^^^ I guess I was a bit too slow typing out my comments. Well, at least I added a link to the actual reform amendment so everyone can read it if they choose.

And of course this bill still has to be passed by the legislature. It has only made it out of committee.

Thank god!!

I remember a few pages ago when I read businesses, labor leaders, civic organizations, suburbs and the city were all on the same page about increasing transit funding and that led me to believe that all hope is not lost and actually things will happen if everyone is on the same side.

I am confident now.

Wow, excellent news all around.

Well, it still has to be passed by both houses. Let's hope this new tax gives enough to the CTA to close their budget hole and continue operations simultaneously with regular maintenance rather than deferring the maintenance.

One thing that worries me... why the hell are major news sources not reporting this? The Trib briefly mentioned it, but dismissed it as minor because FUCKING BLAGOJEVICH claims he will veto any sales tax increases. I'm starting to wish I voted for Judy Baar, who, despite her obvious image problems, isn't a panderer.

No way man, green party all the way!

I have always supposed that the best way to fund transit is to increase fares on the overused mode of transportation (in this case, cars & roads) to expand the applicability of others. Why not incorporate adjustable rate tolling to high enough levels so that the people who clog up the expressways during rush hour instead of taking the metra pay for their congestion? For example, if you drive on the kennedy inbound during rush hour, your are going to pay 7 dollars to enter the city. I believe that this is what they do in London. To me, it seems like a proper tax because it puts the burden on people who choose to decrease the effectiveness of our transportation network. I suppose that increasing the cost of driving is not particularly popular when gas prices are rising.

Which brings me to my next question... Is anyone else cheering for higher gas prices like i am? I have this image in my mind that when gas gets to like 8-9 dollars a gallon (meaning a fill-up is like $125) everyone will migrate back to cities and public transit will have astronomical ridership. Is this a reasonable fantasy or am i missing something here? Unless we see a huge jump in electric car technology, i don't see any other scenario playing out. I suppose we could just go declare another war, that sure helped keep gas prices down! :-)

Well, let's see. From 1972 to 1981 gas nearly quadrupled in price. Remember the huge back-to-the-city movement and astronomical growth in transit ridership at that time?

Neither do I.

Also during that period, investment in public transit was at an all-time low. Chicago's downtown stations were soot-covered, dirty, and uncared-for. Commuter services were run by a handful of railroads that didn't give a care how on-time their trains were or how inviting their stations were. The CTA was dangerous and maybe even worse than the commuter stations. The only good thing to come out of that time period was the Blue Line extension to O'Hare.

The city is booming right now, and it has a well-run, though poorly-funded, transit system. I think the time is ripe to capitalize on the high fuel prices and build ridership, at least among the people that commute into the city radially.

Unfortunately, most of the people using cars to go to work in Chicagoland do so because they HAVE to. Public transit is really a horrible option. Say a man lives in Arlington Heights and works in Melrose Park. What are his options? Take 3 buses and a train, consuming 2 1/2 hours to get to work, or drive for an hour. He can make up the price difference by gaining the extra time at work, or he can spend extra time at home with his family rather than sitting on a bus, which is probably worth the extra cost. The point of transit is that it's supposed to be convenient. For more than half the workforce in Chicagoland, it's nowhere near convenient. Nothing short of exponential growth in gas prices and exponential decline in road investment is gonna make people turn to the transit that exists currently.

Why must it work only one way?

Why shouldn't "reverse commuters", who live in the city, and work in the suburbs, pay the same amount? They are contributing to the problem as much as those who drive into the city, no?

Let's be fair, now. If we are attempting to correct the behavior, then anyone who uses the expressways, for any reason during the rush hour, suburbanite or city dweller, should pay through the ass. No exemptions for anyone for any reason.

Good point. However, that was due to political problems. The analogy i hear used often to demonstrate the difference between that situation and this situation is that in the 1970's the faucet was being turned off. The situation today is that the faucet is being turned on and not enough is coming out.

but, we'll see...i can dream!

Sorry MR. UpT, i didn't mean to exclude any group. Obiviously reverse commuters should pay as well. I just chose the forward commute because that is still the most common commute.

^Citizens Against the Sprawlway :)

Sign me up; what a disaster. $1 billion for a highway in the middle-of-fucking-nowhere and nothing for an aging transit system that people actually use and depend upon?

Airport-to-Chicago rail link idea back on track
Sunday, June 3, 2007 12:20 AM CDT
http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/06...ef00002e6c.txt
BY KEITH BENMAN
kbenman@nwitimes.com

The idea of a direct rail link from the Gary/Chicago International Airport to downtown Chicago is gaining steam and giving a push to other dormant rail plans.

A number of board members on the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority think a direct rail link from the airport to downtown is a "common sense way to move forward," according to RDA Executive Director Tim Sanders.

"There are those on the board that think absent this connection to downtown Chicago, the Gary airport will have a hard time," Sanders said.

However, whether that link becomes a long-term goal or gets done sooner depends on a number of factors, including possible rerouting of South Shore commuter rails and funding, Sanders said.

The idea also is giving hope to those with other plans for cutting down rail travel times from Chicago to points east.

An Amtrak official recently took Sanders for a ride in a SUV along unused railroad rights-of-way in the shadow of the Chicago Skyway to show him a route Amtrak long has coveted to speed train times into Chicago.

Amtrak trains now coming from the east must cross myriad freight tracks, according to Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari. That means a traveler can spend 6 1/2 hours riding from Detroit to Northwest Indiana and then another hour or so viewing the Chicago Skyline before the tracks clear for the run into Chicago.

The rights-of-way Amtrak wants to utilize pass just north of the airport and on to Porter County. So that line could be the airport's direct link to Chicago, Sanders said.

Talk of a direct rail link also is raising hopes among high-speed rail proponents and the Four Cities Consortium that earlier plans for a $300 million intermodal transportation center on the north side of the airport could get new life.

The Indiana High Speed Rail Association plans to lobby state legislators and federal legislators this fall on plans for linking Chicago to Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Louisville by high speed rail, according to Dennis Hodges, founder of the Indiana High Speed Rail Association.

The proposed intermodal transportation center north of the Gary airport would be the second-busiest station after Chicago on the proposed high-speed rail network, Hodges said.

The intermodal transportation center and a rail link to downtown Chicago have always been part of the discussion when it comes to airport development, said Airport Director Chris Curry.

"It would be a tremendous benefit to have that (rail link) because that really allows you to tap directly into the business community of the city (Chicago)," Curry said.

Gary's appointee to the RDA, Bill Joiner, said a direct rail link for the airport has come up in the discussion of the South Shore extension to Lowell and Valparaiso.

As mapped out, riders could get from Lowell and Valparaiso to downtown Chicago via the South Shore extension, but not to the Gary airport. Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott has proposed a Hammond "Gateway" station, which would allow for such a run.

^Awesome news. I hope the ball get rolling on this one.

Jeez. Indiana has the will and the initiative to do such projects. I am so TIRED of all this god-damn funding talk. We need to improve/rehabilitate what we have and we need to add service, and we need money to do it. Blago needs to get kicked in the nuts if he doesn't see this.

FYI, the railroad right-of-way next to the Skyway that they mention was built by the New York Central Railroad. A parallel viaduct runs right next to it, built by the Pennsylvania, the NYC's main competitor. Both railroads grade-seperated their tracks before it was required by city ordinance, in hopes of running faster service. Today, only the Pennsylvania tracks are in use, for both freight and Amtrak. Refurbishing the NYC viaduct would give Amtrak its own tracks that wouldn't be

If I were to give transportation projects priorities:
1. CREATE
2. CTA into state of good repair
3. STAR Line
4. Mid-City Transitway (including the truck highway)
5. West Loop Transportation Center/upgrade of Union and Northwestern Stations.... (note: a Metra level in the tunnel would allow some trains to be through-routed through downtown like in Philly)
6. Extensions of Red, Yellow Lines
7. Circle Line

Note that the top two priorities include no costly new subway lines or train stations, just maintenance work, as well as the construction of 15-20 rail flyovers and road under/overpasses. Also, I put the STAR Line at No. 3. If we want suburbanites to pay their fair share, we have to build stuff that helps them, too.

I'd put the circle line at #3. I hate that there is no good way of getting to/from the blue line and north shore communities without either going all the way downtown or hopping on an extremely slow bus that travels through traffic clogged east/west roadways such as Lawrence Ave & Irving Park. I want the circle line more than just about anything else (other than upgrades of the current rail network).

The idea of a direct rail line to Gary Airport and fast service through south Chicago for Amtrak sounds like a GREAT idea to get behind. Hopefully they can get the funding and it can happen relatively soon. It would be awesome to have three direct quick transit lines to three airpots in the metro.

Mine would actually look pretty differant.

1. CTA state of good repair. Even though it ain't at all sexy if the current infrastructure that is there degrades any other extensions or improvements are much for not.
2. CREATE - This may be #1 economically. Freight rail will only grow in importance in coming years and for Chicago to keep its importance and efficiency it has to be done. It will also cause more efficient operations for southside Metra and Amtrak.
3. West Loop Transportation Center - This would be more symbolically important maybe then infrastructurally important but it would be important. Rapid Transit (either or both the a new circle line or downtown circulator) would have to go along with it to maximize its potential. A modern efficient center would only expedite growth in the West loop. Also its just sad that Chicago doesn't have transit connected to commuter stations as busy and important as Chicago has.
4. Circle Line - I go back and forth on the effectiveness it would have a bit but much of the infrastructure. If the downtown subway wing creates a new segment down Clinton (I think) that some have suggested then I would even rate it higher. If it runs through one of the existing subway lines it could still be possibly effective though.
5. Red, Yellow Lines extension- The Red Line extension would especially be positive. An Orange Line extension and even a Brown Line extension to meet up with the Blue Line would be more effective I think the a Yellow Line extension. But the Yellow Line likely needs to be extended or shut down eventually.
6. Mid-City Transitway - It could be higher but its still too up in the air in the form and configuration it would look like for me. It could go from a great asset to embarrassing failure.
7. STAR Line- I am just not sold this would get great ridership. It smacks of catering to too many office parks and malls which sounds like a recipe for disaster. I like that it sounds modern and that is serves O'Hare for burbanites but O'Hare suburban service could be realized with less money (I am guessing) by making improvements on the MD-WL Elgin and the NCS Antioch tracks). The money would be better for improvements to exsisting Metra lines to improve efficancy and capacity or making improvements around Metra Line stations to increase density and capacity.

Downtown Circulator - I would also put a downtown circulator reminiscent of the 90's plan somewhere between number 3-4. If you got an efficient well covered circulator linking Streeterville, River North, and South Loop that may be the most productive method towards getting rid of parking lots in the downtown area.

Doesn't the Mid-City have higher ridership projections than the Circle Line? That's what I'm basing it off of. Also the possibility for express trackage/service on the Mid-City Line that would be difficult/extremely expensive to build on the densely-developed Circle Line. Plus, the Circle Line is associated with Kruesi right now... it's just gonna make lawmakers groan "not again", regardless of whether it needs to be built or not.

As for the extensions: the Yellow line has feasibility so long as they add the new Skokie station and a new Evanston station. An extension would be great, since it would open up quick access to Old Orchard for many urbanites, but it's not necessary.

The STAR Line would be used if it's built. A key component of the line is access to the Prairie Stone development and the developments along I-88 and I-90. A lot of people work in those developments. If the line is set up to maintain high speeds and incorporates park and ride lots, then it will be a resounding success.

Metra is approaching it from a totally wrong angle, though. EJ&E sees maybe 4-5 freight trains per day on the one-track segment we're talking about. Metra should just go piecemeal. Build a couple of bus-shelter platforms with modestly sized parking lots at the areas in question. They could save even more money by collaborating with retail developers to put the station functions into a corner of a retail building. Riders would use the retailers' parking lots. If there is any extra money, spend it on keeping the trains clean and nice.

Then, if ridership pans out, Metra can build permanent stations and parking facilities. The retail buildings would be turned over to the retailers exclusively and

The current form involves double-tracking the EJ&E line and building a line down the median of I-90 from Hoffman Estates to O'Hare (or basically the same length as the Blue Line from downtown to O'Hare). This would be a multi-billion dollar project, including stations, pedestrian bridges, fences, overpass relocation on I-90, etc.

I think about the CTA a lot and never thought of extending the Brown Line to meet the Blue Line. This is a great idea.

I've thought about a brown line connection to the blue line many times. It would be a great way for residents on the north side to get out to O'Hare without being stuck either going all the way downtown or hopping on a bus traveling down the traffic clogged east/west streets on the north side. To be able to hop on the brown line at Damen and take it all the way west to the blue line would be pretty sweet for O'Hare connections. On top of that, extension of the brown line to the blue line would be a nice addition for Mayfair as well. I wouldn't even care about the circle line anymore since a brown line extension to the blue line would connect O'Hare to the north side (and much more quickly than the circle line which is still a bit too far "in" toward downtown IMHO).

The Ravenswood extension to Jefferson Park makes it onto regional transit plans now and then, then disappears, then reappears, etc. It's been part of the discussion for decades, but obviously is still still a concept is not on the list to be eligible for federal funding.....yet. Along that train of thought, if you think it's a good idea, let Rep. Emmanuel know.

It would be expensive and it would have to be done via subway. Beyond that, I think it's a great idea.

Also, Viva, have there been any discussions about elevating/sinking the at-grade portion of the Brown Line? I thought about that after that one pedestrian got hit last week. It's a shame they didn't include that in the plans for the Brown Line project. Now they've spent millions of dollars rebuilding all the ground-level stations.

^^
I have no sympathy for people who keep running into the brownline at ground level. They have sidewalk and road crossing arms...that go down.....

^ Elevating the at-grade portions of both the Ravenswood and Douglas was in long-term regional transit plans a few decades ago, but was since dropped; I assume it was dropped because the question wasn't whether to elevate or not, but rather whether the lines would have to be abandoned outright because of a lack of available capital funds for rehab and low ridership. I don't know the exact asset life of a station in FTA guidelines, but those at-grade stations are probably there to stay for at least 40 years since federal money was used on the project that would otherwise have to be repaid.

If was to ever happen, a subway should be bored running west under Lawrence with stops at Pulaski and Elston and terminating at a Jefferson Park superstation which would also be the terminus for the Mid-City line. CONNECTIVITY should be the #1 priority for CTA rail, above extensions like Ford City, 130th, and the Skokie Swift, although i would LOVE to see those projects become reality as well.

^ My thoughts exactly. Make the system an all-around system, not primarily a commuter one. That's how to get people to let go of their cars.

Viva, maybe you could answer this. What is the thinking in circles (or your personal opinion) about a n eventual brown line/blue connection and the preference of meet up point at Jefferson Park vs. Montrose? Also maybe the same question about the pros/cons of those stations in referance to a Mid-City transitway.

Good point - it seems to me that a meet-up point at Montrose might be superior. It could incorporate Mayfair Station on the Milwaukee District North Metra line, a new station on the Union Pacific Northwest line, and also the mid-city transitway could operate as a further extension of the Brown Line.

Perhaps it would be expensive and complicated to construct, and any TOD would be difficult thanks to the highways in the area.

^ It's much too early to speculate on specifics of any such extension. Since any money currently on the horizon for major transit expansions would be through the New Starts program, any such extension would go through the Alternatives Analysis process (usually takes about 2-3 years) which would determine the optimal alignment, cost estimates, and ridership projections and so forth. And such an extension isn't even on the list of approved New Starts projects; getting on the list requires a little bit of muscle by a representative in Washington, which is why I brought up contacting Rep. Emmanuel earlier.

Well, Metra just rebuilt their Jeff Pk station. I don't think they'd want to build a whole new station less than a mile away, much less one where transfer to the Blue Line would require a longer walk.

Funding doesn't HAVE to come through the New Starts program, does it? Can it be raised through some sort of referendum? Judging by the support I've seen just in this thread from Northsiders, it seems like this idea would have broad support in the areas affected. Of course, the funds could only come from certain wards... I don't see people in South Shore voting for this. If it is possible, the project would not be subject to Federal Alternatives Analysis requirements or time delays. Of course, there's no avoiding the EIS, but that can be completed quickly. I think we're gonna have to find quicker sources of funding if we're gonna shape up our transit system properly for the Olympics.

^along a similar train of thought, the City might have a bonanza (like, billion$) of cash from the privatization of Midway, much of which would be directed to transportation and other infrastructure projects. I haven't heard any speculation or commitments over specific projects the money would go towards.

My money (har-har) would be on the Airport Express project, i.e. paying for an O'hare line revamp and construction of passing tracks and airport terminal facilities. If there's any left, I would hope it would go towards rehabing the North end of the Red Line. IMHO, local money should, for now, be focused on either revenue-positive projects (Airport Express) or on rehabbing the crumbling infrastructure (O'hare and Howard branches), as opposed to line extensions which qualify for New Starts.

I thought the plan was to build express tracks...?

The Brinkerhoff plan presented two options (passing tracks or using the UP tracks for express service). If the city received that much money from Midway, why wouldn't they build express tracks? That would, of course, be done in conjunction with the rehab of the O'Hare branch.

Well best case would be $1.5bn for the full express tracks, but for some reason I feel like theres lots of constituencies who will want their hands in the Midway privatization money, some of whom probably also deserve investment. The PB report gave 2 options, but there may also be a middle ground; by figuring the monetary value of each minute of travel time savings per customer, you could make a reasonable calculation of what the optimum level express trackage (i.e. reduction in travel time) is, given that the capital cost for decreasing the travel time goes up almost exponentially. Somewhere, there's a sweet spot between potential revenue (fares*riders) and the amount invested in the infrastructure.

2 more thoughts:
1) I'm not sure what sort of figures they are throwing around for the Midway privatization, which would obviously influences the sorts of potential projects. The city has, of course, not given any hint of projects that the money would go towards, but since Airport Express is Daley's baby, with the downtown station useless without some sort of further major investment, I would think it somewhat logical that some of the money would be thrown that way.

2) tying pack to the previous conversation, another idea would be to have the brown line extension join the outer express tracks from Jeff Park to O'hare (which would be running in the expanded median anyway) to have an actual 4-track line for that portion, providing a one seat ride to the airport for north siders. An intriguing thing here would be, if the Brown extension were a new start, you could -potentially- build the express tracks for that portion as part of the New Start. Hmm. Of course by the time any New Start was completed 15+ years from now, that downtown station will have gathered quite a bit of dust.

I had heard on the news a while ago that the money would be used to shore up Chicago's pension funds for city worker retirees. The City of Chicago's pensions are underfunded by around 9 billion dollars I believe. The Midway money would help prevent the city from issuing billions in bonds to cover the pensions.

I wonder if Daley could figure out some way to finance Airport Express with PFCs. New York, of course, had to build the JFK AirTrain as incompatible technology to comply with federal law on using PFCs for offsite improvements.

I thought JFK-Airtrain had clearances (10' wide trains) and guideway strengths that could allow for LIRR to utilize the tracks with just an additional connection between them.

Just a word to the wise, Mr. Downtown... I had no idea what a PFC was until I Wiki'd it. Anyway, I don't think we should levy even MORE taxes on the passengers at O'Hare, considering they're already paying handsomely to support the expansion. Perhaps after the airport is done....

Haha, I was just randomly reading those posts on city-data or whatever. Some dumbass was posting "how could anyone move to a huge city like Chicago when it has such a horrible mass transit system. it's run down and you can't go anywhere. why would anyone live in the suburbs and want to work downtown, that commute must be a horrible drive with those small expressways"

The sad part was naive people who are moving to Chicago all believed him and were asking how long it takes for people to drive downtown to work each day. What the hell? Metra is unbeatable anywhere in this country save New York.

FYI, the final action deadline has been extended once again. It's now June 15. CALL YOUR SENATORS and get this bill passed! If it keeps getting pushed out it's going to eventually get pushed aside!

Fareless CTA - Tribune Commentary
 

Not a new idea, but interesting to think about...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...e_a_bette.html

Originally posted: June 7, 2007

No fare! A better idea than $3.25 rides on the CTA

CTA president Ron Huberman has been saying that unless state funding comes through to help the transit agency plug a $110 million budget deficit, fares may have to rise to $3.25 during peak periods.

I'd like nothing better.

Nothing as in free -- no charge to ride the buses and trains. Throw the fareboxes, turnstiles and card-machines into the landfill. Make every day New Year's Eve (when rides are free).

A radical idea? You bet. CTA spokeswoman Noelle Gaffney said that about half of the CTA's roughly billion dollar annual budget comes from fares, so lawmakers would have to raise taxes and fees significantly to cover the shortfall.

A new idea? No. According to our news archives, in the fall of 1991, Ald. Bernard Stone (50th) proposed just such a plan to be financed by a "a small, insignificant income tax."

"If public transportation is available to all the residents of the metropolitan Chicagoland area, then why should not the cost of such a system come from income earned in the metropolitan area and all fares be free?" Stone asked.

No one ever really answered Stone's question, though Gaffney says someone or other raises the idea at nearly every CTA public meeting.

In March, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said today that he has asked the Municipal Transportation Agency to look into the possibility of providing fare-free public transit in the city.

He told The Chronicle that when all the costs associated with collecting the fares are factored in, the idea of letting people board for free may not be a big financial stretch.

(Update -- San Francisco MTA spokeswoman Maggie Lynch told me Friday afternoon that her agency's investigation into the idea is being done by the finance department and there is not yet even an interim report to cite)

Today, the New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly reported that, in an interview on transit issues this week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg--

allowed himself to imagine an ideal that is not likely ever to come to pass: "I would have mass transit be given away for nothing and charge an awful lot for bringing an automobile into the city," he said.

An impossible idea? Again, no. Free Public Transit, an organization devoted to, well, you know, lists seven success stories, though all in far smaller markets than ours.

People who really know the transit business would have to crunch the numbers and do the analysis, but on the back of my envelope it says:

Advantages of free public transportation:

-It would make Chicago a more attractive city to visit and to operate a business.
-Because of vastly increased ridership, there would be more buses and more trains running more often and along more routes, making the CTA a more efficient and attractive transportation option.
-It would reduce traffic congestion and pollution
-It would reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.
-It would allow the CTA to divert resources now spent on enforcing, collecting and accounting for fares into such areas as enforcing platform, bus and train safety.
-It would be of the greatest advantage to those who are currently disadvantaged -- low-income workers who now pay fares and have lengthy commutes on public transportation.

Like education, police and fire protection, and access to roads, transportation is a basic essential of life that government should provide.

Disadvantages of free public transportation:

-It would cause economic harm to taxi drivers, parking lot owners and the automotive and petroleum industries.
-Half a billion dollars (probably more given the transition costs and the increased equipment and maintenance costs) ain't chump change.
-Without increased security and some sorts of restrictions, it might turn the CTA into more of a mobile homeless shelter than it is now.
-It isn't the way we've always done it!

What else, pro and con?


ON THE WEB --

Public transportation should be free -- an online public forum at helium.com
San Franciscans debate/analyze the issue online
Auto-Free New York
Fare-Free Mass Transit: A Case Study of What Is Now, and What Can Be In Any Large Metropolitan Region of the USA .pdf file -- by California State Univeristy at Long Beach math professor John Bachar)
Towns and cities with zero-fare transport (Wikipedia)
"Be Careful What You Wish For" --Jocelyn Geboy of Chicagoist on the CTA's threatened fare hikes.
Not to logroll overmuch, but Geboy's new post referencing my post on this topic that referenced her post has a good discussion going in comments.

^
Zorn is one of my favorite writers. One of the few guys that doesn't dribble the constant political decree set forth by and from politicians.


I'm all for free public transit but doing so will need to be coupled with dismantling the toll system IMO. I don't see how you gain political capital without doing both at the same time.

the bane of our region is how it's developed in the past 50 years. If we would have gotten more high-dense suburbia then, it would have led to better transit service regionwide with governments that wanted to increase transit options to their towns vs. fighting against it.

we're paying the price for our development patterns and will continue to do so even if the region recalculates the funding formula.

I agree, but steps CAN be taken in the suburbs to link office and transit nodes (basically historic downtowns and office parks) with bus service, and we CAN improve service in the city.

Now, this is the argument that I posed in a prior thread, regarding charging people to use the expressways.

I stated that if I were to be charged to drive on an expressway, in order to discourage that type of behavior, in favor of taking public transit, that the level of transit service in suburbs would have to increase, in order to provide a viable alternative to driving. I was politely, and in some cases not so politely, told that public transit in the suburbs is not workable and too expensive.

But what you are proposing is precisely what I was suggesting. Link any existing transit facilities (in the case of most suburbs, that's Metra) to major work-related and commercial sites within that town. In so doing, provide stops along the way which can be accessed by residents to the work/commercial sites and/or the Metra facility.

If the STAR line ever gets built, and gets built to its fullest extent, the possibilities for people using public transit in the suburbs multiply substantially, especially if service is available from the Metra facility to work, commercial, and entertainment venues.

I would imagine that many suburbs would be willing to throw a healthy portion of the required capital to establish that kind of service if they could be convinced that it would help prospects for further economic development. Could a major employer be convinced to move to a particular town if that town had reliable transit for its employees? I believe it is.

I agree... also, major office parks near the STAR Line can and should provide shuttle service from the STAR stations to the office buildings, making rounds. Ideally, the shuttle would sync with the train arrivals/departures to reduce the wait time at the stations.

Out here in Barrington, Pace currently provides a shuttle bus linking the Barrington Metra station with the Prairie Stone office park, a major employment center. It's a fairly well-used bus, serving the reverse commuters who live in the city, or further up the UP-NW line.

Unfortunately, I don't see ANY way to provide reliable transit service to suburban residential areas. Even office parks are somewhat centralized and often include large towers, but subdivisions have such a low density that they realistically cannot be served, so any transit trip for residents in such areas would have to include at least a short auto trip to get to the nearest Metra station.

Understood. And I certainly think that taking your car to the nearest Metra station is far more palatable than having that same car choking up the expressways.

Besides, the local municipality makes money from the parking spots, anyway. I know in Tinley Park, where I live, the 80th Ave. Metra station alone has a little over 2,000 parking spaces, if I remember correctly. On any given weekday, all but maybe 100 or so spots are being used. So, at $1.00 per spot per day, the typical Monday-Friday revenues are $10,000 per week. I don't know if those monies are divided up with anyone else.

I agree that one can not expect door-to-door public transit, but if buses were to run from the two Metra stations in my town to the larger concentrations of employment and commercial development, they would need to traverse main thoroughfares like Oak Park Ave., Harlem Ave., 80th Ave., Lagrange Rd., 159th St., 171st St., 183rd St., etc. By using these main roads, they would, at the same time, provide transit options for its citizens. Suburbs that share these thoroughfares could also share in the cost of the routes, lowering costs for each town and extending the reach of the routes.

It would, by no means, be a totally comprehensive system. But it could alleviate enough car traffic to have an impact. Enough people live close enough to those main roads that a bus would be a walk of 1/2 mile or less away. As it is, when I use the Metra station in old downtown, it's a 1 1/2 mile walk. Parking there is by permit only, and there is a multi-year wait list. If I knew that I could save time by only walking 1/3 as far as I do now, I would be thrilled.

Most of the transit ideas that are proposed here are pretty good ideas. Solid, logical solutions. Unfortunately, i just don't know how any real transit legislation that provides the necessary amount of investment can get passed.

I have been reading kevin lynch's "good city form" book (which i recommend reading the first 7-8 chapters and then the appendices, skip a lot of the middle stuff) and one of his main points about public infrastructure is that although everyone needs it, no one feels like the have to pay for it. Until we can convince billy bob in southern illinois that having a good transit system in chicago benefits him (which it does) I have a feeling that it is going to more of the same budget crisis crap.

Also, i don't know if anybody came across this nugget. I can't remember where i read it, but if you google "opec to raise gas prices" or something like that, you can find these articles. Essentially, OPEC is threatening that if we (The US) keep investing money in alternative fuels, they will cut production to raise gas prices. I can't help but think "Great!". This seems like a pretty stupid move by OPEC. As if the environmental incentive for alternative energy sources wasn't good enough, OPEC is giving us an economic one (which is the best kind of incentive). The only thing that worries me is that OPEC is counting on the political backlash of raised gas prices to force divestment oil alternatives. Either way, I share the sentiment that high gas prices are better for mass transit. All sprawl in the US is predicated on the car trip being a common and inexpensive task, once that changes...

11th Steet Metra Station
 

Work is actually beginning. Small boring rig on site to rebuild the Roosevelt Road Metra Station. The new station will be incorporated into the new 11th Steet bridge.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...6/DSC_0283.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...6/DSC_0260.jpg

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...DSC_0261-1.jpg

Does Blago really have the cojones to veto a regional-only sales tax hike to increase the RTA's operating funds? (sounds like a .25% increase in each of the 6 counties, so Cook would go up to 1.25% for transit and the collars would go up to .5%)

good question. i saw that late last week, and i read how his admin vowed to veto any such measure. i just could not believe it.

with all chicago has going for it, if this admin and state allows this fare hike to happen, i will be sick. chicago needs money for repairs, sure, but we have the infrastructure there (imagine a city trying to build it from scratch, and what that would cost), and it is a mong a few american cities with good (for the u.s.) coverage. i don't know, i could go on, but it is so damn frustrating.

what do you think, vival', will the cta at least get the ~$97.5 million budget shortfall covered?

CTA leaders meeting with Blagojevich

LINK

Lots of action in Springfield today RE the CTA. Unfortunately, Metra and Pace have been left out (I would love to see a more integrated Metra and CTA, but I am not anyone here wouldn't)

CTA fight heads to Springfield

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published June 13, 2007, 10:17 AM CDT

The CTA board postponed a scheduled vote on a contingency doomsday plan of service cuts and fare increases after top officials headed to Springfield to discuss the funding shortfall facing mass transit in the Chicago area.

I had not seen this:

(In another article, I believe I read the governor would veto any budget that did not include $100million for the CTA.)