[Mr Downtown]

Boston, 500,000 people, gives the MBTA $75 million a year vs. Chicago, 3 million people, the above bolded.

So? Different places set up their tax support of local transit differently. In some places, the city (or state) collects sales and income taxes and then gives it to the transit agency. In other places, such as Illinois, the transit agency is authorized to collect the tax itself.

[Attrill]

Boston, 500,000 people, gives the MBTA $75 million a year vs. Chicago, 3 million people, the above bolded.

Downtown has it exactly right.

Bostonians don't pay a 1% sales tax specifically earmarked for transit - Chicagoans do. I'm not sure how much Chicago's contribution (via RTA tax) is this year, but it is certainly in the hundreds of millions.

Having the City of Chicago pay more is pointless. The entire RTA system for funding transit needs to be scrapped.

[Chicago Shawn]

The big problem with RTA's operational subsidy is that it is based on sales taxes, which are too volatile to solely rely on for balancing a budget.

I would like to see the RTA scrap the sales tax subsidy in exchange for property taxing district overlay on the whole metro area receiving service. It could operate like any of the other taxing agencies and just be a separate line item on your annual property tax bill. It would be a much more stable source of revenue, and it can be graduated by county, i.e. a smaller percentage to pay in McHenry and Kane Counties versus Cook and Dupage.

[ChicagoChicago]

The big problem with RTA's operational subsidy is that it is based on sales taxes, which are too volatile to solely rely on for balancing a budget.

I would like to see the RTA scrap the sales tax subsidy in exchange for property taxing district overlay on the whole metro area receiving service. It could operate like any of the other taxing agencies and just be a separate line item on your annual property tax bill. It would be a much more stable source of revenue, and it can be graduated by county, i.e. a smaller percentage to pay in McHenry and Kane Counties versus Cook and Dupage.

Property taxes might be stable to the municipality, but they are anything but stable to the landowner. I'd rather see an uptick in income taxes. At least then, you know upfront what your taxes will be for every dollar you make. In Chicago, you have no idea what your property taxes will be until a month before they are due.

[VivaLFuego]

In Chicago, you have no idea what your property taxes will be until a month before they are due.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but if so, that's your own fault. The tax bills that recently arrived are for the second installment of the 2008 property tax - whose levies were set 2 years ago. Changes to assessed valuations (and thus potential increases/decreases outside of those implied by the changes in the levy) for the 2009 property tax bill, which will be paid in 2010, were published a couple months ago, giving time for people to either appeal their valuation or ballpark calculate their 2009 property tax (remember, the 2009 property tax levies are already set).

Maybe it would help (serious suggestion) if everyone were required to pay the property tax in escrow or other form of installment plan so that payments are perceived as more normalized and smoothed like an income tax, rather than receive very large bills every 6 months (of unexpected size, due to ignorance or incompetence) and then complain to elected officials about how evil the most economically rational and stable method of funding essential government services is.

[mwadswor]

Maybe it would help (serious suggestion) if everyone were required to pay the property tax in escrow or other form of installment plan so that payments are perceived as more normalized and smoothed like an income tax, rather than receive very large bills every 6 months (of unexpected size, due to ignorance or incompetence) and then complain to elected officials about how evil the most economically rational and stable method of funding essential government services is.

That's a great idea. Other types of taxes may sum to large annual amounts, but every other form of tax is broken up into lots of small payments, lessening the perceived amount (and making refund time a joyous time of year :D ). Why is property tax only collected semi-annually?

By the way, I also agree that it makes more sense to fund transit out of property taxes. It's more stable, and you're directly taxing the places where transit runs.

[Mr Downtown]

Why is property tax only collected semi-annually?
Well, that's when you take your crop to market. Seriously, property taxes are a holdover from the 18th century.

For one thing, property taxes are inherently regressive. I would argue that a large portion of transit needs should be paid from a progressive income tax, which is a) based directly on ability to pay (in the year it's collected) and b) indirectly based on the economic prosperity caused by having efficient metropolitan transportation.

[mwadswor]

Well, that's when you take your crop to market. Seriously, property taxes are a holdover from the 18th century.

For one thing, property taxes are inherently regressive. I would argue that a large portion of transit needs should be paid from a progressive income tax, which is a) based directly on ability to pay (in the year it's collected) and b) indirectly based on the economic prosperity caused by having efficient metropolitan transportation.

How is it regressive? You own property, pay for the services (including transit) that the city provides for that property. Your property's worth more? You pay more.

[VivaLFuego]

For one thing, property taxes are inherently regressive.

I disagree strongly. A property tax almost perfectly captures all economic activity (assuming fair/objective relative assessed valuations of course) in contrast to a sales tax (taxing consumption) or an income tax (taxing production). The increased density of economic activity afforded by transit access makes real property a natural tax source for re-capturing some of the value created by transit.

A high-income person not only pays property tax on his home - he pays it indirectly via his employer, who pays rent to a landlord who pays property taxes that are related to the relative value of his property, which is increased because high-income people work there (for a moment, ignore the existence of TIF districts...). Property tax is not strictly "progressive" - it scales based on a combination of production and consumption activity, rather than purely on personal income - but it certainly isn't "regressive." Again, being impacted by both production and consumption activities, it is less at risk of creating the sorts of potential perverse incentives other taxes induce, e.g. high income/gains taxes disincentivizing growth/investment or high sales tax disincentivizing consumption.

Your property's worth more? You pay more.

I would argue it's deeper and better than that, even, since even if one lives in a dump to minimize his residential property tax while banking a high salary, he is nonetheless contributing tax revenue indirectly on the production side via his job. Of course, one also pays property tax indirectly via retail shopping, since the retailer pays rent on a property whose value is determined by the amount of retail spending potential at the location. So even if Joe Six-Figure Slob lives in a dump so he can afford boutique clothes, bottle service nightclubs, and $100/plate dinners every night, he is still paying a sizeable amount of property tax.

[Mr Downtown]

Regressivity is so inherent in a property tax that it's usually mentioned in the first sentence of any description of ad valorem taxation. Consider the owners of three identical bungalows on Avers Ave.:

In 4411, a widow with annual income of $20,000, owes $4,000 property tax. That's 20% of her annual income.

In 4415, a young family with annual income of $40,000, owes $4,000 property tax. That's 10% of their annual income.

In 4421, a pair of lawyers-in-love with annual income of $160,000, owes $4,000 property tax. That's 2.5% of their annual income.

I'm sure you can see the problem. It's not as insistently regressive as a sales tax, but there's only the slightest relationship between the size of your house and your ability to pay. Only a tax on gross wealth is more related to ability to pay than a graduated income tax.

And what kind of accounting are you doing where an employer's rent is paid by the employees rather than the shareholders?

[ChicagoChicago]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but if so, that's your own fault. The tax bills that recently arrived are for the second installment of the 2008 property tax - whose levies were set 2 years ago. Changes to assessed valuations (and thus potential increases/decreases outside of those implied by the changes in the levy) for the 2009 property tax bill, which will be paid in 2010, were published a couple months ago, giving time for people to either appeal their valuation or ballpark calculate their 2009 property tax (remember, the 2009 property tax levies are already set).

Maybe it would help (serious suggestion) if everyone were required to pay the property tax in escrow or other form of installment plan so that payments are perceived as more normalized and smoothed like an income tax, rather than receive very large bills every 6 months (of unexpected size, due to ignorance or incompetence) and then complain to elected officials about how evil the most economically rational and stable method of funding essential government services is.

While I agree with you to an extent, there are plenty of people not savvy enough to understand this city's property tax system. They get their assessment every year and shrug their shoulders at it.

Bought my property in 2007, it was a new building. Finally got the assessors office to subdivide the property last year. The first assessment came late, but we had a ballpark idea of where it would be. Then the assessment came in for next year in August. Surprise, it's 38% higher than what it was assessed for last year. I appealed, they declined it. According to the tax assessor's website, my property assessment should be worth $688k. Meanwhile, the penthouse unit in my 4 story condo building is on the market for $569k. Fuck em. I'm selling come spring. I refuse to pay $12k in property taxes on my place.

[VivaLFuego]

Regressivity is so inherent in a property tax that it's usually mentioned in the first sentence of any description of ad valorem taxation. Consider the owners of three identical bungalows on Avers Ave.:

In 4411, a widow with annual income of $20,000, owes $4,000 property tax. That's 20% of her annual income.

In 4415, a young family with annual income of $40,000, owes $4,000 property tax. That's 10% of their annual income.

In 4421, a pair of lawyers-in-love with annual income of $160,000, owes $4,000 property tax. That's 2.5% of their annual income.

I'm sure you can see the problem. It's not as insistently regressive as a sales tax, but there's only the slightest relationship between the size of your house and your ability to pay.

An important distinction is that in stark contrast to a regressive tax like a sales tax, the struggling widow can sell her property. (assuming she isn't at 150% LTV with HELOC's up the wazoo to pay for LCD TVs in every room and a new kitchen...). I never bought the argument the rising property values unjustly forces people out of their (owned) homes; fixed-income granny can cash out and sell if the 5.8% 2008 COLA on her fixed-income isn't cutting it for gas money to get to community meetings to complain about kids these days and taxes.

And what kind of accounting are you doing where an employer's rent is paid by the employees rather than the shareholders?

Highly conceptual here, but shareholders or more generically investors are expecting a certain ROI or profit margin. Rent for office space is an operating expense just like wages and benefits, competing for the same slice of the budget within the constraints of investor targets. Yes, in reality the picture is much more complicated and circular, but I'd maintain that in the overall scheme it more or less nets out as evidenced in the very high property values (and ergo property taxes paid) in downtown office skyscrapers. And yes, this also requires one to ignore the presence of TIF districts in high-income employment zones, which are highly distortative.

While I agree with you to an extent, there are plenty of people not savvy enough to understand this city's property tax system. They get their assessment every year and shrug their shoulders at it. Which suggests maybe a mechanism to blend the payments (mandatory low-fee escrow?) would make the tax less of a political nightmare?

Bought my property in 2007, it was a new building. Finally got the assessors office to subdivide the property last year. The first assessment came late, but we had a ballpark idea of where it would be. Then the assessment came in for next year in August. Surprise, it's 38% higher than what it was assessed for last year. I appealed, they declined it. According to the tax assessor's website, my property assessment should be worth $688k. Meanwhile, the penthouse unit in my 4 story condo building is on the market for $569k. Fuck em. I'm selling come spring. I refuse to pay $12k in property taxes on my place. Something's not right. Have you hired an attorney to appeal? When all is said and done with the various multipliers and equalization factors, most Chicago condo owners pay in the *rough ballpark* of 1 - 1.5% of their market value in annual property tax - so $12k sounds punitively and unjustly high.

[ChicagoChicago]

Something's not right. Have you hired an attorney to appeal? When all is said and done with the various multipliers and equalization factors, most Chicago condo owners pay in the *rough ballpark* of 1 - 1.5% of their market value in annual property tax - so $12k sounds punitively and unjustly high.

The attorney filed the appeal on behalf of everyone in the building. The letter I got a few weeks ago said that the assessment was not adjusted due to "your property's uniformity with comparable properties." The 10/25 ordinance says that my assessment should be for approximately 10% of the market value of the property. I called the assessor's office and told them they can buy my house at a 20% discount... Seriously, I'm ready to go down there are strangle someone. Nobody's property taxes should go up 40% in one year.

[Nowhereman1280]

In Chicago, you have no idea what your property taxes will be until a month before they are due.

Not true, you never know exactly what the second installment will be, but the first installment is always exactly 1/2 of your total tax bill from the previous year. The second installment is usually about 55-60% of the previous year, making your bill about 105-110% of the year previous. Sometimes the increase is less though.

[Nowhereman1280]

Highly conceptual here, but shareholders or more generically investors are expecting a certain ROI or profit margin. Rent for office space is an operating expense just like wages and benefits, competing for the same slice of the budget within the constraints of investor targets. Yes, in reality the picture is much more complicated and circular, but I'd maintain that in the overall scheme it more or less nets out as evidenced in the very high property values (and ergo property taxes paid) in downtown office skyscrapers. And yes, this also requires one to ignore the presence of TIF districts in high-income employment zones, which are highly distortative.


Not even that conceptual, how is a shareholder going to pay property taxes? Hello, shareholders pay nothing after they purchase their share of the company. How are the "paying" for anything. No, it is the customers (in the form of higher prices) and the employees (in the form of lower wages) that end up paying when property taxes increase. Most companies don't pay a dividend so there isn't even any income going to the shareholders to cut into...

Also, property taxes are totally not regressive since they don't affect the poor more unless the poor own proportionately more expensive goods. If a poor man suddenly wins the lottery and his income jumps to $1 million dollars and now he has to pay 50% tax, does that suddenly make our income tax system regressive? No. Same applies if a poor person buys a proportionately more expensive house. They don't have to buy a $500k house when they make $50k, they could buy a $100k one and let the people with $250k a year buy the $500k one. Then they both pay the same tax rate...

[ChicagoChicago]

Not true, you never know exactly what the second installment will be, but the first installment is always exactly 1/2 of your total tax bill from the previous year. The second installment is usually about 55-60% of the previous year, making your bill about 105-110% of the year previous. Sometimes the increase is less though.The key word there is "usually"... But when the assessor's office goes and totally fucks you, as they have for a boatload of people this year, we don't take comfort in that assumption. My example, given above, is classic Chicago bullshit, and they are going to lose a taxpayer in Lakeview because of it. I'd rather move downtown where I can live in River North, pay the same mortgage amount and enjoy a third of the tax that I have in Lakeview.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I dunno, in your case it seems like something is grievously wrong with the system. Did you buy a 4 unit building and subdivide it, or did you buy into a recently subdivided building? We've defended people before because the Assessor is stupid and put a tax lien on their recently subdivided condo because the owner didn't pay the full tax bill for the entire building before it was subdivided. One time the Assessor tried to put our client on the hook for a like $60k tax bill that was for the entire 20 unit building, instead of the 1/20th bill it should have been for their single unit.

Did you have a lawyer dispute the assessment? You might want to at least consult a RE or Tax lawyer and see if they can do anything.

[Mr Downtown]

how is a shareholder going to pay property taxes?

Lower dividend; lower share value. Employment markets are competitive and so is product pricing. You guys live in a strange theoretical world where an accountant in the Loop is paid less than one in Downers Grove because the property taxes are higher on the Loop office building.

the struggling widow can sell her property.
But why would you think a system that requires that much personal anguish is an admirable one?

The only advantage of property taxes is that, because they're unrelated to actual economic activity, they don't decline during recessions. Well, that makes them stable for local governments, but a punishing burden on taxpayers who no longer have the corresponding ability to pay the taxes.

You know very well how property taxes encourage--even demand--poor land-use decisions as villages compete for rateables. Taxation rates in Dixmoor or Glenwood end up being several multiples of what they are in Northbrook or Libertyville. The relationship to public transportation benefit is casual at best. How can you defend property taxes except in the most macroeconomic and theoretical terms, oblivious to the real world?

[Nowhereman1280]

Lower dividend; lower share value. Employment markets are competitive and so is product pricing. You guys live in a strange theoretical world where an accountant in the Loop is paid less than one in Downers Grove because the property taxes are higher on the Loop office building.

That's a fallacy, you aren't taking into account the per-capita distribution of those taxes or the dozens of other factors that determine wages. Yes an office building in the Loop pays much more in taxes, but it is also much larger and contains many more accountants than the one in the suburbs. Also, taxes aren't the only thing that determine wages, that is ridiculous. Your example is flawed because, if the CPA on Madison makes more than Mr. Downers Grove, then its likely because hes a "better" CPA and serves clients that are willing to pay him more and cover the higher costs of him being in the loop so he can serve them better.

Also, like I said before, 99% of companies pay no dividend, so no, they won't see a lower dividend at least 99% of the time. Maybe the share price would be slightly lower, but then again 95% of companies are not publicly traded (if they ever trade hands at all), so thats unlikely as well.

But why would you think a system that requires that much personal anguish is an admirable one?


Why do you assume the personal anguish is caused by the taxation? Maybe if people didn't become violently attached to material objects like family homes the probably would be eliminated outright? I don't see people assigning sentimental value to material possessions as a reason to create a less efficient society and economy. I thought the "moral" position was to rant against materialism...

[VivaLFuego]

Bostonians don't pay a 1% sales tax specifically earmarked for transit - Chicagoans do.

Minor gripe - but isn't MBTA partially funded by a statewide 1% sales tax, in addition to levies on the municipalities served?

[Attrill]

Minor gripe - but isn't MBTA partially funded by a statewide 1% sales tax, in addition to levies on the municipalities served?

Sales tax is definitely not the best way to fund transit, but it is statewide in Massachusetts, which is much better than our RTA set up. The municipal taxes in Mass account for about 10% of transit funding while the RTA county taxes here account for almost half of transit funding, with little statewide contributions.

My main point is that Chicago does pay a lot for transit - it just goes directly to the RTA without passing through the city at all. Daley could certainly do more to champion transit, but the funding of it is not in the hands of the city. All other US transit agencies get much more support from the states they are in, the last thing Chicago needs to do is make it's transit funding even more local.

[electricron]

All other US transit agencies get much more support from the states they are in, the last thing Chicago needs to do is make it's transit funding even more local.

That's not true. Texas gives local transit agencies nothing. They're all funded via Federal grants and local sales taxes.......

[mwadswor]

That's not true. Texas gives local transit agencies nothing. They're all funded via Federal grants and local sales taxes.......

I don't believe ValleyMetro in Phoenix gets much or any state funding either. It's funded by the cities and MAG (Maricopa Association of Governmnets). And I'm quite certain that transit in New Mexico is funded by the cities or the MRCOG (Mid-Region Council of Governments) in the case of the Rail Runner from Belen to Santa Fe, although both the states of Arizona and New Mexico helped pay for the infrastructure to build the light rail (Arizona) and Rail Runner (New Mexico).

Perhaps it is more common for smaller states like Massachusetts to take a larger role in directly funding transit while larger states (in terms of area) like New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, etc. have more rural voters that limit the amount of state money that can go to transit in any one city.

[Mr Downtown]

I don't think state funding is particularly common, because in most states there are large constituencies who don't see local transit as relevant to them. Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, and maybe Massachusetts and New York are the only places that come immediately to mind for significant state funding.

[VivaLFuego]

I don't think state funding is particularly common, because in most states there are large constituencies who don't see local transit as relevant to them. Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, and maybe Massachusetts and New York are the only places that come immediately to mind for significant state funding.

Right - it's not only the size of transit's constituency, but that size relative to the rest of the state. Greater Boston totally dominates Massachussets politics, New Jersey is the most urbanized state in the country with the bulk of its population tied either to the NYC or Philly urban regions, and New York City's influence in Albany is proportionately greater than Chicago's influence in Springfield. Chicagoland is big enough in Springfield (IL) that local issues can get taken care of if there is local concensus (e.g. Chicagoland can easily pass a tax on itself), but not so much that local issues can totally dominate the agenda as they can in Albany, Trenton, or (obviously) Boston.

[the urban politician]

Right - it's not only the size of transit's constituency, but that size relative to the rest of the state. Greater Boston totally dominates Massachussets politics, New Jersey is the most urbanized state in the country with the bulk of its population tied either to the NYC or Philly urban regions, and New York City's influence in Albany is proportionately greater than Chicago's influence in Springfield. Chicagoland is big enough in Springfield (IL) that local issues can get taken care of if there is local concensus (e.g. Chicagoland can easily pass a tax on itself), but not so much that local issues can totally dominate the agenda as they can in Albany, Trenton, or (obviously) Boston.

^ Not sure I agree with this.

In what way is the Chicago area's influence over Springfield any less than these other places? Chicagoland is Illinois. And unlike the case of NYC (with Buffalo), there are really no other large cities to compete with Chicago for attention.

[mwadswor]

^ Not sure I agree with this.

In what way is the Chicago area's influence over Springfield any less than these other places? Chicagoland is Illinois. And unlike the case of NYC (with Buffalo), there are really no other large cities to compete with Chicago for attention.

There are these people called rural voters, who tend to dislike giving their money to the big cities and who tend to have a disproportionate amount of voting power because of the way voting districts get drawn. There doesn't need to be a competing metro area to compete for funds, there just need to be enough people/voting power that aren't all in 1 metro area to axe state funding for city issues.

[the urban politician]

There are these people called rural voters, who tend to dislike giving their money to the big cities and who tend to have a disproportionate amount of voting power because of the way voting districts get drawn. There doesn't need to be a competing metro area to compete for funds, there just need to be enough people/voting power that aren't all in 1 metro area to axe state funding for city issues.

^ But they exist everywhere. Look at upstate NY.

That was my point.

[Attrill]

Right - it's not only the size of transit's constituency, but that size relative to the rest of the state. Greater Boston totally dominates Massachussets politics....

Boston doesn't completely dominate Massachusetts politics, there are more representatives from just Worcester and the Berkshires than there are from inside Rte. 128. I think the relationships between Boston area/Western Mass and Chicago/downstate are pretty similar.

RTA daily ridership is around 2 million (http://www.ioc.state.il.us/FiscalFocus/article.cfm?ID=216), that is 15% of Illinois residents using transit every day (a higher percentage that MBTA riders in MA). I think the constituency is there.

[Mr Downtown]

^That's 1.9 million unlinked rides, not individual riders. So you can start by halving the number, and reducing it further for anyone who has to transfer. And the MBTA number is 1.4 million.

[VivaLFuego]

In what way is the Chicago area's influence over Springfield any less than these other places?
New York is definitely the more similar - an upstate capital and some other minor urban regions as X factors (Illinois has Metro East, recall, with a ballpark of 600,000 residents depending on how one counts it).

Boston is both the major city and the capital of Massachussets, making state and city politics inherently more intertwined since they occur steps apart from each other. And it's surrounding 6 county area (we'll call it the commuter shed, being served by commuter rail) accounts for over 70% of the state's population, in contrast to about 61% for Chicago's 6-county area (and that's including McHenry County, which is a stretch to include in any political grouping with Chicago).

And even if we assume general regional unity, ongoing debates in our national government highlight the immense difference between a 60% majority and a 70%. 60% still requires compromises and heavy lifting to get tough votes like taxes/revenues done.

[Attrill]

^^

From my link above:


RTA ridership is in the region of 1.9 million rides per day, while New York’s MTA averages 7.8 million and Massachusetts’ MBTA averages 792,600. In terms of infrastructure


I'm not exactly sure how they arrived at that number for the RTA, but the CTA alone has about 1.7 million boardings (http://www.transitchicago.com/news/default.aspx?Archive=y&ArticleId=2274) daily, and with Metra and PACE added I could see it being close to the number they claim. It may not be as high as they are claiming, but it is certainly more than half.

[Mr Downtown]

Boarding = ride = unlinked trip. None of these are the same as rider or journey. 1.7 million boardings is probably fewer than 500,000 riders.

[DCCliff]

If its a revenue boarding (don't know the definition used in those stats) then it's a paid boarding. It doesn't matter if it's a discretely different rider or not. It's revenue.

[Mr Downtown]

^You're missing the point. It matters if you're trying to calculate how many people in a state or region are transit users by looking at unlinked trips.

The national average is about .78 to go from unlinked to linked trips, but that's skewed by the massive number of New York City subway trips and by small-city systems in which transfers are very inconvenient. CTA is a system designed around bus-rail transfers.

[emathias]

With the recent issues on the CTA with doors (the stroller and then the door that stayed open), I thought I'd point out we're not the only city with door issues on public transit:

From Portland:

Frantic on the MAX (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/11/frantic_on_the_max.html)

[emathias]

Is there a name for those rail yards around/south of Roosevelt between Canal and the River?

EDIT: I'm calling them Amtrak's Chicago Yards and 14th Street Shop (I needed to caption a photo I took of them for a book)

[Haworthia]

Is there a name for those rail yards around/south of Roosevelt between Canal and the River?

I don't know the name, but I always thought that that would make a good place for a stadium. It's close to the Metra stations and a blue line stop.

Edit: Actually, not as close as I thought to those stops. But if these were ever developed into something, perhaps a Clinton St. Subway would serve them well.

[SuburbanNation]

All other US transit agencies get much more support from the states they are in...

http://www.ltlprints.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fail2.jpg
http://www.ltlprints.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/fail2.jpg

[Mr Downtown]

Is there a name for those rail yards around/south of Roosevelt between Canal and the River?

Amtrak's 14th Street Yard seems to be the right term for the east side. Historically they belonged to the Pennsylvania Rail Road.

The west half, BNSF's half, historically belonged to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. It was also called 14th Street Yard.

[Chicago Shawn]

On November 30, 2009, Pace will expand service on Route 855 Plainfield - East Loop Express and launch three new Express Routes: Route 655 Bolingbrook - Schaumburg Express, Route 755 Plainfield - IMD Express and Route 889 Harvey/Blue Island - Rosemont Express.

These routes, along with Pace’s Express Service to Popular Destinations (ESPD), comprise a new addition to Pace’s family of services: the Express Service Network. For only $4 per one-way trip, Pace’s Express Service Network is designed to improve connectivity throughout Northeast Illinois and provide access to jobs, schools, medical care that may not be available in a rider’s local area. These service improvements which are a part of Pace’s Vision 2020 long range strategic plan, have been made possible by ICE (Innovation, Coordination, and Enhancement) funding and JARC (Job Access and Reverse Commute) Program grants.

Route 655 Bolingbrook – Schaumburg Express will operate weekday rush hours between the Pace Bolingbrook Park-n-Ride on Old Chicago Drive and the Pace Northwest Transportation Center in Schaumburg via I-355 with intermediate stops in Downers Grove, Addison, and Itasca, with the latter two offering Park-n-Ride lots.

Route 755 Plainfield – IMD Express will operate weekday rush hours between a new Park-n-Ride lot adjacent to the Plainfield Village Hall and the University of Illinois at Chicago via I-55 with intermediate stops at the Pace Bolingbrook Park-n-Ride on Old Chicago Drive, the Ashland CTA, and the Illinois Medical District.
(This route will also serve the UIC east campus, ending at the Racine Blue Line station)

Route 855 Plainfield – East Loop Express is an existing route that will be expanded to operate select trips to and from the new Park-n-Ride adjacent to the Plainfield Village Hall. The route also serves Pace Park-n-Ride lots in Romeoville, Bolingbrook, and Burr Ridge, and travels to North Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago via I-55.

Route 889 Harvey/Blue Island – Rosemont Express will operate weekday rush hours between the Harvey Transportation Center and the CTA Blue Line Rosemont station via I-294 with courtesy stops in Harvey, Calumet Park, Blue Island, and Alsip.

[denizen467]

High-speed rail

If you look at the Russian HSR bombing today, diminishing public concern about global warming, undiminished government concern about terror, and state and national budget miseries for the foreseeable future, it seems that HSR network buildout would be much less likely now than it was just six months ago.

[Busy Bee]

Wasn;t that the second bombing on that Russian HSR route? If so, then I don't know how it really changes anything. China, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Benelux and the UK have had no such terrorist acts on HSR. The Spanish incident was Basque terrorism, no?

You cannot cower and avoid implementing needed transportation policy because of the potential of terrorism. You just have to adapt to it.

[denizen467]

^ I share your aspirations and optimism. However I don't think what you've mentioned addresses the concerns..

Wasn;t that the second bombing on that Russian HSR route? If so, then I don't know how it really changes anything.
Chances of recurring terrorism is what worries people. A one-off event can fade into the past.

China, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Benelux and the UK have had no such terrorist acts on HSR.
Well, none of those have notable terrorist enemies, do they? (With the exception of the UK as a US ally, and of course they did get attacked. Not their HSR, but their capital's subway - which is much more disruptive to them than their barely-existent HSR link.)

You cannot cower and avoid implementing needed transportation policy because of the potential of terrorism. You just have to adapt to it.
The US Congress and state legislatures can (cower and avoid), and they would, many of them. Politicians will tend to avoid blatantly risky security decisions. Look at all the years and years of contortions that have taken place in the air travel system to adapt it to a "post 9/11" world. After all that, some will argue it is foolish to build a brand new system with blatant vulnerabilities.

You can fortify the air travel system to the point where the average person is comfortable that it is virtually totally free from threat. In contrast, HSR is the opposite -- nothing anyone can do can give similar comfort.

Anyhow, I'm just suggesting that's how some politicians will feel. And a couple HSR incidents like this over the span of a few years and more of them will feel that way.

[VivaLFuego]

In contrast, HSR is the opposite -- nothing anyone can do can give similar comfort.

Well, you can secure the ROW unlike the Russians, for starters.

In terms of securing the vehicles, of course it starts to become more like air travel in terms of passenger and baggage screening, which would start to eat into the potential time-savings of rail, which does call into question how much money we should be throwing at this to compete with existing transportation systems if such security requirements are inevitable before too long.

[denizen467]

Well, you can secure the ROW unlike the Russians, for starters.
Ideally -- but, nearly impossible. You could try building it Japanese Shinkansen style -- the entire thing on a robustly constructed (in Japan, because of earthquakes; in the US because of explosions) elevated viaduct for hundreds of miles and therefore prevent access to the tracks -- but that would be cost prohibitive and possibly rejected as ugly.

Or you could install surveillance cameras every 50 yards for hundreds of miles, including under viaducts, and pay people to watch them. That would be cost prohibitive, and could be circumvented (if the Secret Service can let in an uninvited guest to the White House and the FAA can fail to timely get the military involved with a passenger jet out of contact for over an hour, how reliable could an attempt at 300 miles of 24/365 surveillance be?).

[ardecila]

Or you could install surveillance cameras every 50 yards for hundreds of miles, including under viaducts, and pay people to watch them. That would be cost prohibitive, and could be circumvented (if the Secret Service can let in an uninvited guest to the White House and the FAA can fail to timely get the military involved with a passenger jet out of contact for over an hour, how reliable could an attempt at 300 miles of 24/365 surveillance be?).

Motion detector technology... it's pretty simple. If you fence off the ROW, there won't be animals crossing or anything, so the only motion would be the trains, occasional birds, and trespassers, be they friend or foe.

You also have to keep in mind that any terrorists are not going to redouble their efforts simply because we built some new rail lines. Since 2001, Homeland Security has prevented pretty much every terrorist plot. Preventing terrorism is not a matter of increased security in airports and busy locations, it's a matter of better intelligence, and so far the government has shown themselves to be good at this. If it gets to the point where airport security or track surveillance is necessary, then several lines of defense have already failed. This only applies to terrorist organizations and foreign-agent saboteurs, of course - a Timothy McVeigh can really only be stopped by security procedures.

Russia and Spain to the US are apples-to-oranges, too. The US has nowhere near the levels of domestic unrest that those countries do. Hell, we have less domestic unrest than Canada.

[Nowhereman1280]

The US has nowhere near the levels of domestic unrest that those countries do. Hell, we have less domestic unrest than Canada.

Haha the Teabaggers and Faux News would beg to differ!

[ardecila]

I've yet to see them turn to violence. They disagree strongly with the current administration, but many consider themselves patriots and wouldn't dare perpetrate a terrorist attack on US soil.

[ChicagoChicago]

Haha the Teabaggers and Faux News would beg to differ!

Face meets palm...

[Tom In Chicago]

The Spanish incident was Basque terrorism, no?

No. . . Al Qeida. . . but they were quick to blame ETA at first. . .

. . .

[mwadswor]

In contrast, HSR is the opposite -- nothing anyone can do can give similar comfort.

I completely agree that US politicians can and will act on baseless and unlikely threats. This is a safety first at any and all costs type of country, and I don't see that changing any time soon. If the option is between mild risk for a small percentage of people in exchange for vastly improved transit infrastructure or absolutely minimal risk in exchange for the status quo, this country will take the status quo every time.

That said, I don't buy that HSR would be considered less secure than air travel. HSR is inherently much much more secure because it runs on rails. There have been hijackings, bombings, etc. of planes for decades, and the US has responded extremely minimally. What caused the US to respond and really freak out over airline security was not an airplane hijacking, it was somebody turning that airplane into a guided missle and attacking something else. US politicians are nutty over airline security because they realized that a plane is a whole lot of explosive power that can be piloted to pretty much any target a terrorist wants that's not buried under a mountain. It's not really the plane security they're worried about, it's everything else the plane can hit.

That doesn't apply to HSR. First of all, HSR runs on rails and can only go where the rails go. Secondly, if it's electric powered, it's not a prebuild explosive. It'll make a nice projectile if the terrorist breaks the tracks, but it won't explode like something loaded with gasoline will. The HSR is still a potential target, but it's not as dangerous as an airplane because it has a very limited ability to damage anything else. You still need cameras to monitor the track where it runs near sensitive areas/potential targets, but that's not a significant portion of the tracks.

[nomarandlee]

That said, I don't buy that HSR would be considered less secure than air travel. HSR is inherently much much more secure because it runs on rails. There have been hijackings, bombings, etc. of planes for decades, and the US has responded extremely minimally. What caused the US to respond and really freak out over airline security was not an airplane hijacking, it was somebody turning that airplane into a guided missle and attacking something else. US politicians are nutty over airline security because they realized that a plane is a whole lot of explosive power that can be piloted to pretty much any target a terrorist wants that's not buried under a mountain. It's not really the plane security they're worried about, it's everything else the plane can hit.

That doesn't apply to HSR. First of all, HSR runs on rails and can only go where the rails go. Secondly, if it's electric powered, it's not a prebuild explosive. It'll make a nice projectile if the terrorist breaks the tracks, but it won't explode like something loaded with gasoline will. The HSR is still a potential target, but it's not as dangerous as an airplane because it has a very limited ability to damage anything else. You still need cameras to monitor the track where it runs near sensitive areas/potential targets, but that's not a significant portion of the tracks.

We are starting to veer of track here.......Though the hijackings for trains are definitely less likely (though there has been cases to be sure) trains are not much less at risk to sabotage then planes are and arguably are more at risk. As long as there is not a bomb or gun on board once planes are in the air it is pretty hard to regular Joe to bring down a plane along its route unless they happen to get their hands on some sort of hand held SAM. Those that who wish to sabotage a train route have countless miles of track with which to choose to run a train right of its tracks and cause heavy damage.

They are also at risk of bombs going boom inside the carriages and if they are going 150-200mph that could cause a lot of havoc. If start screening for explosives then you are losing a nice chunk of the time savings rail supporters give. And whoever said that it will only take one of two incidents for a train bombing before the public or media demand that screening be implemented was right.


That doesn't apply to HSR. First of all, HSR runs on rails and can only go where the rails go.
zjed8lV30a4

[emathias]

No. . . Al Qeida. . . but they were quick to blame ETA at first. . .

. . .

Yes. And the ETA did bomb the airport parking garage in Madrid in 2006.

[the urban politician]

Can we get back to talking about transit developments in Chicagoland?

[emathias]

Can we get back to talking about transit developments in Chicagoland?

Why do people in Chicago seem to pee in CTA elevators with impunity?

Don't they have cameras in there? Isn't quality of life a good enough reason to turn those tapes over to the Police and let them beat the living daylights out of the offenders?

[VivaLFuego]

In general, it's difficult to develop effective deterrents to people who feel like they've got nothing to lose.

[ardecila]

I've got a better idea... public toilets. Not the kiosk type on the sidewalk, but a handful of 5 or 6 storefronts around the downtown area. To prevent abuse and vandalism, you post a security guard. The bathrooms would be unisex, with a large number of urinals and a small number of toilets (in private stalls).

I have problems finding a bathroom when I'm downtown, so I imagine it must be a common problem. Usually I go to Macy's or Millennium Park.

I will admit, though, that we are rather spoiled in Chicago when we can only complain about urine in CTA elevators and (occasionally) on trains. Most other cities like NY, SF, Boston, or here in New Orleans have big problems with people urinating on the street, as well as other sanitation issues. Chicago is lucky that the city already spends quite a bit keeping the streets clean and deterring public urination/littering.

[mwadswor]

I've got a better idea... public toilets. Not the kiosk type on the sidewalk, but a handful of 5 or 6 storefronts around the downtown area. To prevent abuse and vandalism, you post a security guard. The bathrooms would be unisex, with a large number of urinals and a small number of toilets (in private stalls).

Are unisex bathrooms bigger than 1 toilet and urinal even legal?

[OhioGuy]

Um, I got on the red line one day and found that someone had shit on the floor at the back of one of the cars. It was in the area that would be closed off for just the driver if the car was turned around. I immediately turned around and found a seat elsewhere in the car. I must admit it was rather entertaining watching after each stop the reactions of people as they entered the back part of the car.

[denizen467]

Can we get back to talking about transit developments in Chicagoland?
Also, Can we get back to talking about transit developments in Chicagoland that don't involve stinky things?

[emathias]

In general, it's difficult to develop effective deterrents to people who feel like they've got nothing to lose.

Hence my "beat the living daylights" phrase. Even the basest of humans respond to corporal punishment when it has a specific goal. It may not work if you just say, "Be good," but if you say "Don't do this one thing," it works pretty well.

[ChicagoChicago]

Um, I got on the red line one day and found that someone had shit on the floor at the back of one of the cars. It was in the area that would be closed off for just the driver if the car was turned around. I immediately turned around and found a seat elsewhere in the car. I must admit it was rather entertaining watching after each stop the reactions of people as they entered the back part of the car.
The stench hadn't permeated the entire car? I've experienced the same thing before, and it was heinous! I had to transfer cars between stops.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-metra-stations-07-dec07,0,1557944.story

Metra on track to rehab and rebuild dozens of stations
By Richard Wronski
December 7, 2009

Lattes flow for commuters at Tinley Park's $5 million Metra station, an architectural gem. But the only thing flowing at Cicero's dreary train stop is the rainwater that blows through the corrugated-metal shelter.
---
New stations in bold
- Healy
- Mayfair
- Grayland
- Peterson/Ridge
- Hubbard Woods
- Fox River Grove
- Cumberland
- Elmhurst
- Geneva
- River Forest
- Naperville
- Cicero
- Downers Grove Main Street
- Romeoville
- Flossmoor
- Hazel Crest
- Burr Oak
- 59th Street
- 63rd Street
- Calumet
- Ashland Avenue
- Racine Avenue
- Auburn Park
- 91st Street
- 115th Street
- Hickory Creek
- Blue Island/Vermont Avenue

This list does not include the new 35th Street station or rebuilding the 80th Avenue station in Tinley Park.

[ardecila]

Cool. The Auburn-Gresham Development Corporation plans for the Auburn Park Metra station to be located at Winneconna and Fielding; this seems like a cool site with a lot of potential, although an Englewood station at 69th would be better from a transit-planning perspective (it would serve SouthWest Service trains after they are rerouted into LaSalle Street).

No idea where the Romeoville stop would go; I could really care less, since the Heritage Corridor actually runs across the river from Romeoville, through the middle of nowhere.

Peterson/Ridge is interesting. I'm always supportive of additional transit in the city, but I wonder how much of that crowding at Ravenswood will evaporate now that the Brown Line is back up? Ravenswood is supposed to be rebuilt very soon while Metra replaces the bridges on the North line; that's not on your list either. If traffic at the new station is low, we'll get another one of those "ghost" stations that trains never seem to stop at, like Gladstone Park or Mars, but whose maintenance still saddles Metra's budget.

[denizen467]

...
very soon while Metra replaces the bridges on the North line

That's a lotta bridges, a lotta construction work - gonna take as much time as, like, rebuilding the tri-state (per below, first sub-phase is 8 bridges out of 22).

I'm curious how they will look. The new Purple Line bridges in Evanston still keep the brutalist-industrial vein, even for pretty short spans. I don't know whether that's just the cheapest way of doing it or not. There certainly are prettier ways a 20-yard viaduct could look. Some things in this city I like industrial/brutalist (e.g. LSD Chicago River Bridge), but for a rail viaduct every freakin' block through a residential neighborhood, I think it's a bit much.

As for timing and scope, ardecila let us know if you have more specifics than what's on their website:

http://metrarail.com/content/metra/en/home/about_metra/capitalprojects.html
Union Pacific North Line Bridges: This project includes the initial phase of replacement for up to 22 bridges on the Union Pacific North Line in Chicago. These bridges are more than 100 years old and are showing increased deterioration. They must be replaced in order to provide uninterrupted commuter service. Nearly $40 million is programmed in this phase to replace necessary structures. Extensive track work and some commuter station modifications will be required. To ensure reliable train operations, various signal improvements will also be completed.


http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/about_metra/capitalprojects/station_parking_projects.html
Replacement of eight bridges at Balmoral, Foster, Winnemac, Lawrence, Leland, Wilson, Sunnyside and Montrose. Replacement of the Ravenswood Station will follow the bridge replacement project. Construction to begin fall 2010.

[orulz]

That's a lotta bridges, a lotta construction work - gonna take as much time as, like, rebuilding the tri-state (per below, first sub-phase is 8 bridges out of 22).

I'm curious how they will look. The new Purple Line bridges in Evanston still keep the brutalist-industrial vein, even for pretty short spans. I don't know whether that's just the cheapest way of doing it or not. There certainly are prettier ways a 20-yard viaduct could look. Some things in this city I like industrial/brutalist (e.g. LSD Chicago River Bridge), but for a rail viaduct every freakin' block through a residential neighborhood, I think it's a bit much.

As for timing and scope, ardecila let us know if you have more specifics than what's on their website:

http://metrarail.com/content/metra/en/home/about_metra/capitalprojects.html
Union Pacific North Line Bridges: This project includes the initial phase of replacement for up to 22 bridges on the Union Pacific North Line in Chicago. These bridges are more than 100 years old and are showing increased deterioration. They must be replaced in order to provide uninterrupted commuter service. Nearly $40 million is programmed in this phase to replace necessary structures. Extensive track work and some commuter station modifications will be required. To ensure reliable train operations, various signal improvements will also be completed.
Will the new bridges still be wide enough to accommodate a third track?

Another track for express service would be beneficial especially if KRM actually winds up running all the way to Chicago.

[Marcu]

Peterson/Ridge is interesting. I'm always supportive of additional transit in the city, but I wonder how much of that crowding at Ravenswood will evaporate now that the Brown Line is back up? Ravenswood is supposed to be rebuilt very soon while Metra replaces the bridges on the North line; that's not on your list either. If traffic at the new station is low, we'll get another one of those "ghost" stations that trains never seem to stop at, like Gladstone Park or Mars, but whose maintenance still saddles Metra's budget.

An additional Edgewater/south West Ridge /north Lincoln Square stop is an excellent idea. It's currently stuck in that gentrificationless middle area where commuting to the Loop is simply not practical, helping explain why the area houses more than its share of Section 8 residents, senior citizens, and otherwise marginally employable individuals. It can further fuel Andersenville's gentrification northward, where it can link up with the fairly vibrant Clark street commercial district in Rogers Park.

My only concern is the location. Ridge/Peterson don't intersect with the UPN tracks, so I'm assuming that the stop is going to be just west at Peterson and Ravenswood. That intersection does not have much room for redevelopment and it's adjacent to the Rosehill graveyard, making TOD virtually impossible. I'd prefer for the stop to be a few blocks north at Granville, where the little strip malls can be converted to more productive use.

[ardecila]

That's a lotta bridges, a lotta construction work - gonna take as much time as, like, rebuilding the tri-state (per below, first sub-phase is 8 bridges out of 22).

I'm curious how they will look. The new Purple Line bridges in Evanston still keep the brutalist-industrial vein, even for pretty short spans. I don't know whether that's just the cheapest way of doing it or not. There certainly are prettier ways a 20-yard viaduct could look. Some things in this city I like industrial/brutalist (e.g. LSD Chicago River Bridge), but for a rail viaduct every freakin' block through a residential neighborhood, I think it's a bit much.

Yes, it's a big project, about $200 million IIRC. A similar, smaller project was done a few years ago on the UP-NW line. I rode the line during that time period and don't remember too much disruption. The old plate girder bridges were replaced with new plate girder bridges in cor-ten, but the girders are deeper to allow the center posts to be removed. Retaining walls are reinforced with concrete to handle the weight of the larger span.

Since the UP-N and NW viaducts were built at the same time by the C&NW Railroad, I imagine they have similar construction, so the replacements would be the same as well.

Replacement bridges at Keeler/Irving Park (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=irving+park+and+kennedy,&sll=41.953659,-87.732088&sspn=0,359.998074&ie=UTF8&radius=0.05&filter=0&rq=1&ev=zi&hq=irving+park+and+kennedy,&hnear=&ll=41.953659,-87.732055&spn=0,359.998074&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.953658,-87.732452&panoid=zGs80_EAWzmeoJQduYDPmQ&cbp=12,50.19,,0,-3.15)

I doubt they will rebuild the bridges for the third track, although they will probably keep the first two tracks in their current locations, allowing for an express track to the west at a later date. Plate girder bridges are pretty modular, so you can expand them by just adding another bay.

As for the Peterson/Ridge station - the platform won't be at the intersection of Peterson and Ridge, it will stretch BETWEEN Peterson and Ridge, with stairs to both streets. Metra stations, especially urban ones without parking, don't take up much real estate. You build long, narrow platforms and a small station house to one side. Looks like some community gardens will get nixed, though.

[Mr Downtown]

I'm assuming that the stop is going to be just west at Peterson and Ravenswood.

Yes, train stops are generally located along the train tracks. :koko:

I think the idea is that there would be an exit at Peterson and another at Ridge.

The rationale eludes me, however. Overcrowding??? At a Metra station? How bad can it really be?

[lawfin]

My thinking is that the choice of Peterson / Ridge....seems a bit odd. That area is not at all ped friendly....the west strip of Peterson btw there and Western is in fact one of the least ped friendly strips on the entire northside.

I wonder if though this Metra station could spur more intense development of the strip where Carson's used to be, get rid of the White Castle and Develop perhaps a solid midrise type building in the 8-12 story range on the triangle at ridge / peterson / ashland....where the car wash is


I applaud the extra station just a little curious choice of placement I guess

It might make sense to rearrange the whole RP scheme....with a Howard station and a devon station....gettting rid of the lunt station....though that would be inconvenient for many including me....Lunt is my station

[lawfin]

Yes, train stops are generally located along the train tracks. :koko:

I think the idea is that there would be an exit at Peterson and another at Ridge.

The rationale eludes me, however. Overcrowding??? At a Metra station? How bad can it really be?

There has been more than one occassion at the RP station where I could not get on the platform...

Additionally, there has been more than one occassion where I could not get on th train ; had to wait for the next train....

that is frustrating

[lawfin]

I really wish Metra would consider running higher frequency service.....particuliarly evenings and weekends.....

weekend service essentially sucks....

use money to increase service frequency

[Via Chicago]

Good to hear they're finally getting around to fixing that Cicero station...theres not much left of it.

[Marcu]

Yes, train stops are generally located along the train tracks. :koko:

Yes. And I was pointing out that the tracks do not intersect Peterson/Rdge, where Metra said it intends to add a stop. It would have to be along Ravenswood at either Peterson or Ridge, but not at Peterson/Rdge.



The rationale eludes me, however. Overcrowding??? At a Metra station? How bad can it really be?


Both the RP and the Ravenswood stations are some of the businest in the system. Additionally, both stations have a good number of street-park-and-ride commuters from Edgewater already who would otherwise board at the new stop and perhaps not drive.


My thinking is that the choice of Peterson / Ridge....seems a bit odd. That area is not at all ped friendly....the west strip of Peterson btw there and Western is in fact one of the least ped friendly strips on the entire northside.



That's true, but it's also one of the densest parts of the city. The demand is certainly there, but to spur TOD development I believe that the station should be at Granville where it wouldn't be blocked off by a graveyard, existing development, and otherwise pedestrian unfriendly conditions.





I applaud the extra station just a little curious choice of placement I guess

It might make sense to rearrange the whole RP scheme....with a Howard station and a devon station....gettting rid of the lunt station....though that would be inconvenient for many including me....Lunt is my station

Right now, the RP stop is walkable from almost any part of Rogers Park in under 20 minutes. That's generally regarded as the threshhold at which people will be willing to walk to a transit stop. So in that sense, it captures a huge chunk of the population fairly well. Additionally, the Lunt/Greenleaf/Morse area is the political power base of RP, so a change is highly unlikely.

[Mr Downtown]

the tracks do not intersect Peterson/Rdge, where Metra said it intends to add a stop. It would have to be along Ravenswood at either Peterson or Ridge, but not at Peterson/Rdge.

There's no intersection of 51st/53rd, either. Peterson/Ridge means there will be entrances from both streets, not that it will be at the intersection of Peterson and Ridge.

I don't think redevelopment or planning considerations entered into Metra's thinking. They just put it halfway between Ravenswood and Rogers Park.

[Nowhereman1280]

A station at Peterson would be wildly popular and extremely beneficial for that area. Its a great location for a station because that area of town has essentially no transit access which is why its completely dead. By building a station there they will essentially cause the entire clark and ashland and ridge and peterson area to gentrify. That area has a lot of willy-nilly streets and quite a nice housing stock and could make for an excellent northward extension of Andersonville. Perhaps one day Clark will have excellent street life all the way to Devon linking two of Chicago's most interesting areas together?

[nomarandlee]

When talking about new UP-N stations I am a bit surprised that there aren't plans to make a transfer station with the Brown Line somewhere. It would seem that a transfer station particularly at Addison/Lincoln could be a worthwhile endeavor.

[VivaLFuego]

Poke around on Bing.com Bird's Eye or Google Street View, particularly to the north and west of Peterson/Ravenswood, extending all the way to Granville/Hamilton. You might be surprised at how dense that area already is. Unfortunately, the zoning is not very high, so there will be limited potential for it to get denser.

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qzyynk7psx9h&scene=11368460&lvl=1&sty=b&sp=Point.qzymgm7ptc8v_W%20Peterson%20Ave%20%26%20N%20Ravenswood%20Ave%2C%20Chicago%2C%20IL%2060660____~Point.qzymgm7ptc8v_W%20Peterson%20Ave%20%26%20N%20Ravenswood%20Ave%2C%20Chicago%2C%20IL%2060660____&where1=W%20Peterson%20Ave%20%26%20N%20Ravenswood%20Ave%2C%20Chicago%2C%20IL%2060660

[orulz]

When talking about new UP-N stations I am a bit surprised that there aren't plans to make a transfer station with the Brown Line somewhere. It would seem that a transfer station particularly at Addison/Lincoln could be a worthwhile endeavor.

Yeah, Addison would be about halfway between Ravenswood and Clybourn, though Irving Park could also be an option.

[lawfin]

..... Its a great location for a station because that area of town has essentially no transit access which is why its completely dead.

The Peterson Bus puts you on the red line in about 7 minutes from that location. I took it nearly everyday when I was a kid

[ardecila]

Well, it's only a short walk from Ravenswood Metra to Damen on the Brown Line... about 1/4 mile, platform-to-platform.

[Mr Downtown]

Isn't it more logical to transfer from UP-N to CTA at Evanston Davis Street or at Ogilvie–Washington/Wells?

[Nowhereman1280]

The Peterson Bus puts you on the red line in about 7 minutes from that location. I took it nearly everyday when I was a kid

I'm well aware of that bus, I sometimes take it to the 11 when I have to work out in Southeast Skokie. Problem is, it runs every like 10 min at its most frequent. One bus route that comes every ten minutes isn't exactly stellar transit access. A rail station there will completely open that area up. I've always wanted to move out to that area between Andersonville and the Metra tracks, but have never done it because it would take like 50 min to get downtown. Adding a Metra station makes that like a 5 min walk and a 15 min train ride away.

[Mr Downtown]

^Wait, wait, I'm just writing this down . . .

bus every 10 minutes = "not exactly stellar transit access" . . .

commuter train once an hour = life-changing improvement.

[Marcu]

^Wait, wait, I'm just writing this down . . .

bus every 10 minutes = "not exactly stellar transit access" . . .

commuter train once an hour = life-changing improvement.

The issue is overall time spent commuting. Most people can plan for a train operating 3-4 times an hour at rush hour and once an hour otherwise, but there is no way to plan around a 60+minute commute involving the Peterson bus and the far reaches of the redline.

So to summarize...

Bus every ten minutes + redline for 30 to 50 minutes = not stellar transit accesss.

commuter train once an hour that takes 10 to 20 minutes to get to the Loop, and downtown Evanston= life-changing improvement.

It is highly improbable that this part of the northside will ever reach a critical mass of higher income workers without faster access to employment centers that are larger than the Edgewater nursing home district (ie the Loop).

[emathias]

Poke around on Bing.com ...

FYI: Bing really doesn't work well in Firefox, and barely works at all in Firefox running on Linux (which is what I'm using). Google Maps, on the other hand, seem to work well in all browser/OS combinations I've tried.

[VivaLFuego]

FYI: Bing really doesn't work well in Firefox, and barely works at all in Firefox running on Linux (which is what I'm using). Google Maps, on the other hand, seem to work well in all browser/OS combinations I've tried.

And until Google Maps adds a Bird's Eye View...

[Taft]

^Wait, wait, I'm just writing this down . . .

bus every 10 minutes = "not exactly stellar transit access" . . .

commuter train once an hour = life-changing improvement.

Snarky/obtuse much?

Seriously, have you actually considered what a typical commute might look like? And have you considered that many people--regardless of whether it is fair or accurate in your mind--don't consider buses as convenient or reliable as trains? I actually think that a solid majority do not consider busses as convenient (though I admit I have no data to back up my gut feeling).

If you want to live in a fantasy world where busses=trains to everyone, be my guest. But that attitude just isn't helpful when considering the practical effects of transit plans.

+1 what Marcu said.

[lawfin]

I'm well aware of that bus, I sometimes take it to the 11 when I have to work out in Southeast Skokie. Problem is, it runs every like 10 min at its most frequent. One bus route that comes every ten minutes isn't exactly stellar transit access. A rail station there will completely open that area up. I've always wanted to move out to that area between Andersonville and the Metra tracks, but have never done it because it would take like 50 min to get downtown. Adding a Metra station makes that like a 5 min walk and a 15 min train ride away.

I agree that a Metra stop there will of course be beneficial to the area and may promote ridership among those who eschew buses. I simply wanted to point out that the area is not exactly a transit desert.

The transit access in that area is better than probabably 95% of America, and better than most of the rest of the Metro area as well.

This is one of my biggest issues with the strip of Western north of peterson up to Granville on the east side and up to nearly Rosemont on the west side.

They could easily make the area a higher density hub....I think western is b3-2 if I am not mistaken....the intersection of Peterson / Western are bus access point to brown and red lines in about 15 minutes or so....bad traffic can impact that....

Yet the development there post fall of CJames, ZFrank and the other dealerships is slated for the worst of autocentric walgreen infused horribleness...

With the Metra station now only a 5 minute bus ride from this strip..this redevelopment of Western north of peterson is a travesty that will impact west ridge for at least 50 years


Both Ald. Pat OConnor and the somnambulant Bernie Stone should be called on the carpet for this.

[Thundertubs]

^^^ I drove past that stretch the other day. I have fairly low standards for Western as an urban street, but I was still surprised at how blitzed it was.

[lawfin]

^^Its brutal and it does not need to be. I grew up right behind what was ZFrank / CJames.

This strip was quite busy in it day with all the traffic a busy car dealership generated.....now indeed it does look blitzed.

I don't understand why there are not higher standards for this strip....

If walgreens want to get in ...do something like CVS as Damen and Lawrence....god if Damen can handle a 4-5 story mixed use Western certainly can..
I really think the alderman should have reached out to members of the Indian / Pakistani community and searched for developers who might be interested in creating a strip that runs from Devon south to Peterson.

The opportunity that now is presented at Western north of Peterson is one of the most unheralded chances the north side has had in 50 years to develop some continous density at the nexus of two major transit intersections.....PEterson / Western to Red / Brown line. Hell even the 155 Devon to the redline is not that long of ride to the red line.

This should be promoted but instead some connected developer is going to drop a walgreen parking lot where we could have some sustainable density / mixed use and transit interchange.

Instead we get autocentric Golf Road style shiza that will only further marginilise there area instead of embracing the transit modalities that are currently present and underappreciated.

Now with possibled metra interconnectivity literallyt a 5 minute bus from Peterson & Western.....any development that does not embrace this is not only poor design....it is criminally negligent in era where we should be promoting auto independence and promoting transit lifestyle instead of reinforcing sprawlville, autocentric, gaswhoring, in the city no less


It irritates me....obviously

EDIT:
Checked the zoning map and it appears it is c2-2; the intricacies of the distinction between c and b zoning I am not clear about ; but it does say c2-2 does allow residential above the 1st floor.....and the lot frontages would allow buildings of about 50 ft.....enough for 5 floors......instead the siht parking lot sandwich that makes any neighborhood oh so more appealing.


Also OLD Bernie Stone website actually proclaims how great it is to have this new walgreens at glenlake and western......that guy is a schmuck!

[Thundertubs]

^^^ It's kind of a tough situation with Western, though. The car traffic is so heavy that it has a strongly negative effect on demand for residential development. I know I'd sure as heck never want to live on that street, even on the 4th floor. Damen isn't a bad street to live on because it's two lanes and the traffic isn't too heavy (as it's siphoned off by faster, stop sign-free Ashland and Western).
Not to say that development will never happen there, but the traffic is a hurdle to overcome.

[VivaLFuego]

^C2 is the auto-oriented business classification - not surprising, since it was a car dealership. C2 is relatively rare, meaning developers will highly value the ability to build suburban style crapola since people jump at the opportunity to use strip mall retail once it's built, and chain retailers like it because it's what they're used to. In general, other than C2, the only other zoning that would allow such junk is M(anufacturing) - hence the big boxorama that generally follows the North Branch of the river.

The battle on that stretch of Western if already lost. The only possible saving grace is pedestrian street designation along Devon, which should at least protect Devon from becoming an auto sewer like Western even if the beautiful commercial architecture is vulnerable due to the lack of landmarking. That said, along and north of Devon there is quite a bit of R4 zoning (generally means 3 units per city lot), so it's already dense and in some places could actually get denser - a rarity for the North Side, most of which is zoned well below the actual built density due to the triumphs of decades of neighborhood NIMBYism. Most of the few areas that weren't zoned below the existing density were basically totally rebuilt during the boom - think Old Town south of North Ave and west of Sedgwick, Lakeview between Clark and Broadway and south of Roscoe, the few pockets of unlandmarked southern Lincoln Park, and so on.

[lawfin]

^^^ It's kind of a tough situation with Western, though. The car traffic is so heavy that it has a strongly negative effect on demand for residential development. I know I'd sure as heck never want to live on that street, even on the 4th floor. Damen isn't a bad street to live on because it's two lanes and the traffic isn't too heavy (as it's siphoned off by faster, stop sign-free Ashland and Western).
Not to say that development will never happen there, but the traffic is a hurdle to overcome.
Perhaps but I was thinking rentals could still possoibly work especially given the immigration profile of the area.....immigrant magent....often look for apt versus ownership.....renters may be less picky over that sort of thing...not sure thoughh

[lawfin]

Also further south...not even that much further south....I am thinking roughly Catalpa on south they have been building some 4-5 story resid......probably condo; and probably not doing to well


It just seems again with that intersection....two bus routes to two major L lines....and now even faster connection to Metra it is a sad, sad development.

[Nowhereman1280]

^Wait, wait, I'm just writing this down . . .

bus every 10 minutes = "not exactly stellar transit access" . . .

commuter train once an hour = life-changing improvement.

Yes. You may be the expert on Chicago zoning history and urban planning, but I live in the area and try to use the Peterson bus to commute on a regular basis and it just downright sucks. The Peterson bus comes every 10 min at its most frequent and probably averages more like 20 min for most of the day. The thing that makes neighborhoods really take off is not one bus line that provides you marginal access to a transfer point, its direct and speedy access to a large source of high paying jobs. Having a station there will allow people to actually live in this area and commute to jobs downtown and Evanston. Right now no right minded working professional who doesn't drive is going to live in West Andersonville or whatever this area of town is technically classified as (North Andersonville? West Edgewater?). That's why its current filled with gated car communities and retirement homes. What happens when you build a Metra station? Then people are able to actually live here and work downtown without dealing with snarled traffic. There are lots of absolutely wonderful streets in this area like Elmdale and Norwood that have basically no transit access on their Western ends. This will change that.

A commute is just not reliable when you have to go outside ten minutes before the bus is supposed to come on Bustracker (5 min walk and 5 min buffer) and then take the 84 for 5 more min. Then transfer to the Redline (anywhere from a 5 min wait to a 20 min wait depending on how crappy the CTA is being). Then take the Red line for 35-40 min. And then take a 5-10 min walk to your building. That adds up to 45-60 min. Metra = like 15-20. Much more appealing.

[Marcu]

^^^ It's kind of a tough situation with Western, though. The car traffic is so heavy that it has a strongly negative effect on demand for residential development. I know I'd sure as heck never want to live on that street, even on the 4th floor. Damen isn't a bad street to live on because it's two lanes and the traffic isn't too heavy (as it's siphoned off by faster, stop sign-free Ashland and Western).
Not to say that development will never happen there, but the traffic is a hurdle to overcome.

There has been some decent, urban development in West Ridge/north Lincoln Square/west Edgewater over the last ten years along major streets. It hasn't been all crap. For example the senior residences right next to where this stop will go is decently urban and quite tall for the area. The Lincoln/Peterson area has also had some 4 story+ buildings go up. And not all new development needs to be residential. All hope is lost for Western from Howard to Devon (an area not pedestrian accessible to any train station anyway), but it doesn't have to be for Western from Devon to Peterson and for Peterson from Lincoln to Ravenswood.

[lawfin]

A commute is just not reliable when you have to go outside ten minutes before the bus is supposed to come on Bustracker (5 min walk and 5 min buffer) and then take the 84 for 5 more min. Then transfer to the Redline (anywhere from a 5 min wait to a 20 min wait depending on how crappy the CTA is being). Then take the Red line for 35-40 min. And then take a 5-10 min walk to your building. That adds up to 45-60 min. Metra = like 15-20. Much more appealing.

Just for shits and grins I google mapped the commute time from Peterson / Western to where the new station is proposed

CTA: 6 minutes
Walking: 15 minutes


I agree that the Metra station if properly integrated into plannin decisions could be a game changer

I mean 6 minutes to the Metra on the bus.....with bustracker available that means you can pretty much get your commute time down pat.



The fact that TOD is not beig considered along this strip of Western when it is 6 minute from a proposed Metra station.....is just plain stupid......but not surprising given Old BErnie Stone.....that guy need to be put outside and left

6 minute bus ride / 15 minute walk an old Bernie and is octagenerian minions are jumping up and down about suburban style, shit-tacular, garbage.


This simple should not be allowed....ahh



That part of town needs new blood......not some old jewish guy who can barley open his eyes as he waddles his way around town....in the process farcockting up streetscapes and planning decisions as a matter of course.........schmegege

[emathias]

I really wish Apple would do this when they "freshen up" North/Clyborn:

http://www.on-a.es/newsletter/090423/ona_06.jpg (http://www.on-a.es/newsletter/090423/)
From the Arquitechura website. Click on the image for more info about their station update at the Drassanes station in Barcelona.