from city, state and federal capital funding as well as private-sector investment, would be in addition to $6.25 billion in regional transit projects that the CTA and Metra are expected to pursue, officials said. Those include the CTA's Circle Line linking CTA and Metra rail stations in the downtown and nearby neighborhoods; the extension of the CTA's Red, Orange and Yellow rail Lines; Metra's suburb-to-suburb STAR Line; and the commuter railroad's planned Southeast Service providing a rail link from Will and southern Cook Counties to the Loop.

In addition, the Central Area Action Plan calls for $1.3 billion in urban design, waterfront and open-space improvements.

The city's portion of the $15.5 billion total is $6 billion to $8 billion.

"Engineering and planning work must begin immediately upon the plan's adoption to reach either the 2016 or 2020 target," according to a draft report.

Planning experts said the action plan provides the follow-through to economic development and land-use goals spelled out in a 2003 city report for the central area, and is being implemented this year on the centennial of Burnham's plan.

They said the public should not be intimidated by the immense price tags associated with the projects, despite a pattern of serious cost overruns associated with public works programs in the city.

"If you zoom right into the numbers, they look huge. But in the context of the next several state and federal capital plans, this bold plan with its aggressive transportation investments will help the central business district reinvent itself and grow," said MarySue Barrett, president of the Metropolitan Planning Council.

The action plan is necessary because it provides the best picture of commercial growth, Barrett said.................


jhilkevitch@tribune.com

..

[Chicago Shawn]

Went to the Alternative Analysis Meeting on Wendsday.

Happy to report that the BRT option has been dropped from the plan

The extension will be rail, extending south from Midway Station under 59th St, returning to grade, then passing under 63rd St, then inclining to go elevated over Marquette Rd (67th St), and over the clearing yard while swinging west towards Cicero Avenue. The extension will then go elevated over Cicero from 71st Street to 76th Street with a new terminal built over the street with the capability for future extensions south or west. The new bus terminal will be built on parking lots now owned by Ford City Mall, and a new 750 car Park n' Ride garage will be constructed there as well.

The proposed routing over the clearing yard to the east and along Kostner was dropped due to cost. The yard has less space to build bridge piers, necessitating a much costlier bridge. Cost estimate was pegged at $700 million Vs. $400 million for the Cicero option. The estimates are inflated to expected year of construction at a 3% inflation rate. There will be an operational savings with buses that can now end routes at Ford City, rather than going all the way up to Midway for each trip. As such, congestion at the Midway station will be reduced.

The extension will provide enough room for the Belt Railway to add a third track in the future.

Environmental Impact Study is to begin latter this year, a partial funding source has already been identified.

If all goes well with securing federal funding soon, the line can be operational in 6 years.

The possibility of infill stations between Midway and Ford City was dropped after a cost/benefit analysis was conducted for locations at 63rd and Marquette (67th). The density and commercial activity just is not there to justify overcoming expensive engineering and construction costs for stations at these locations.

A few images, North is to the left on the photos:

http://images2d.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53692%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B73932%3Anu0mrj

http://images2d.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53674%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B73%3A32%3Anu0mrj

http://images2c.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53646%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B73%3B32%3Anu0mrj

http://images2c.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53654%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B74232%3Anu0mrj

http://images2d.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53679%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B74432%3Anu0mrj

http://images2d.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53675%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B74332%3Anu0mrj

Held at the city college named after hissoner..
http://images2d.snapfish.com/232323232%7Ffp53678%3Enu%3D3253%3E95%3A%3E5%3B7%3EWSNRCG%3D32499%3B%3B74532%3Anu0mrj

[ardecila]

Thanks, Chicago Shawn. This will be the first new elevated track over a road in Chicago since the Northwestern Elevated Railroad (now Brown Line).

[the urban politician]

^ Thanks for all the pics and the info, Shawn.

I'm just curious about dropping the infill stations. If low density is a reason not to have infill stations, then why build the Ford City extension at all? After all, it's not like there is anything on that part of Cicero that resembles the density of typical lakefront Chicago neighborhoods.

I'm a bit disappointed because there is a large district of hotels (around 64th, 65th street I believe?) in Bedford Park just west of Cicero that would seem to be well served by a station. Plus, there are a lot of vacant lots on the east side of Cicero down there whose development would be greatly accelerated by a new transit stop. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a missed opportunity to build an entirely new rail transit extension just to add one new stop.

[lawfin]

^^^I agree 100% TUP...Unless there are future definite plans to add the infill stations. I mean is Ford City that much of a trip generator to warrant the investment.

[VivaLFuego]

^ Thanks for all the pics and the info, Shawn.

I'm just curious about dropping the infill stations. If low density is a reason not to have infill stations, then why build the Ford City extension at all? After all, it's not like there is anything on that part of Cicero that resembles the density of typical lakefront Chicago neighborhoods.

I'm a bit disappointed because there is a large district of hotels (around 64th, 65th street I believe?) in Bedford Park just west of Cicero that would seem to be well served by a station. Plus, there are a lot of vacant lots on the east side of Cicero down there whose development would be greatly accelerated by a new transit stop. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a missed opportunity to build an entirely new rail transit extension just to add one new stop.
The 3.0 million in annual project ridership implies around 9,000-10,000 new rail boardings on an average weekday, which is pretty substantial. There is a massive unmet need for downtown-oriented transit service in the southwest side, which generally means Park-n-Ride in lower-density areas (already overcapacity at Midway and Pulaski stations). The added bonus of the Orange Line extension, in addition to providing this additional downtown-oriented transit service in the area, is that it also happens to terminate at a substantial regional retail employment center (Ford City Mall and all the surrounding big box retail), which is good for a decent number of employment trips.

The question of infill stations, then, is simply one of Marginal Cost vs. Marginal Benefit - for the added cost of excavation/construction to build stations (and subsequently operate them), would you get enough marginal new rail transit riders above and beyond the 9,000-10,000 per average weekday? Remember, simply making existing transit riders' trips a little more convenient is usually not enough to meet federal cost-effectiveness thresholds, the project needs to create a substantial number of new transit trips (though it's worth noting that projects like the Red Line extension approach cost effectiveness solely through improving existing riders transit trips rather than generating new transit trips - but such projects are rare).

[Chicago Shawn]

^Yeah, I am excited about the prospect of new elevated track, although the Orange Line has a few sections of elevated structure built back in the early 1990's. So this would be the first new elevated track since then.

TUP, I made a few comments regarding a station to serve the hotel complex which does go as far south as Marquette Rd. It would serve the employees, but IMO, chances are many visitors will not walk across the 6 lanes of Cicero and then two blocks down to the potential station location, but would rather opt for the shuttle bus to the airport that already exists. Many of the hotel buildings would be located at least a half mile away when looking at total point to point distance, and while that may seem short to you and me, the average person who doesn't live in a urban setting would consider that to be not walking distance.

The argument against the station at Marquette is that the clearing yard takes up much of the walking distance radius around the station, lowering the amount of potential users even if the neighborhood was to increase in density. Additionally, the track is inclining at that point and begins to curve eastward; so adding a station here would be expensive.


63rd Street is too close to the Midway station, and the 63rd station would have to built in a partial subway layout under the street, which again would be expensive.

Ford City and its environs is a major employment center and trip generator. the mall also already serves as a major transfer point for multiple bus routes, including 79th Street, which is the highest ridership route in the city.

[sammyg]

^
The other thing about Ford City is that it's on the other side of the belt railway yard from the rest of the Orange Line, so this cuts across a natural barrier and allows people on the south side of the railyard to be tied into the L system.

[jpIllInoIs]

^ I would like to see the Orange line continue east along 79th and link with the Wrightwood Metra station.

[bnk]

..

From the article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2009-04/46476588.jpg



Nice detail on all of the projects here in pdf

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2009-04/46476638.pdf

[Abner]

Was there any mention made of whether the Orange Line extension will be compatible with a potential Mid-City Transitway? I assume there wouldn't be anything to prevent it.

Looks like nobody posted this extremely interesting story from yesterday about the NABI buses:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta-bus-24-apr24,0,2883513.story

CTA bus troubles: 225 accordion-style buses won't be back on street because of safety issues, officials say
Agency, bus manufacturer locked in court battle

By Jon Hilkevitch | Tribune reporter
April 24, 2009

About 225 accordion-style buses that the CTA removed from service in February after cracks and other structural defects were found will not be returned to the streets of Chicago, transit officials said Thursday.

...

There are lots of interesting details, it's worth reading. Pretty depressing story though.

[denizen467]

I'm a bit disappointed because there is a large district of hotels (around 64th, 65th street I believe?) in Bedford Park just west of Cicero that would seem to be well served by a station.
(As Shawn also said)The hotels might not consider it a major loss since they probably have frequent shuttles to the terminal, which their guests could use to get to Midway Station.

Also, I don't know, but maybe there is strong political sway against encouraging a major hotel cluster just outside Chicago's city limits when there could be one just inside the city and no less close to the airport.

This raises the separate question of: What are the plans for Cicero north of MDW to I55? It looks crappy and I think that's because there was always a threat of the Mid-City Expressway running through it. Is that what is still staving off development of hotels etc. there?

[denizen467]

dp

[Mr Downtown]

What do you mean by plans? That part of Cicero is in the City of Chicago, which doesn't do any sort of comprehensive or city planning.

The frontage on Cicero is less than 125 feet deep, which pretty much prevents development as anything other than residential, for which demand is still low in that part of the city. The hotel cluster down at 65th didn't just spring up because of growing demand. It's a single developer who put together four hotel flags and a couple of chain restaurants on a former industrial parcel, and he probably did so based on having contracts with ATA or Southwest for crew overnights.

[VivaLFuego]

This raises the separate question of: What are the plans for Cicero north of MDW to I55? It looks crappy and I think that's because there was always a threat of the Mid-City Expressway running through it. Is that what is still staving off development of hotels etc. there?

Indeed, as you postulate, the City wants Cicero between Archer and 55th to have some hotels so the city gets some of that tax revenue, and I think there have been some re-zoning approvals to that effect but no actual progress. North of there is a bit of a lemon - some murmurs about streetscaping but theres only so much that can be done. There have been some pie-in-the-sky mentions over the last several years (particularly in re: the Midway privatization that just went kaput) of CTA selling/leasing air rights over the Orange Line yard for a minor hotel/convention center, but I assume as always the question holding it up is cost.

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/midwest-rail-network-likely-to-get-stimulus-cash.html

Midwest rail network likely to get stimulus cash
April 24, 2009 1:26 PM | No Comments

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today that a proposed Midwest passenger high-speed rail network is among six corridors likely to share an $8 billion federal stimulus pot to modernize tracks and replace aging trains with new fleets.

LaHood said the Midwestern states should appoint a "rail czar'' to coordinate the program and work with governors and legislatures to complete the required studies and begin construction.

"This corridor needs to get their act together,'' LaHood told the Tribune's editorial board, pointing out that an additional $1 billion a year over five years will be awarded to the best high-speed rail programs.

"Here's how I explained it to Gov. (Pat) Quinn: You need to find somebody, maybe a retired rail person, who gets up everyday and the only thing that person thinks about is developing the high-speed rail corridor in the Midwest,'' LaHood said. "That's the way it is going to happen.''

The state transportation departments in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin are leading an effort to operate trains traveling at 110 miles per hour through nine Midwestern states. Chicago would be the hub of the 3,000-mile network, which would extend to cities including St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City and Louisville.

Faster trains passing through Chicago could be operating as soon as 2012 to 2014 to Milwaukee and Madison, officials have said.

LaHood said he doesn't foresee trains ever exceeding speeds of 200 m.p.h. in the Midwest, due to the relatively short distance between cities and the cost of building dedicated high-speed tracks that do not cross over roads.

"If you get a train up to 150 or 160 miles an hour, that's faster than any train we've ever had in the history of trains,'' he said.

"We ought to define it by the idea that people can get on a train that's efficient, comfortable and cost-effective, get people out of their cars and really connect America,'' LaHood said.

[Chicago Shawn]

The CTA hired a consultant in February to examine some of the sidelined vehicles after one bus suffered a complete structural failure while being driven into a bus garage. The break occurred in the articulation joint that connects the two sections of the bus.

What piles of shit those buses are. Thankfully this did not happen on Lake Shore Drive at full speed while the bus fully loaded with standing passengers.

[Chicago Shawn]

Indeed, as you postulate, the City wants Cicero between Archer and 55th to have some hotels so the city gets some of that tax revenue, and I think there have been some re-zoning approvals to that effect but no actual progress. North of there is a bit of a lemon - some murmurs about streetscaping but theres only so much that can be done. There have been some pie-in-the-sky mentions over the last several years (particularly in re: the Midway privatization that just went kaput) of CTA selling/leasing air rights over the Orange Line yard for a minor hotel/convention center, but I assume as always the question holding it up is cost.

I watched a hotel proposal not pass plan commission because it was "too tall". There was concern of being out of context and it potentially restricting some flight operations. The operational concern was that some smaller planes may have to shift over to a busier runway used by commercial airliners. This concern was propagated by Southwest Airlines who portrayed themselves as owning the whole friggen airport, and did not want any additional traffic on "thier" runway.

This is despite the fact that the airport fence, trees and existing billboards already place restrictions on maintaining a 1000 foot vertical safety clearance that are already above the height of the proposed hotel. The FAA had also already approved of the design.

As for the "out of context" concern, that is BS. the context of the neighborhood is the airport.

As a taxpayer, I was appalled. That would have been a four star major flag hotel generating taxes inside the city as opposed to the burbs, as is the case with nearly every hotel near Midway.

I don't know if the developers went forward to seek approval from zoning and City Council, as Plan Commission is only advisory.

[Abner]

What piles of shit those buses are. Thankfully this did not happen on Lake Shore Drive at full speed while the bus fully loaded with standing passengers.

Yeah, the article has a lot of pretty horrifying details about the poor workmanship on those buses. They were putting thousands of people at risk every day.

I used to dread taking any route that used those things. The new articulated buses are a world of difference.

[the urban politician]

Looks like earmarks are still important to members of Congress. I found this tidbit of Rep. Quigley's earmark requests: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/new-congressman-quigley-r_n_191289.html)


Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line - Ogden Streetcar)

Recipient: CTA located at 567 W. Lake, Chicago, IL 60661
Request: $12,150,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's New Starts account.
Request: $3,000,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Alternatives Analysis account.
Description: The construction of the Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line - Ogden Streetcar) will help to manage the growing need for more public transit options. It will also help to prevent overcrowding, provide more efficient transit options to destinations throughout the city, and quicken commute times. Additionally, this project will connect CTA Red and Brown Lines near North/Clybourn with the existing CTA track and structure near Lake/Paulina. The project will also connect the existing CTA Orange Line near Ashland with the existing Pink Line Cermak Branch near 18th Street. Finally, the project will add new CTA and Metra transfer stations along new and existing CTA tracks to the northwest, west, southwest, and south of Chicago's Central area.

Paratransit Vehicles

Recipient: Pace, located at 550 W. Algonquin, Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Request: $960,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Bus and Bus Facilities account.
Description: Pace provides federally mandated ADA paratransit service to the disabled in Chicago. This funding will help Chicago acquire enough vehicles to serve the area. With a complete fleet, the total operating cost of the Chicago paratransit service would decrease significantly.

Union Pacific Northwest Line (UP-NW) Enhancement Project

Recipient: Metra, located at 547 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60661
Request: $5,000,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Small Starts account.
Description: Funding for improvements to the UP-NW line will provide more and faster service on the branch, as well as attract new riders in a growing area and reduce station access times for existing area riders. The project also includes upgrading signals on the main line of UP-NW to allow more express trains to downtown and improved suburb-to-suburb and reverse-commute services. In addition, the two new rail yards will allow for more train capacity and more efficient maintenance.

[Tom In Chicago]

So did I read that article correctly by understanding that they would no longer be using the articulated busses? I saw one on Lakeshore Drive yesterday. . .

. . .

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ No, not all of the articulated buses, only the old NABI ones. I haven't seen anything but the new hybrid ones since this issue of joint cracks first came to light and I live on Sheridan with a view of LSD. The NABI ones are completely retired as far as I've seen. If you did see one of the crappy NABI ones, they were probably testing it or something...

[jpIllInoIs]

Good Article on CREATE........

http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/2009.2.20_Untangling%20the%20Chicago%20Knot.JOC.pdf



And a TV story from McNeal Leher report
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/share.html?s=news01s251dq8b9

[bnk]

Good Article on CREATE........

http://www.createprogram.org/PDF/2009.2.20_Untangling%20the%20Chicago%20Knot.JOC.pdf



And a TV story from McNeal Leher report
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/share.html?s=news01s251dq8b9


Both great finds. That vid was real nice 10 min plus national story. Freight Rail Bottlenecks Hinder U.S. Potential

It really shows how important and large this program is for the entire nation. This still needs massive federal funding to finish this project.



from the Article CREATE’s completion is at least several years away. “If all of the funding were to miraculously
show up on our doorstep tomorrow, we’re still probably looking at 2015,

especially some of the
big rail-to-rail flyovers,” Garrison said.

Larry Wilson, rail planning section chief at the Illinois DOT, said a more realistic completion date

probably is 2021, assuming the project is adequately funded in the next two federal surface
transportation bills.

Some railroads haven’t shown much patience for those timetables.

Just imagine the futre of CREATE if a McCain-Palin administraton was inplace of the current one.

[the urban politician]

Just imagine the futre of CREATE if a McCain-Palin administraton was inplace of the current one.

http://newzblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/john-mccain21.jpg

I'll veto the first piece of PORK that crosses my desk and make it famous!

[denizen467]

Has there been any mention that any portion of the infrastructure stimulus funds might go to rebuilding Red Line viaducts? I am thinking particularly of Edgewater, Rogers Park, and north and south of there, though there might be crumbling viaducts elsewhere too. It would seem to me that redoing viaducts would be one of the most shovel-ready (or otherwise fast-track) projects there could be (more so than high-speed rail). Some of those bastards are in seriously dangerous-looking shape - and some are kind of impeding major arterials (Hollywood; Loyola; etc.).

For that matter, Metra definitely has some antiquated viaducts too; have those ever come up as priority issues (whether this year or in years past)?

[ardecila]

It's my understanding that one of Metra's highest priority issues is rebuilding the UP-N viaduct through the North Side, along with the major capacity upgrade on the UP-NW line. The SouthEast Service and STAR Line, although they have gotten a lot of press, are far in the future. CMAP is smart enough to realize that those two projects have little potential, and CMAP is able to rank regional transportation projects by order of urgency, which IIRC impacts their ability to receive funding from the Feds.

[VivaLFuego]

CTA viaducts is a tough call - routine maintenance to keep them safe is done regardless, but complete reconstruction would require a significant amount of design work and planning that would have to be coordinated in some sort of strategic/holistic fashion through the entire corridor, because many viaduct reconstructions would entail de facto station reconstructions.

Despite their ugly appearance, I'm not aware that any/many of the North Main viaducts are in actual unsafe structural condition.

[lawfin]

^^^Jarvis CTA stop appears to be in horrible shape. Structurally it may be sound, but it looks like a bomb hit it. I am sure they did not bring the Olympic committee there to see that station

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ A lot of the viaducts along the embankment look like that. Berwin, Sheridan/Devon, Hollywood, Jarvis, Foster, and others all come to mind. I remember reading somewhere that, despite their appearance, they were way over-built engineered when they were first built in anticipation of heavier trains or something so they can deteriorate a lot before the weight and vibrations of the El would cause them to become structurally unsound.

I don't know why they don't just keep them all freshly painted like they do at Bryn Mawr. Bryn Mawr viaduct is just as bad as Sheridan/Devon, Jarvis, and others, its just much more difficult to see because they keep it freshly painted. All the other ones appear to have been completely painted in the past, but the paint has been allowed to crack and flake off. Anyone know why they stopped paining them?

[Mr Downtown]

I hear occasional rumblings about reconstruction of the fill section north of Wilson. A lot of the concrete retaining walls are spalling or collapsing in places. The overpass span beams may be fine, but the seats and abutments have problems and the clearances are obviously from another era. One interesting problem is that no one knows what was used for fill, so there may be remediation problems. I wonder if they could just wrap it all up inside new retaining walls to avoid that.

[denizen467]

Even if they are structurally sound, many of them look like total decrepit embarrassing crap. The extra bracing that was often added between columns really inspires confidence. And who knows when a chunk of stone might fall off?

They one-off did Main Street and Church Street on the Purple Line in the last couple years (without needing to do station work); I would think at least a couple more viaducts could be done without much further ado. That's the medicine that has been called for, I believe: stimulus jobs + transit improvements, soon.

[Chicago3rd]

Looks like earmarks are still important to members of Congress. I found this tidbit of Rep. Quigley's earmark requests: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/new-congressman-quigley-r_n_191289.html)


Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line - Ogden Streetcar)

Recipient: CTA located at 567 W. Lake, Chicago, IL 60661
Request: $12,150,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's New Starts account.
Request: $3,000,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Alternatives Analysis account.
Description: The construction of the Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line - Ogden Streetcar) will help to manage the growing need for more public transit options. It will also help to prevent overcrowding, provide more efficient transit options to destinations throughout the city, and quicken commute times. Additionally, this project will connect CTA Red and Brown Lines near North/Clybourn with the existing CTA track and structure near Lake/Paulina. The project will also connect the existing CTA Orange Line near Ashland with the existing Pink Line Cermak Branch near 18th Street. Finally, the project will add new CTA and Metra transfer stations along new and existing CTA tracks to the northwest, west, southwest, and south of Chicago's Central area.

Paratransit Vehicles

Recipient: Pace, located at 550 W. Algonquin, Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Request: $960,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Bus and Bus Facilities account.
Description: Pace provides federally mandated ADA paratransit service to the disabled in Chicago. This funding will help Chicago acquire enough vehicles to serve the area. With a complete fleet, the total operating cost of the Chicago paratransit service would decrease significantly.

Union Pacific Northwest Line (UP-NW) Enhancement Project

Recipient: Metra, located at 547 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60661
Request: $5,000,000 through the Federal Transit Authority's Small Starts account.
Description: Funding for improvements to the UP-NW line will provide more and faster service on the branch, as well as attract new riders in a growing area and reduce station access times for existing area riders. The project also includes upgrading signals on the main line of UP-NW to allow more express trains to downtown and improved suburb-to-suburb and reverse-commute services. In addition, the two new rail yards will allow for more train capacity and more efficient maintenance.

Great to see! (p.s. It is the Constitutional Right for the House to spend. The House has the purse and is in controll of the purse strings. So why wouldn't it be allowed to direct specific funding towards projects each Congress person feels is important to their jurisdictions?) Kirk has proposed money that is directed at specific projects....has made them public...so the projects can be accounted for.

[Via Chicago]

WTF?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-transit-funding_30apr30,0,4506178.story
By Jon Hilkevitch and Richard Wronski | Tribune reporters
April 30, 2009
About $1 billion worth of mass transit improvements recently approved under the state's mini-capital bill may be in jeopardy, but Chicago-area transit agencies are not yet shelving projects, officials said Wednesday.

Gov. Pat Quinn put a freeze on the transit projects -- but not on road and bridge repairs -- by holding back on the bonding necessary to finance the transit piece, said state Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

[ChicagoChicago]

WTF?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-transit-funding_30apr30,0,4506178.storyMeet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Mr Downtown]

If you read the rest of the story, there's more to this than we yet know.

Katie Ridgway, a spokeswoman for Quinn, responded Wednesday by saying that "there is nothing on hold, and it's the governor's intention that transit projects will get started this construction season." She would not comment further on the issue.


My best guess would be that Gov. Quinn thought there was something fishy about the bond counsel or placement, not the projects themselves.

[Chicago3rd]

WTF?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-transit-funding_30apr30,0,4506178.story

My email went out to the governor already and I have forwarded the article to all my friends and the social/Church groups I belong to....suggesting they write to Quinn Right now.

He is just seeing what he can get away with.......a trial ballon. If we don't slap him down now....he will let his Bagofpoop real self be seen.

[Chicago3rd]

If you read the rest of the story, there's more to this than we yet know.

Katie Ridgway, a spokeswoman for Quinn, responded Wednesday by saying that "there is nothing on hold, and it's the governor's intention that transit projects will get started this construction season." She would not comment further on the issue.


My best guess would be that Gov. Quinn thought there was something fishy about the bond counsel or placement, not the projects themselves.

Quinn's PR person is telling us a lie...because we are being told that Quinn's very own COF and BC are telling the transit agencies to halt plans! Who would you believe....PR person hired to take the heat and lie and twist the truth or the people working for Quinn who are in charge of funding????

ALSO the transit agencies are moving ahead....see....a second source is now saying that there is an issue, but they are telling their people to continue forward.....

"He said the three transit agencies were ordered to not commit any money and to stop all planning for the projects."
Well if it is just something fishy about the bond counsel or placement...not the projects themselves...why stop making plans????

Why would Sandavol be lying? (maybe there is a reason?).

[whyhuhwhy]

Reading all of the above makes me whoozy on how much money we are borrowing and spending lately as a government. I mean it it truly unprecedented. You know things have gotten out of control when I see the word "billion" and don't even think twice about it. I can't wait to see some new projects but one day the bill is going to come in the mail. The problem is we are not spending real money, we are taking on NEW debt. I was just watching on the news that at the end of this year every 30 year old in America will have spent and will owe $132,000 in debt via the local and federal government spending, an increase of over 4X from last year. That's real money that we now owe countries like China. If you look back in history it is a new record not only in nominal dollars but also in percentage increase. :haha: Gosh these infrastructure projects better be good!

[ardecila]

Think about in a different way, though. Even if tha $132,000 figure is correct, it's not a one-time payment. Think about how much you pay to the federal government over a lifetime of taxes. The median salary in Chicago is roughly $60,000... at that wage, one pays about $11,000 in income taxes every year. $132,000 is a figure that can be paid in about 12 years.

Also, it's misleading to look at what the "average" person will owe... it's a misleading figure that doesn't take into account the disproportionate amount of taxes paid by the top 10%.

[VivaLFuego]

...not even getting into the fact that, either directly or through funds, many Americans are themselves the holders of public debt.

[Chicago3rd]

Reading all of the above makes me whoozy on how much money we are borrowing and spending lately as a government. I mean it it truly unprecedented.

Factually speaking this is incorrect. If you state stuff like this you should show us data to back it up. Try looking up government spending GDP percent. Also looking into the little thing called WWII. Also check out the GDP from 1920's (pre-depression) through to the 1930's (we called it the great depression). It jumped from about 12% up to 20% average and WWII as high as 52%. 46% for 2009. So what you said is NOT TRULY UNPRECEDENTED.

Government Spending As Percent Of GDP
Year $ %
1920 88.4 12.83
1921 73.6 14.32
1922 73.4 12.67
1923 85.4 11.27
1924 86.9 11.49
1925 90.6 11.44
1926 96.9 11.12
1927 95.5 11.75
1928 97.4 11.76
1929 103.6 11.29
1930 91.2 13.22
1931 76.5 15.93
1932 58.7 21.19
1933 56.4 22.38
1934 66 19.40
1935 73.3 20.17
1936 83.8 20.00
1937 91.9 18.74
1938 86.1 20.53
1939 92.2 20.66
1940 101.4 20.14
1941 126.7 19.22
1942 161.9 28.15
1943 198.6 46.68
1944 219.8 50.02
1945 223.1 52.97
1946 222.3 35.86
1947 244.2 23.64
1948 269.2 20.46
1949 267.3 23.46
1950 293.8 23.94

2000-2010
2000 9817 33.01
2001 10128 33.91
2002 10469.6 35.32
2003 10960.8 35.86
2004 11685.9 35.32
2005 12421.9 35.44
2006 13178.4 35.69
2007 13807.5 35.53
2008 14280.7 37.07
2009 14291 44.72
2010 14902 41.29

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&col=c

[Chicago3rd]

People living in Chicago chose not to live on a sheep farm and survive only by the grace of Mother Nature and what we can plant, harvest, and hunt. We are civilized and chose to live in a civil society and we HAVE ALWAYS spent or given away PUBLIC money and property to make our living standard rise. We do NOT want to live in a feudal system that so many libertarians want us all to live in.

This CTA money has been bought, paid for and is used by the people of Chicago.

[whyhuhwhy]

Factually speaking this is incorrect. If you state stuff like this you should show us data to back it up. Try looking up government spending GDP percent. Also looking into the little thing called WWII. Also check out the GDP from 1920's (pre-depression) through to the 1930's (we called it the great depression). It jumped from about 12% up to 20% average and WWII as high as 52%. 46% for 2009. So what you said is NOT TRULY UNPRECEDENTED.

Government Spending As Percent Of GDP
Year $ %
1920 88.4 12.83
1921 73.6 14.32
1922 73.4 12.67
1923 85.4 11.27
1924 86.9 11.49
1925 90.6 11.44
1926 96.9 11.12
1927 95.5 11.75
1928 97.4 11.76
1929 103.6 11.29
1930 91.2 13.22
1931 76.5 15.93
1932 58.7 21.19
1933 56.4 22.38
1934 66 19.40
1935 73.3 20.17
1936 83.8 20.00
1937 91.9 18.74
1938 86.1 20.53
1939 92.2 20.66
1940 101.4 20.14
1941 126.7 19.22
1942 161.9 28.15
1943 198.6 46.68
1944 219.8 50.02
1945 223.1 52.97
1946 222.3 35.86
1947 244.2 23.64
1948 269.2 20.46
1949 267.3 23.46
1950 293.8 23.94

2000-2010
2000 9817 33.01
2001 10128 33.91
2002 10469.6 35.32
2003 10960.8 35.86
2004 11685.9 35.32
2005 12421.9 35.44
2006 13178.4 35.69
2007 13807.5 35.53
2008 14280.7 37.07
2009 14291 44.72
2010 14902 41.29

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&col=c

I do not find it comforting that you had to use WORLD WAR II as the one time in our history where we spent more, that's for sure! Unprecedented sounds about right. Thanks for the data. I knew we were spending a lot but I didn't realize we were closing in on WORLD WAR II-style spending when there isn't even a world war! LOL.

[the urban politician]

For those Chicagoans out there who criticize the new Central Area Action Plan's focus on expensive transportation investments downtown, I think it wouldn't hurt to get a sense of perspective.

Chicago continues to slip further behind NYC in transit investments. I would advise many of you to direct critics (as well as yourselves) to spend a few minutes browsing through these (http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/fbu/). This, my friends, is what I call ambition for the future--the projects at that website are what procuring vitality for the 21st century is all about.

Kudos to the people behind Chicago's Central Area Action Plan, which is no less ambitious, IMO. My fear isn't in the planning, but in the execution--will Chicago's leadership maintain the will to move forward boldly, as is clearly happening in NYC, or will more opportunities for advancement be lost?

[arenn]

Has there been any mention that any portion of the infrastructure stimulus funds might go to rebuilding Red Line viaducts? I am thinking particularly of Edgewater, Rogers Park, and north and south of there, though there might be crumbling viaducts elsewhere too. It would seem to me that redoing viaducts would be one of the most shovel-ready (or otherwise fast-track) projects there could be (more so than high-speed rail). Some of those bastards are in seriously dangerous-looking shape - and some are kind of impeding major arterials (Hollywood; Loyola; etc.).

For that matter, Metra definitely has some antiquated viaducts too; have those ever come up as priority issues (whether this year or in years past)?

I'd like to see most viaduct work funded out of highway money. The recent UP-NW viaduct replacement were as much about increasing clearances for trucks as anything. Tractor trailers aren't Metra's problem.

[Busy Bee]

^100% agree.

[Chicago3rd]

I do not find it comforting that you had to use WORLD WAR II as the one time in our history where we spent more, that's for sure! Unprecedented sounds about right. Thanks for the data. I knew we were spending a lot but I didn't realize we were closing in on WORLD WAR II-style spending when there isn't even a world war! LOL.

You shouldn't try to change the meaning of the words you use.

UNPRECENDENTED:
having no precedent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unprecedented

PRECENDENT:
prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent

[Chicago3rd]

For those Chicagoans out there who criticize the new Central Area Action Plan's focus on expensive transportation investments downtown, I think it wouldn't hurt to get a sense of perspective.

Chicago continues to slip further behind NYC in transit investments. I would advise many of you to direct critics (as well as yourselves) to spend a few minutes browsing through these (http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/fbu/). This, my friends, is what I call ambition for the future--the projects at that website are what procuring vitality for the 21st century is all about.

Kudos to the people behind Chicago's Central Area Action Plan, which is no less ambitious, IMO. My fear isn't in the planning, but in the execution--will Chicago's leadership maintain the will to move forward boldly, as is clearly happening in NYC, or will more opportunities for advancement be lost?

If IL started getting back $ for $ from the Federal Taxes we get (we are a donor state) we would be getting about $1.5 billion dollars a year of our money back from the Feds and that could pay on this supposed high cost plan.

[lawfin]

Factually speaking this is incorrect. If you state stuff like this you should show us data to back it up. Try looking up government spending GDP percent. Also looking into the little thing called WWII. Also check out the GDP from 1920's (pre-depression) through to the 1930's (we called it the great depression). It jumped from about 12% up to 20% average and WWII as high as 52%. 46% for 2009. So what you said is NOT TRULY UNPRECEDENTED.

Government Spending As Percent Of GDP
Year $ %

2000 9817 33.01
2001 10128 33.91
2002 10469.6 35.32
2003 10960.8 35.86
2004 11685.9 35.32
2005 12421.9 35.44
2006 13178.4 35.69
2007 13807.5 35.53
2008 14280.7 37.07
2009 14291 44.72
2010 14902 41.29

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Government%20Spending%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&col=c
Umm unless I am misunderstanding these numbers, they appear to be incorrect at least according to CIA factbook

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

which appear to indicate that in 2008 spending was a little more than 21% of GDP not 37%....maybe I am misunderstanding the numbers you are presenting

Nor do they gel with numbers on the CBO website which from what I gather projects outlays to be about 28% of GDP this years...decreasing moving forward

Both CIA factbook and CBO at least are ostensibly non-partisan. The site you presented is essentially a right wing screed against Obama
case in point a quote:


"Used to be that the National Debt only went up to pay for wars. Then President Reagan increased the debt to win the Cold War. Now President Obama is increasing the debt to bail out the banks — and anyone else that needs a cool trillion or so.

It essentially says Reagan, Big Deficits.....Gooooood,
Obama, BIg Deficits..........Baaaaaaad


If you are going to present numbers to back up some concern of your at the very least use a credible source, instead of some Grover Norquist infused drivel

This guy: http://www.christopherchantrill.com/ is the publisher of the website you referenced.

Here are a few gems on quick perusal:
"People have a canny way of figuring out how to make ends meet. The authentic expressivists are no different. If people won't pony up the money to support their creative projects voluntarily, then the only sensible thing to do is to force them. Government should provide grants and funding to creative people: it's only simple justice.

All sorts of things about our age start to make sense when you get inside the head of the authentic expressivist. Abortion, for example. You really can't allow an unexpected pregnancy to divert you from your own way. You can't expect someone to soldier on in an uninspiring marriage when they could be following their bliss with someone more compatible. You can't really expect someone to pay for their kid's health care when they could get S-CHIP and spend the savings on their creative development.

Do you see now why liberals hate conservatives with such a passion? See why liberals scorn the warrior ethic, the faithful spouse ethic, the volunteer ethic, the pro-life ethic, the natalist ethic? Conservatives think that, while the creative life is a wonderful thing, it ought to be kept in perspective. Children come first. Entree comes before dessert. Do the right thing, not the easy thing. To the authentic expressivist, that is intolerable."


"WHEN PEOPLE make the great migration from the country to the city, how do they acquires the skills of the city? How do they adapt from the life of the sun to the life of the clock? How do they change from a life in thrall to a noble lord to a life in thrall to the almighty dollar? It is clear that one road is faith, the monotheistic faith of Judaism and Christianity that encourages its believers to cast aside the life of instinct and impulse and build instead a life of faith and purpose.

But weren’t the people in the countryside—the peasants and farmers—religious, and didn’t they lose their faith as they came to the secularized city? That is the received paradigm of the secularized elite that experiences the Enlightenment as a moment when modern man awoke from the superstitions of the past and learned to base society on rational principles. In God is Dead, British British sociologist Steve Bruce experiences western Europe beginning in the religious era of the Protestant Reformation and gradually secularizing through individualism, rationalism, and relativism to the present European disinterest in religion. But American sociologist Rodney Stark and his collaborators disagree. From their research, they conclude that the pre-modern era was not religious. In revolutionary North America, only 15 percent of the population were church adherents. But by 1850 after the rise of Methodism over 35 percent were church adherents. Today, over 60 percent of Americans are church adherents.

Perhaps both sociologists are right if we understand the Christianity of the agricultural era as a top-down affair. The lord was Christian, the church was established, and the peasants got with the program. In the United States, where there is no lord and no established church, the people build their own churches. In Peru, for instance, where Pentecostalism is growing rapidly, the Catholic church is usually located in the central Plaza de Armas alongside the government buildings; the Iglesia Cristiana Pentecostes is a hole-in-the-wall on some side street.

Christianity answers the need of the person who is learning how to take responsibility for his life in the rough and tumble of the city. That is why the Wesley brothers found a ready population for their Methodism in England and colonial North America. That is why the Methodist circuit-riders of early nineteenth century United States doubled the church adherence of Americans in 50 years. That is why “Dagger” John Hughes, first Catholic archbishop of New York, energized the Irish and Italian immigrants of mid-nineteenth century Gotham to a new revivalist Catholicism that had learned from the Methodist revivalists. That is why Christianity is booming in Africa and South America, and reportedly spreading in China against firm repression. That is why Christianity is booming in the striver suburbs of North America, and why a new Pentecostal church opens in New York City every three weeks. And that is why Christianity does not thrive in Europe, where the welfare states relieves the people of the need to take responsibility for their lives.

In Latin America, writes David Stoll, Penecostalism characteristically empowers and frees women from their subjection to the humiliation and depredations of the Latin machista culture of the “street, bar, brothel, football stadium, and drug culture… The restoration of the family as a viable moral, cultural, amd economic household, largely through the reformation of the male and the elimination of the double standard of morality for the two sexes” is the key result of converting to Pentecostalism. And the Protestant movement easily accommodates the prosperity gospel, as a celebration of the improvement in material prosperity that follows the abandonment of machista culture.

The urban sophisticates who have mastered the life of the city have forgotten the power of Christianity. They see its rigid rules and its personal relationship with God as superstition. Advancing beyond rules and traditional roles; they believe in creativity and universal community. Their faith extols the right to experiment and to pursue the demands of the creative life, and their most authentic experience is the heroic break with their strict Catholic or Protestant childhood. Knowing only their own needs, and blind to “the other” plodding along the road to the middle class, they declare war on “so-called Christians,” and support pressure groups organized to drive religion from the public square.'

I think I could be a little more succinct than Mr. Windbag Chantrill :
Kooky

[ardecila]

For those Chicagoans out there who criticize the new Central Area Action Plan's focus on expensive transportation investments downtown, I think it wouldn't hurt to get a sense of perspective.

Chicago continues to slip further behind NYC in transit investments. I would advise many of you to direct critics (as well as yourselves) to spend a few minutes browsing through these (http://www.transitmuseumeducation.org/fbu/). This, my friends, is what I call ambition for the future--the projects at that website are what procuring vitality for the 21st century is all about.

Kudos to the people behind Chicago's Central Area Action Plan, which is no less ambitious, IMO. My fear isn't in the planning, but in the execution--will Chicago's leadership maintain the will to move forward boldly, as is clearly happening in NYC, or will more opportunities for advancement be lost?

Planning for growth is nice, but New York's projects are about addressing capacity problems. Penn Station has the most complex and messed-up scheduling in the country, because it only has two tracks from the west, one from the north, and two from the east coming into it, serving America's busiest train station by far. So THE Tunnel is desperately needed.

East Side Access also relieves overcrowding at Penn Station, and makes commuting more attractive for suburbanites by taking them closer to their place of employment. The Second Avenue Subway relieves the Lexington Ave Line, which has the most ridiculous congestion of any rail line in the US.

Although I would love to see the Central Area Action Plan come to fruition, I'm just not seeing the same level of desperate need that NYC has for transit improvements. None of the transit facilities in Chicago approach the kind of overcrowding that New York faces. The projects that we've proposed are all just icing on the cake. The only project that might have a shot at the "desperately needed" label is the Red Line extension, which IIRC relieves some kind of ridiculous congestion that exists at 95th St, and of course the rehabilitation projects on existing lines. (I think the North Main is the only line that still needs rebuilding).

In New York, of course, the 7 extension is icing just as much as our Clinton St subway would be.

[whyhuhwhy]

You shouldn't try to change the meaning of the words you use.

UNPRECENDENTED:
having no precedent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unprecedented

PRECENDENT:
prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent

Given that there is no "largest global war in human history" going on right now, there is no precedent to the amount of peace time spending we are doing at the moment. I have a feeling you knew what I meant though?

Anyways, like I said, I'm excited for projects, but they better be HELLA good and their better be a LOT of them for all this money.

[Chicago Shawn]

I am going to agree with Ardecila, Chicago does not display the critical need for the types of major infrastructure improvements that NYC is now receiving. Keep in mind that NYC's residential population plus day time workforce population is about equal to the population of Cook, Lake, Kane, DuPage, Will and Kendall Counties COMBINED, located in a land area of just over 300 square miles.

I am not saying we don't need the improvements that we have been discussing, but we really do not have the same caliber of demand that NYC does for us to be at the same comparable level for infrastructure projects. This of course is why I am always harping on here for us to increase density near transit wherever possible. Doing so not only creates more demand for better service, but it also increase farebox revenue and decreases the amount of reliance on a operational subsidy.



Given that there is no "largest global war in human history" going on right now, there is no precedent to the amount of peace time spending we are doing at the moment. I have a feeling you knew what I meant though?

Anyways, like I said, I'm excited for projects, but they better be HELLA good and their better be a LOT of them for all this money.


Peace Time spending? You are aware of the two front war going on right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? That alone is sucking up a few billion each month.

[Chicago3rd]

Umm unless I am misunderstanding these numbers, they appear to be incorrect at least according to CIA factbook

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html


My response was to the word “Unprecedented” being used. Is the spending now “Unprecedented”? I get tired of the hysterical libertarians.

[Chicago3rd]

Given that there is no "largest global war in human history" going on right now, there is no precedent to the amount of peace time spending we are doing at the moment. I have a feeling you knew what I meant though?

Anyways, like I said, I'm excited for projects, but they better be HELLA good and their better be a LOT of them for all this money.

Agree with your last part. What does Illinois have in line to make sure we get the biggest bang for our buck? Nothing...sad to say.

[Dr. Taco]

^ haha, true. I've never seen those numbers

[VivaLFuego]

snip

[Attrill]

If you read the rest of the story, there's more to this than we yet know.

Katie Ridgway, a spokeswoman for Quinn, responded Wednesday by saying that "there is nothing on hold, and it's the governor's intention that transit projects will get started this construction season." She would not comment further on the issue.


My best guess would be that Gov. Quinn thought there was something fishy about the bond counsel or placement, not the projects themselves.

There was a report on NPR this morning that said the money is being held until the RTA submits official paperwork to the state. Quinn said he has no problems with the money going to the RTA but they need to commit to the spending in writing before the money will be released. He is confident it can be resolved quickly.

At this point it looks like disorganization on the RTA's part (and poor communication among Quinn's staff).

[bnk]

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rail-funding-01-may01,0,7667825.story


Rail funding: Chicago and other 'old rail cities' get a shrinking slice of federal commuter rail funding

Cities need $50 billion to upgrade aging transit lines, report says

By Jon Hilkevitch

Tribune reporter

May 1, 2009


Chicago and other cities with long-established rail systems are getting a shrinking share of federal funding for commuter trains, resulting in a $50 billion shortfall to modernize deteriorating transit lines, according to a report to Congress released Thursday.

The Federal Transit Administration study found that more than one-third of the commuter rail stations, trains and other facilities are in marginal or poor condition on the seven largest rail transit systems -- Chicago, Boston, New York, New Jersey, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Washington.

It means the systems often rely on equipment being used beyond its recommended life cycle and may be defective and dangerous. Parts of the Chicago Transit Authority's 224-mile rail system are more than 100 years old.

Excluding those seven aging transit systems, less than 20 percent of the transit infrastructure in other urban areas is rated marginal or poor, the study said.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he will offer legislation aimed at helping bring older transit systems to a state of good repair. It would require a $50 billion investment followed by $5.9 billion a year for maintenance, according to the federal transit study, which was requested by 11 senators.

The FTA called for forming a temporary funding program to quickly reduce the backlog of rail projects. It also said the formula used to disburse rail-modernization grants should be changed to better meet the capital investment needs of established transit systems, which have lost funds to newer projects.

[electricron]

The FTA called for forming a temporary funding program to quickly reduce the backlog of rail projects. It also said the formula used to disburse rail-modernization grants should be changed to better meet the capital investment needs of established transit systems, which have lost funds to newer projects.

I'm not surprised cities with established transit systems want a larger slice of Federal revenues, but I disagree, the Feds should be spending more for new transit systems in cities without any.

On a national scale, there are far more voters in cities without any rail transit or with growing rail systems than in cities with established rail systems.

[the urban politician]

I am going to agree with Ardecila, Chicago does not display the critical need for the types of major infrastructure improvements that NYC is now receiving. Keep in mind that NYC's residential population plus day time workforce population is about equal to the population of Cook, Lake, Kane, DuPage, Will and Kendall Counties COMBINED, located in a land area of just over 300 square miles.

I am not saying we don't need the improvements that we have been discussing, but we really do not have the same caliber of demand that NYC does for us to be at the same comparable level for infrastructure projects. This of course is why I am always harping on here for us to increase density near transit wherever possible. Doing so not only creates more demand for better service, but it also increase farebox revenue and decreases the amount of reliance on a operational subsidy.


^ A few points:

1) I agree that NYC has a much more immediate demand for such expansions than Chicago does

2) The whole point of my post was one of issues with public perception. If you look at that link that I posted, every single project described serves the purpose of getting people into or around Manhattan. Plenty people in the NY Metropolitan area work outside of Manhattan, yet you don't see people fighting to build lines equivalent to Metra's Star Line that would connect to suburban office parks in Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

Yet in Chicago, plans like the CAAP draws fire from people, even those who visit this forum, for being too downtown-centric. This is a dangerous precedent, ie how is it not common sense for the Chicago region to focus resources on improving downtown access and circulation, at least in regards to transit investments? Why is anybody even questioning this, and since they are I'll venture to say that Chicago's central area has a PR problem on its hands that needs to be fixed.

Some of you will argue that Chicago has a lot more jobs in its suburbs than NYC does. Fine, but building a transit system to serve the sprawling mess that this suburban market consists of is basically unfeasible, and financially a joke. Mass transit only works to serve centralized job nodes, and Chicago's downtown is the only place where such an investment should occur. The city and region need to do a better job of selling this point.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm not surprised cities with established transit systems want a larger slice of Federal revenues, but I disagree, the Feds should be spending more for new transit systems in cities without any.

On a national scale, there are far more voters in cities without any rail transit or with growing rail systems than in cities with established rail systems.
Yet the money would be far more effectively spent in terms of quality-of-life enhancements (reduced travel times, enhanced accessibility) if transit money were directed to places where transit is a competitive mode choice, and elsewhere just subsidized peoples' driving costs. Building ever more light rail lines in Dallas isn't a particularly great use of federal funds, dollar for dollar, as compared to modernizing rail transit in cities that were actually developed around transit networks.

[Chicago Shawn]

^ A few points:

1) I agree that NYC has a much more immediate demand for such expansions than Chicago does

2) The whole point of my post was one of issues with public perception. If you look at that link that I posted, every single project described serves the purpose of getting people into or around Manhattan. Plenty people in the NY Metropolitan area work outside of Manhattan, yet you don't see people fighting to build lines equivalent to Metra's Star Line that would connect to suburban office parks in Long Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

Yet in Chicago, plans like the CAAP draws fire from people, even those who visit this forum, for being too downtown-centric. This is a dangerous precedent, ie how is it not common sense for the Chicago region to focus resources on improving downtown access and circulation, at least in regards to transit investments? Why is anybody even questioning this, and since they are I'll venture to say that Chicago's central area has a PR problem on its hands that needs to be fixed.

Some of you will argue that Chicago has a lot more jobs in its suburbs than NYC does. Fine, but building a transit system to serve the sprawling mess that this suburban market consists of is basically unfeasible, and financially a joke. Mass transit only works to serve centralized job nodes, and Chicago's downtown is the only place where such an investment should occur. The city and region need to do a better job of selling this point.

100% in agreement. My point is just that we have to work a little harder to show why such improvements are needed and the regional benefits that will occur because of them. Chicago's best chance at moving these plans forward are the Olympics, but even then I am doubtful in how much could be completed in that time frame. Right now we just do not have the demand to justify the cost of some of these plans. Its one thing to plan for the future, and that is what I always will argue for, but when we have NIMBYs screaming for maximum height, maximum density and minimum parking requirements, and crafting "neighborhood plans" outlining such, well that sort of hurts our prospects of future demand which would justify such expensive infrastructure investments.

[ardecila]

I don't know if anybody went to the Yellow Line Extension Open House, but it occurred on April 30th. Since I'm down here in New Orleans, I couldn't exactly go myself, but CTA has been quite diligent about posting the presentation on their website quickly.

The analysis process narrowed it down to heavy rail, using the UPRR Alignment on an elevated structure with a fork to the east at 94, terminating in a station at the interchange of 94/Old Orchard Road. This station is not integrated with the mall, but it's not inconceivable that the mall could expand with a "Yellow Line concourse" lined with shops that links the station into the mall.

The project will also include a reconstructed Dempster Station, elevated over Dempster. Oddly, the expansion will be single-track. This lowers construction costs and fits better into a limited right-of-way, and CTA is, I assume, not expecting train frequencies to require two tracks.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2575/yellowlineplan.jpg

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/8094/yellowlinesection.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7181/yellowlinerendering.jpg
Rendering of potential Old Orchard Station - this is not the actual design, just a placeholder