For sure. Can you imagine the outrage and negative reception a Polish hood would cause if they vocally and actively pursued the exclusion of other races and cultures from "their" neighborhood? I'm pretty liberal and I refuse to accept this exclusionary attitude as being OK for AA's but wrong for everyone else. Bullshit double standard if I've ever seen one and should be called out at every turn, not kowtowed to by politicians that don't want to step on toes. The economic vitality of the city is more important than bigoted protectionism. If we really want to be "post race", this should be the first to go.

The reality is that most people aren't white and professional, and real gains could be gained in retaining and attracting the black working and middle class--that's why we shouldn't give up on improving services on the South Side.

True but, highly unlikely to happen. Why? Blacks continue to move out of the region and to the suburbs and, as long as Atlanta, Raleigh, Nashville and other warm weather "get more for your money" places continue to grow, we will lose population over time.

Cities grow by attracting new people. That's why immigrants are so important. While blacks continue to leave, Latino's and Asians grew in the city and region. Currently, they are the future because they are moving here. Although most moved to the suburbs, some of their kids will be attracted to the city. That's our best bet now in the near future. Hopefully, African Americans will find Chicago attractive again in the near future but currently it's not appealing for those who are from outside of the region.

I mean it's not wrong to try and build a black middle class nab that will be a hot bed of culture for the city.

^ I totally agree, but political leaders keeping a stranglehold on their communities (keep um black!) are what is so detrimental, and as we have witnessed, Chicago leaders have no reservations about gerrymandering the place to death.

Regardless, yes, I do believe that the existence of the Green Line in these areas will be to its benefit in the future, but the lack of good housing (it's all GONE!) is the real barrier. Immigrants don't build new homes, they move into existing ones. White folks and the children of immigrants, as well as middle class black folks build homes. And so far, none of them are attracted to the south side except a few select areas. So for now, the Green Line will keep running over grassy fields

So I take it no one wants to talk about Divvy and everyone would rather bicker over racism in the thread that is supposed to be about Transit?

I haven't gotten a chance to use Divvy yet. I have used Velib' in Paris and Capital Bikeshare in DC; both were great additions to their respective cities, although DC's bike-lane system is extremely patchwork so as an outsider it's tough to tell where the good routes for cycling are.

Chicago has a much more comprehensive, connective system of bike lanes than DC, so Divvy should be pretty great for visitors. On the other hand, DC has a lot more neighborhood public spaces, squares and plazas and such, so the stations are easy to find and you can see them from a distance, no maps required. There are also usually bikeshare stations near Metro stations, and many areas of DC already have neighborhood signage that guides people to Metro stations. Chicago doesn't have that kind of wayfinding, and the stations are really densely packed in the Loop, so this is another weakness.

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

Another plus for Divvy is the graphic design. The choice of typeface, the design of maps, and the choices of color (black, white, Chicago blue) are bold and modern if a little rough around the edges. The Divvy logo with the two chevrons is also very close to the new Ventra logo. I can imagine a future 10-15 years from now where the Chicago blue color and the double chevron logo is a consistent brand for transportation in Chicago like the T in Boston, the roundel in London, or the red buses in LA. It's a good strategy because it's inspired by the Chicago flag but not a literal interpretation (no red six-pointed stars anywhere).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...go_svg.svg.png

http://www.thetransitwire.com/wp-con...ventraLogo.jpg

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...header_j14.jpg

^ Maybe Chicago can require all of their taxicabs to be blue as well, kind of like NYC with their yellowcabs? ;)

Maybe. It's worth considering. All this stuff just makes it easier and less confusing for visitors, and less scary for Chicago residents, to move around without using their car. It even makes transit kinda stylish. Paris is really good at this - all of RATP's buses and trains are teal, and they keep obnoxious and distracting ads to a minimum.

DC has recently mandated a uniform taxi scheme, red I believe. As far as Chicago taxis, I actually really like the very diverse variety of cab co's and associated colors, it makes things more interesting. As far a the Cta goes, if anything and I've lamented this before, i wish they'd get away from their bicentennial derived red, white and blue and back to their green roots, preferably the two tone green scheme from the 80's.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6...9254d697be.jpg
What's not to love?

urbanpln, are those reports available online? I ask because it looks to me like pockets of the Green Line corridor are actually already transitioning in terms of income and race. The Census tract at the heart of North Kenwood went from 1% to 7% white over the last decade; most tracts in Greater Bronzeville saw their white populations double, triple, or quadruple, albeit from very low baselines; and Woodlawn north of 63rd and east of Cottage Grove looks to be about 20% white now ("now" being 2010), roughly double a decade ago; even south of 63rd and east of Cottage Grove, the white population increased three- and four-fold, albeit, again, from much lower baselines. There's also serious white-ification happening in the northern half of East Garfield Park, where places I would have guessed would be 98% black, at least, actually have white populations of 4-7%.

Now, the racial politics of all this are obviously complicated, and gentrification doesn't *require* white folks, of course, but given the consequences of segregation, an influx of white people does *suggest* that there will also be an influx of investment. And given that gentrification the North, near South and near West sides is continuing even in the midst of a still-not-great economy, why wouldn't those other trends also hold up?

For the record, I am an African American. The study is listed on their web site but when you type in the link it fails. You can try to contact them for a copy or let me know if you don't have any luck and we can work it out.

Those numbers of demographic change are really hard to figure out. While there has been increases in racial change, the absolute numbers are not that much and over the past 5 years some of that new population has moved out. I can't prove that fact yet but, talk to any alderman in those communities and they will tell you that some of those new residents left. They left because the amenities never came and the crime got worse.

There were also quite a few foreclosures in these areas. If you drive around Douglas, North Kenwood, Oakland, Grand Boulevard and Woodlawn you will see plenty of projects that stopped before completion. I also know a ton of developers that lost everything and the land was taken by the bank. Many of the developers who survived have told me that it will be a long time before demand to live in these areas come back.

The UI Labs proposal will very likely go to Michael Reese. Chances are that U of I will prefer a suburban campus-type environment, and the only places you can get enough land together for that kind of thing are on the South or West Sides.

I'm personally hoping for something more like Mission Bay in SF, which is urban and has a street grid but with low-mid rise buildings and lots of public space.

Should this type of development proceed on the South Side, this will have implications for transit as well, possibly kickstarting one of the many proposals we've seen over the years (Gray Line, Gold Line, Cottage Grove streetcar, Lakeshore Drive busway, etc).

The Big Green Limousine ... I was just thinking about that the other day.

While I'm not confident that any of those particular proposals will ever see the light of day I think the UI Labs on the Reese site combined with the large investments being made by the city in HP and at McCormick could provide some leverage. Rahm may be able to twist Metra's arm into providing a rapid transit solution at least as far as HP.

Considering it is operated by the same company that runs Citi Bike here in NYC, I have high hopes that the explosion of use and popularity bike share has had here will transfer well to Divvy. The one time I used Citi Bike it was a great experience...other than poor coverage in North Brooklyn.

I said possibly. :haha:

King would be a good place to set up BRT, too. There's lots of different options.

I wasn't talking about Divvy because I had a uniquely horrible experience getting my account working with them. I use the phrase "uniquely" because it actually took their Director of Marketing getting involved to sort things out, which I'm fairly certain is not standard operating procedure for them.

I originally signed up on June 2nd. I didn't get a working key from them until yesterday, and then only after getting two other keys and lots of run-around from their phone staff.

But, all that aside, I've now used it several times and plan to use it to commute to work (there's a station across the street from my home and one a block from my office) most of the time. The more stations they add, the better it will be.

They will also probably iron out all the one-off kinks and bugs like the one you experienced over the remainder of this year and will probably have it running like a well oiled machine within a couple of months.

Some quick-and-dirty phone photos of the Divvy station on Wood, near Milwaukee:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3...702_105230.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-O...702_105251.jpg

And here we have some of the map graphics they’re using for Divvy—while I like the colors, I think this map’s a good example of why you don’t see more black backgrounds that often on maps intended for public navigation. While I don’t have trouble seeing or identifying anything, I feel that like this is a graphic that looked great on the screen and (with the exception of that Divvy blue) doesn’t quite pop in print:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-S...702_105320.jpg


L'esprit de l'escalier edit: I should also note that, from what little I’ve seen of Divvy-riders in Wicker Park, op[ening up cycling to a wider variety of people’s had positive effects. Cyclists here, particularly along Milwaukee, tend to be rather aggressive—I never biked on Milwaukee, but as a pedestrian I often found myself more threatened by cyclists than motorists; I have a friend who refuses to bike on the street due to the macho-types who tend to dominate traffic here. Since Divvy, I’ve seen more obvious urban biking novices pedaling along on their Divvys. They’re slower than the regular bikers, and tend to be more observant of traffic laws. In my couple of days interacting with cyclists on Milwaukee there’s already an improvement.

Unfortunately, the maps appear to have been made by out-of-towners. Downtown they show the midblock alleys (like MapQuest did a decade ago) and don't show the grade separations. Planning to ride along Wabash and then turn onto Illinois or Hubbard? Oops.

Well they technically are connected, but obviously riding down stairs isn't the best idea. I did see people lifting Divvy bikes up the steps by the IBM building to reach Wabash. They look heavy, but I've never carried one. Probably should have been more clearly indicated though.

Midblock alleys and gangways should be shown though. You can ride a bicycle through them and they are a legal solution to not going the wrong way down a one way.

I just wish their online station map had the Bike Paths feature enabled.

Speaking of bike share, this is pretty awesome.

Wondering why they aren't going to put stations in Rogers Park? Lots of people that live there don't have cars. My friend bikes from Rogers Park to River North everyday for work.

Also, since this concept is so new I'm trying to figure out what it should be used for. I mean is it for people that don't have bikes? If you already have a bike what would you use it for?

Some funny quotes from local NIMBY groups about the Ashland BRT project, from dnainfo.com

The WAR ON CARS has begun! :haha:

I'll use it for commuting. I own three bikes, but I live on the fourth floor of a walk-up, so it's nice to not have to worry about that for commuting. I can also use it for running errands both during my work day and on my own time. If I took a bike to the office I'd either have to leave it tied up somewhere, or shuttle it in and out of my building, which takes too much time to be practical. It's also nice to be able to bike somewhere and not having to worry about a bike once I'm at my destination. For example if I want to go somewhere after work that's further than I'd want to bike, I can still ride to the office and I could ride home, or just take the "L" and not worry about it being rush hour and a no-bike time for ridding, while also not worrying about leaving my personal bike away from home.

It's just very flexible. It's also very convenient to visitors, or suburbanites. As they add more stations, the utility of it will become much more apparent - you can ride a bike somewhere then walk somewhere else, ride a train somewhere else, then ride a different bike home. There are still time when having your own bike is preferable - like a full, day-long trip - but for errands and mixed-mode travel, these bikes could be very helpful.

I think if you read the City's press releases, it's pretty much an openly declared war on cars - and I don't mean that in a bad way.

Correct, by Alta's GIS people in Portland. We're somewhat lucky to have a different arrangement here, wherein Arlington Transportation Partners handles marketing and Alta Bicycle Share only does operations.

The black background definitely looks better on a backlit computer screen than behind a glass panel -- it'll be tough to read behind a dirty panel on a long winter night.

You usually crush my dreams, but now you got me excited about the possibility of a new rail line... albeit a low probability during these economic times. I always run to the 53rd Street thread for updates on any potential new high rise proposals. Throw in the Obama library and we are destined to connect Hyde Park with a heavy transit rail line.

^ Rail seems unlikely, but King was one of the BRT routes suggested by the MPC report a year or two ago.

It's an outside chance, but Emanuel seems to be putting a lot of eggs in the South Side basket. McCormick Place, hotels, arena, Motor Row, UI Labs/Michael Reese, Obama library, and even some recent stuff like the 35th St harbor. Getting outsiders to those areas is tough without some kind of rail transit. The new Cermak station works for stuff around McCormick but the rest is too far east of the Green Line and the Metra Electric is too infrequent.

The city's got a lot of pressing needs - the Red/Purple Modernization project comes to mind - but something on the South Side would support economic development so it's attractive to Emanuel, unlike other New Starts projects like the Red Line Extension (which would just convert bus riders to train riders).

Things don't really look great for rail expansion generally, though. The Feds refuse to provide more than a tiny trickle of funding and Chicago's at the back of the line. The state is way beyond broke. An LA-esque approach of a regional sales tax hike is tough because our sales taxes are already high and because the various transit agencies despise each other.

^ I really want to explore at least in more detail why an LA-style plan wouldn't work here, or whether it could, or what the options could be...

I don't understand why somebody like MPC or CNT haven't already done a study on it, except maybe that City Hall doesn't want it and they don't want to cross City Hall.

Chicago sales taxes already float around 9% in Cook County, while LA's rates were 0.5-1 points lower before Measure R. We're also part of a tri-state region where WI and IN have significantly lower rates, so consumers have the ability to go out-of-state for large purchases.

Then there are the practical problems. In what jurisdiction would the new tax apply, and what projects would be funded? Measure R worked because planners were able to find a list of projects, both transit and highway, that satisfied everybody while still concentrating investment in the areas with the most potential. LACMTA is like the CMAP and RTA rolled into one, and as such they bear planning responsibility for highways as well as transit, covering all of LA County. In Chicago we can only dream of such an enlightened setup... instead we have three service boards that can't even agree on a unified fare, let alone a unified scheme for funding billions in capital projects.

Lastly, we don't even really have a popular initiative system. We can have public referenda but they are non-binding and when they rely on elected officials to make an unpopular move like raising taxes, there's no guarantee of the plan moving forward.

Mr. D awhile back brought up the point that Chicago already has a rail transit framework that covers both city and suburbs pretty evenly. We can argue that additional lines are needed in certain areas but unlike in LA, there isn't the urgency to provide alternatives to congested freeways. Any new transit lines are likely to be development-oriented and it will be difficult to convince regional voters to approve these highly localized projects. This is, BTW, one of the reasons for the growing popularity of streetcars - it's the cheapest way to provide rail transit and sometimes the only way if you can't get regional support.

^ Just to clarify, I'm not aware that Rahm has ever declared that he wants UI Labs on the south side, nor putting the Obama Library there (if we get it). In addition, I believe the 35th St Harbor project was initiated (or at least planned) during Daley's tenure.

I think it will largely be used to replace cab rides and inconvenient multi-transfer transit situations. For example, my ride the other day from Wabash and Roosevelt to Jefferson and Adams. There is no good way to make that trip which doesn't involve a cab or transfers. Divvy was faster and cheaper.

Same goes for crosstown trips. If I am trying to go from Fullerton and Milwaukee to Belmont and Southport, there is literally no logical way to do so on transit. So Divvy would be the way to go.

It may come to nothing, but I know there is an expanded central area/south lakefront rail expansion plan being shopped around. Funding, as always, remains an issue, but the plan being shopped has a lot of thought behind it by interested and experienced parties.

I can't say anything more than that and, like I said, it may come to nothing, but I know there are a couple years of time invested in it at this point so if it fails it won't be for a lack of effort.

^^^ Can you say if it may involve the St. Charles Air Line?

I can't say anything else.

^ Why the secrecy if this is a public transit expansion concept that (assumably) is being considered by public officials and paid for with public money?

My only guess is that this has something to do with Rahm's privately financed infrastructure trust

:previous: If the DePaul Arena’s any indication, Rahm has no trouble throwing public money at private initiatives, assuming whatever emathias is talking about is some kind of circulator between the “Near South Lakefront” (i. e. McCormick, maybe the old hospital grounds) and downtown, not the Gray Line/Gold Line/Stony island light rail/Cottage Grove BRT/take your pick of any number of proposals for the southeast side.

Although such a event-oriented circulators tend to be oversold (witness Cleveland’s Waterfront light rail extension, which is all-but-abandoned less than two decades after its construction, and the peoplemovers in Detroit and Jacksonville), the presence of the South Loop, which is not all that well served by rail transit, makes me more open to such a concept.

Well, it's rail so we know it's not BRT. "Shopped around" suggests either that this plan is the work of transit advocates looking for official support or that the city is seeking investors, probably through the infra. trust.

Private investors probably can't fund an extension to the 'L', at least not without the bulk of funding coming from taxpayers, so it's probably streetcar or LRT. I can't see the gov't coming up with funding for anything, but the next year will see half a billion in spending on the 'L' alone... The state's willingness to borrow always astounds me.

^ Corrected

I dunno--it's true we probably don't need more heavy rail lines (except, again, on the Southeast side), but I can think of a number of other projects. For starters, if we're talking regionally, what about doubling or tripling off-peak frequency on Metra, both in the suburbs and the city? I bet a ton of suburban mayors and Chicago aldermen could get on board with that. Or, in the city, building out the BRT system along the lines that the MPC talked about--as BRT, or light rail, if that would get people more excited. That could certainly be paired with a BRT/LRT plan for the suburbs, where wide streets are easier to come by, and reliable transit between, say, Oak Park, Forest Park and Cicero, or Evanston and Skokie, or whatever, would probably be helpful.

What about Northbrook, IL? Can they have a extended service to Northbrook, IL? Will they consider it?

I know I shouldn't take the bait, but...

Northbrook has its own Metra station, plus a shuttle-bug bus system at the Lake-Cook station that does a decent job of allowing reverse-commutes to suburban office parks. There's a pretty good network of sidewalks, paths, and parks - it's pretty good for a Chicago suburb.

There were vague plans to extend the Yellow Line from Skokie up to Lake-Cook Road, but I think everybody agrees that's a poor idea. It's not a bad corridor but it'd make a better busway.

Skokie Swift to Lake-Cook Road got to the point of feasibility report in the nineties, but it was actually Northbrook which shot down further planning. They’re not interested for the same reasons Skokie’s not interested in an expansion to Old Orchard.

I’ll second ardecila on this—if anything’s built in that corridor it will likely be an open busway geared at reverse-commuters from the CTA, and even that’s pretty unlikely (perhaps more likely if, rather than operating as a separate line every third Red Line train heads out to Dempster, as Nowhereman suggested a while back). I could maybe see it working as rail running express to the State Street subway after the Red-Purple Modernization Project, but honestly the catchment area isn’t great—even though there are some pockets of employment and density, it’s mostly surrounded a lot of parkland/golf courses/car dealerships and beyond Skokie there doesn’t seem to be much push for densification.

I kind of wish we lived in an alternative universe where the interurban lines were taken over and modernized, free of FRA interference, offering easy cross-platform transfers and full fare integration with the CTA, and with extensions and new branches coordinated with big suburban centers like Lake-Cook and Oakbrook/Yorktown, but I think the window of opportunity for that passed decades ago.

The interurban lines were never the catalyst for development that the railroads were. The walkable downtowns that sprung up along the CA&E are pretty pipsqueak, same for the North Shore and South Shore. The lines would be nice to have, but I'm pretty sure they would have succumbed to low ridership at some point if not in the '50s. Even in the prewar era, many interurban lines folded because most were just poor investments from the start, part of an "interurban bubble" like tech companies in the 90s. The three major lines in Chicagoland were more successful, but still thrived on low ridership levels.

It's called Europe.

That right there maybe a limit for Chicago to pass such a thing, because the infighting between the agencies, that will create the political implosion that taxpayers may not support, however Cook County will only need a 50% +1 to pass, where as LA we needed 2/3rds or 66.67%

In addition, Chicago/Cook County needs to be spend money on planning projects through an EIR phase so that such a plan builds support and give more bang for the buck. Minus maybe the Red-Purple Line modernization there are no one signature project that will spur the imagination to draw positive support for. If the suburbanites get nothing out of the deal or if it's majority North side dominated, then politically support is lost.

Illinois doesn't have ballot initiatives. The best we can do are non-binding referenda, which politicians are free to ignore. Most politicians don't want to be seen as tax-and-spend, so they might very well ignore it, or substitute projects that are less useful, or reduce the size of the program.

I agree with you on the EIS. To my mind it makes sense to take all of the major proposals through the EIS phase simultaneously. Shouldn't take more than $20M or so. Get them all to the shovel-ready phase, then Chicago has an even bigger advantage as it seeks money in Springfield and Washington. Just as Bob Moses intended.