Quote:
You yourself said that is why CTA is building the new Green Line Cermak stop: "The whole idea here is to create a district. The new L stop will service this district, not just McCormick Place." And like other transit lines, it's purpose is not only to/from downtown; but to interconnect neighborhoods along the line - and provide what you say the Cermak/McCormick Place station will for that neighborhood (which has worked quite well at Morgan on the Green Line, and Oakton on the Swift). I lived in that area for over 50 years, the people there HAVE a great work ethic, and want to EARN what they need (not have it "come raining down on them"); but there are FEW, or NO opportunities there now; and apparently not too many presently interested in creating any. But maybe they are -- they are now trying to make the Pullman District into a National Park, and building the new USX/Lakeside Development; both of which will create lots of jobs, and are right adjacent to MED Lines (access to those new jobs, and for visitors and tourists?) |
So if some areas around rapid transit stations are prospering, and some areas around rapid transit stations aren't . . . . maybe the transit isn't the determining factor.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But to plop an L stop down in the middle of a neighborhood that is full of vacant lots, poverty, and crime, is not going to do a damn thing to turn anything around and you know it. People can still get downtown even without the train, and even then it's not like they are suddenly going to be getting hired as financial analysts at Goldman Sachs just because they NOW have a train stop to get to their jobs. That's preposterous. |
Yea, I'm sorry Mr. Grey line but you are suffering from an acute case of tunnel vision for your project. You need more than a rapid transit stop to create jobs in areas of poverty.
|
OK, so the Grey Line idea does make a lot of sense. and I think Baronvonellis misses the point. The idea is not to bring jobs to poor areas but rather to give people in those areas better access to jobs elsewhere. This project would provide better transit access to many areas, at a small fraction of the cost of the boneheaded red line extension for example.
The ME (former IC) infrastructure is just sitting there massively underutilized. Why? Trains are not frequent enough and the fare is more expensive than riding buses or the red line. This is a classic case of Organization before Electronics before Concrete. The Grey Line solution is a solution that is approximately 90% Organization, and 10% electronics (fare gates.) The CTA's plan to spend $2.5 billion to extend the red line is ridiculous in comparison. I honestly can't find much to criticise about the plan. If I could offer one criticism of the approach, however, it is that you are being too specific. It may well be that you have the best answer to every problem/question regarding improving the Metra Electric line, but I think you might have more success if you concentrate more on the core of your solution than the specific implementation: (1) Rapid transit frequency to all in-city stations on all branches of the ME line (2) Fare equity and free transfers with CTA It's an unfortunate thing that when a layperson comes in and professes to have all the answers (Even if he does have all the answers) the knee jerk reaction from those in the industry is to reject it - call it being territorial, elitist, "Not Invented Here" syndrome, or whatever. Basically, you will offend the professionals and bureaucrats who you instead need to impress. So, if you present your specific implementation as the only way, they will find some nitpicky minute detail about your plan and dismiss it outright. If you take your passion and advocate for the broad picture, and then say "I leave the details up to you, you capable planners/engineers/politicians" you might have more success. On the conspiracy theory side of things, the real reason this is going nowhere may be that there is no heavy construction to be done. While that would be awesome in an ideal world, here in reality that the big (politically connected) construction firms will have nothing to build, and no reason to lobby for it or to grease the wheels of democracy through under the table kickbacks to politicians and bureaucrats. Hence, nothing happens. |
^ Okay, build a train stop. Now we can all take the train downtown and find out that....oh wait a minute, all the good jobs are taken by educated people. Damn! that didn't work either.
What, are you guys kidding me? Do you really think that Groupon, or JPMorgan Chase, or Google, or Kirkland and Ellis' biggest problem right now is, "damn it, if only we could tap the talent of more uneducated kids from the south side with 5th grade reading skills! That will give us the edge we need!" If you really want more expensive infrastructure to get you downtown, then job #1 is to create a larger demand for your services in the downtown economy. That means skills & education. Fix the skills & education gap (and the crime too), and now we're talking. Ironically, most of the skills being emphasized in these communities (technical training, healthcare, etc) are for jobs that aren't particularly transit-oriented anyhow. Hospitals, industrial sites, etc. |
Quote:
Morgan on the Green Line attracted lots of new businesses that had no reason to be there before the station was built (or am I wrong?) btw: Your "uneducated kids from the South Side" stuff is really beginning to rub me the wrong way. |
Quote:
THAT'S THE SPIRIT! |
All right, you guys aren't being fair now...
Mr. D, of course transit isn't the "determining factor" (whatever that means) for economic success. There are a lot of factors, as I think we'd all agree. However, do you honestly believe that infrastructure and access to jobs are't beneficial to economic growth for an area? I don't see how you can make that argument... And TUP, stop acting like the ME goes through some third-world hellhole. The route includes such impoverished and uneducated neighborhoods as the South Loop, Bronzeville, Kenwood, Hyde Park, and South Shore. Yes, there are poor neighborhoods, but you're painting the South Side with very broad strokes. People in these neighborhoods do and can work downtown. You can definitely make the argument that there are better uses of precious resources, but overall this idea doesn't deserve the type of scorn you're throwing out. Particularly when we're planning to build miles of new track parellel to this and in economically worse areas. |
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer previously given on this subject.
|
Quote:
Yeah "existing rail service" that doesn't do shit. |
Quote:
This would seem to imply that any hope of a south lakefront system along the IC mainline would have to be completely detached from the rest of the rail network (much like the Orange line), and utilize non heavy rail equipment, allowing it to operate under FTA mandates. |
Quote:
|
Let's compare apples to apples, then... What is the capital cost per new rider of the Red Line Extension? The operating cost per rider? How about the raw number of new transit riders?
The stated rationale for the Red Line Extension is to shorten travel times for existing transit ridersand improve access to jobs for the Far South Side. If you do a cost-benefit analysis of Red Line Extension and Gray Line, on the same terms, which project wins? |
^ So, happily, that's an easy comparison to make.
According to the study Mr. D cites, the Grey Line is impractical because its capital cost is $13 per new rider. Capital costs for the Red Line extension per rider are estimated at over $86. I'm not sure if that's for all riders, or just new ones; if it's for all, then the apples-to-apples comparison would be well, well over $86. The additional operating cost per new rider for the Grey Line would be $4.90; the operating cost per rider on the Red Line extension would be $1.90. Source: http://www.transitchicago.com/assets..._June_2009.pdf Also, TUP, honestly, we get that you're so witty and everything, and if you win this argument you win...whatever it is you think you win, but it's like you've never been to South Shore or these other neighborhoods the ME passes through. Fifth-grade reading skills? Seriously? You're embarrassing yourself. Stop. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If I win $300 Million gets spent on the probability of creating 10,000 new permanent jobs there -- mostly "walk-to" jobs WITHIN the disadvantaged communities along the Line (building local community economic strength), not just providing access to whatever jobs might [repeat - "might"] be available Downtown. CTA says the RLE will "shorten travel times, and provide access to jobs" -- but they can't say that it will CREATE any new local community jobs, other than during construction (like Morgan/Lake did). And remember, that was CTA -- do you think they would report positive stuff about the Gray Line -- and then say "but we just don't want to do it"? They must provide "reasons". At this point I wouldn't believe CTA if they said Newly Fallen Snow was White!! |
Architect Jeanne Gang to help Museum Campus planning
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...909-story.html
The Chicago Park District has tapped acclaimed architect Jeanne Gang to help it develop a long-range plan for the Museum Campus, the district will announce Wednesday......... |
Quote:
Or do your job figures turn out to be rectally derived? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.