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

Taft

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

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

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

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

Daley Releases A Few Details About Stimulus Plan Requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the city be the one’s still enforcing the fines once Morgan Stanley takes them over? I’ll be curious to see how they react with the implementation of 24 hour rules on the meters as well.

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

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

Taft

Maybe because it's nighttime and no Dept. of Revenue aides are on duty in that area?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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