SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

Marcu Oct 16, 2007 8:08 PM

:rolleyes: ^ Yeah. because one needs to be willing to serve as a public official to be able to critique current public officials.

Mr Roboto Oct 16, 2007 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020 (Post 3114447)
I smell a protest rally :whatthefuck:

If you organize it, they will come.

At least I will. So far I have sent about 10 emails, a couple to the damn Gov. threatening in a nice way, and in a not so nice way, to vote for someone else. I wouldnt vote for him either way, but it doesnt seem to work that well to threaten them anyway. Also, what pisses me off is that none of the state reps in my district have contact email addresses listed. Looks like Ima have to make some phone calls

ardecila Oct 16, 2007 8:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attrill (Post 3113217)
Why would Chicago be taxed more for a service that costs less and communities that are receiving a service that costs MORE be taxed less?

Because there are 3x more suburbanites than Chicagoans.

Their greater numbers will offset their lower tax rate, and the lower tax rate will help to stop their perpetual bitching about subsidizing the city.

Jaroslaw Oct 17, 2007 12:53 AM

Interesting commentary on the CTA from a more general blog:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5266.html#more-5266

the urban politician Oct 17, 2007 1:21 AM

^ Nice find. The problem with the general opinion on that blog is that it makes the common argument that the CTA should operate more efficiently, like a private company, and cut its less used routes while focusing more on rush-hour commuter service.

My problem with that is really more of a philosophical one, and it's about something greater than the CTA. How should Chicago evolve as a city? Should it be a massive downtown surrounded by car-dependent suburban-style neighborhoods, or should it be a massive downtown surrounded by urban, walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods?

If it were the former, then the pattern suggested by the bloggers makes sense. But if it were the latter, I think it is of utmost importance for the CTA to run 24 hours a day, at fairly high frequency, all over the city. What the city really needs to do is to get all of that underutilized land developed. I prefer the latter simply because it fits with my view of how a city should function.

Attrill Oct 17, 2007 2:44 AM

:previous:

I agree with your philosophical view as well. Additionally, good public transit is one of the best investments a city can make. Look at the neighborhoods that have gentrified and people are predicting will gentrify - they almost all have good CTA rail service.

The blog post linked to above works under a couple false assumptions.

The first is looking at the CTA like a business that brings in all it's money through fares and then adjusts expenditures accordingly. That's wrong. For 2007 the CTA will bring in $541 million in fares, contributions from the city, and advertising etc. It will also get $537 million from public funding (RTA, tranfers from state capital funds, etc.). More than half it's budget is completely unrelated to the revenue it generates.

The second assumption is that the CTA has any say in what if offers to "subsidized" riders. The ADA dictates what service the CTA needs to provide to those with special needs, it is not their choice to make based on budget needs.

Jaroslaw Oct 22, 2007 4:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 3115397)
^ Nice find. The problem with the general opinion on that blog is that it makes the common argument that the CTA should operate more efficiently, like a private company, and cut its less used routes while focusing more on rush-hour commuter service.

My problem with that is really more of a philosophical one, and it's about something greater than the CTA. How should Chicago evolve as a city? Should it be a massive downtown surrounded by car-dependent suburban-style neighborhoods, or should it be a massive downtown surrounded by urban, walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods?

If it were the former, then the pattern suggested by the bloggers makes sense. But if it were the latter, I think it is of utmost importance for the CTA to run 24 hours a day, at fairly high frequency, all over the city. What the city really needs to do is to get all of that underutilized land developed. I prefer the latter simply because it fits with my view of how a city should function.

I thought the post I referred to was interesting for an outsider's perspective. You make a different point, and I don't quite agree. Do we have "walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods" all around downtown now because of the CTA? In other words, does bad CTA service (I can think of a lot of places with that) make for the same? No, it doesn't. Paradoxically, cutting the top money losing routes and focusing on the best would actually result in a net gain of riders and spur TOD. Rebuilding the green line hasn't exactly spurred traffic or rebuilding on the south side. But rebuilding the brown line will be tremendous... We know what the problem is... recently Preckwinkle vetoed giving an honorary street name to Saul Bellow...

ardecila Oct 22, 2007 5:13 AM

Okay - I'll grant you that TOD has not sprouted up around all of the CTA rail and bus lines, but to use the South Side branch of the Green Line is a poor example. That particular service was hit from 3 different sides to eliminate its ridership.

First, the neighborhood around it declined.
Second, the CTA built the Dan Ryan Red Line, and configured bus feeder lines to bring whatever limited ridership remained to Red Line stations.
Third, the CTA totally closed the Green Line several years ago for reconstruction. Anybody who still used the Green Line had to alter their commutes.

The Lake Street branch hasn't had such a hard time recouping ridership after the closure because it provides service into downtown Oak Park.

the urban politician Oct 22, 2007 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw (Post 3119153)
Rebuilding the green line hasn't exactly spurred traffic or rebuilding on the south side. But rebuilding the brown line will be tremendous... We know what the problem is... recently Preckwinkle vetoed giving an honorary street name to Saul Bellow...

^ On top of Ardecila's point, I would add that the local leadership (Dorothy Tillman) was somewhat of a roadblock to development. The current Alderman is pretty supportive of new development in the area, but the problems that now remain are 1) crime 2) bad reputation & the legacy of public housing, and 3) a slower housing market. Nevertheless, plenty of recent initiatives have been taken to redevelop land directly around green line stops on the south side. The question is whether they will be successful.

Also, I can't fathom how Chicago will redevelop underutilized land if it cuts transit service to it. I understand your point, but Chicago's south and west sides have so much vacant land that by cutting bus/train service, you're basically giving up on it, which would only make it less desirable for future developers.

Chicago3rd Oct 22, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaroslaw (Post 3115331)
Interesting commentary on the CTA from a more general blog:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5266.html#more-5266

Quote:

1) density of ridership overall
2) amount of “full-pay” vs. subsidized riders
3) riders packed during certain parts of the day rather than spread throughout

It is a silly blog....let's review but change the subject from public transportation to public roads:

From this point further all freeways and tollways will be shut down during the hours that they do not pay for themselves. Full pay only on the freeways and tollways....we don't want to subsidize them.

The city of Chicago will only pave and repair roads that have enough traffic on them to make sure they at least break out even.

Business parks and industrial areas will have to maintain the roads leading into their areas, city folk should only pay for our residential streets that we use...why would I way up in Lincoln Square want to pay for roads in the Calumet industrial area? I don't use them......besides the libertarians who love this stuff believe business should not be subsidized either...don't they?

I do believe that in this hour of CTA bull.....when the cuts are made that they are made to the bus and train routes with less use. Main reason....most of the bus routes would be cut in areas that voted for Emile Jones and his anti-public transportation stand. My reps....voted for the sales tax increase..why should we be punished equally?

forumly_chgoman Oct 22, 2007 7:48 PM

One thing I object to in that blog is that he seems to treat public trans / cta as sort of social welfare, instead of what it really is...a public good. A public good is not handled the same as

Chicago3rd Oct 22, 2007 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago2020 (Post 3114447)
I smell a protest rally :whatthefuck:

This just goes to show you that Democrats and Republicans are all the same. There's no difference. and they are not willing to work together to solve important issues. Of course there are exeptions on both sides but stll :gaah: :gaah: :gaah:


Why can't we protest around Bagoftrashes house?

aaron38 Oct 24, 2007 4:02 PM

I'm curious how the supply of public parking spaces in the loop has changed during the boom. Has it reduced? If so, by how much, and how much more is new developemnt going to reduce supply?

The reason I ask is that as much as I love to take the train downtown and walk where I'm going, my wife refuses it. I can take a cab from Ogilvie, but right now the cost of train+cab is higher than parking garage.

I'm wondering when that balance will finally shift? As parking spaces dwindle, will loop parking ever get to $30 or $40? Such that there is finally a clear economic incentive to take the train?

Right now my argument of "Let's take the train and walk and save 2 bucks" isn't flying.

Chicago3rd Oct 24, 2007 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38 (Post 3123858)
I'm curious how the supply of public parking spaces in the loop has changed during the boom. Has it reduced? If so, by how much, and how much more is new developemnt going to reduce supply?

The reason I ask is that as much as I love to take the train downtown and walk where I'm going, my wife refuses it. I can take a cab from Ogilvie, but right now the cost of train+cab is higher than parking garage.

I'm wondering when that balance will finally shift? As parking spaces dwindle, will loop parking ever get to $30 or $40? Such that there is finally a clear economic incentive to take the train?

Right now my argument of "Let's take the train and walk and save 2 bucks" isn't flying.

Do any of the CTA buses that run through the loop and Oglavie stop by your place of employment.

I don't think the higher parking costs will mean anyless drivers driving into the loop. If the loop continues to grow as it has been there will be more CEO's and higher management willing to pay the price to take over the parking spaces from middle income drivers. So we will still have the same amount of parking downtown...but middle income drivers will be riding the train more often.

VivaLFuego Oct 24, 2007 5:03 PM

I think the supply of parking has generally increased, since with only a few exceptions, even the buildings that replace parking lots have substantially-sized parking garages in them.

Up until the 1980s (1982 perhaps?) the city had a long-standing policy of discouraging any off-street parking facilities in the core (bounded Wacker-Congress-Michigan), but then started allowing those garages with 1st-floor retail. (incidentally, CTA ridership basically declined nonstop until the mid-late 90s when the city stopped allowing such parking facilities. Coincidence? I'm not sure).

Considering that the supply/demand for downtown off-street parking aren't out of whack, the price of parking downtown will rather be a reflection of 1) property values and 2) taxes. By 1), as property gets more and more valuable, eventually it becomes less economical to waste floor space for auto storage since the parking price to be competitive with leasing would be so high that you'd slide way down the demand curve, and 2) obviously a per-space parking tax will also increase the price of parking, affect the quantity demanded at those prices, and thus distort landowners decisions of whether to include parking and at what price.

C3rd is generally right, there will always be people of a high income who will pay to park regardless of price; basically if property values are absurdly high, that is probably just a reflection that are alot of those sorts of people working there. But the working stiff/cubicle monkeys will certainly be more inclined to take transit by then.

aaron38 Oct 24, 2007 5:10 PM

No, I live in the burbs. My wife and I go downtown to shows and such, and we always end up driving because the parking costs aren't high enough for me to convince my wife to give up the convinience of the car.

She's not going to go to the train station, get on a train, walk out of the train station, then hail a cab, and spend $20 bucks doing all that, if we can just drive down and valet for $20.

I'm just wondering when that parking cost will get high enough so that middle incomers like me have enough financial incentive to take the train.

The train's defiinitely cheaper if I go downtown by myself, but it's a wash if it's me and my wife.

And Mass Transit is in no way cost effective for a group. My wife went to a two day conference downtown last month with 4 coworkers. The first day they took the train, and with cabfare ended up paying basically $15 each for transit.
The next day they carpooled and payed $4 each for parking. Metra needs some sort of group discount.

Chicago3rd Oct 24, 2007 5:43 PM

I would go for higher garage parking fees specifically for people not living in Chicago. There has to be a way to do that. Would be nice to only have people who live in Chicago actually clogging up our streets and polluting our air because we don't give the outsiders enough money to take Metra...besides I am not in favor of subsidizing Metra anymore since they are already getting the most money per passenger. Was a cool chart in the Tribune last week.

OhioGuy Oct 24, 2007 8:02 PM

Is the State Street subway closed down every weekend until the end of December? I have family coming into town this weekend and I'm trying to figure out if we can use it to get to/from the Mag Mile, or if we'll be stuck on the brown line tracks further west and hence have a longer walk? (I'm thinking it will be closed, but I wanted to double check)

VivaLFuego Oct 24, 2007 9:12 PM

^Chicago3rd,
That would require enabling legislation to be approved by the exact people who would be paying the premium, so I don't see that happening unless Chicago gets anywhere near a majority of the state's population. Also, Metra's subsidy story is more than just their high subsidy per passenger. They also receive a wildly disproportionate amount of regional capital funds (about 36% I believe), in contrast to CTA's 58%. And of course, CTA provides 80% of regional transit rides....

^OhioGuy,
Red is running over the L this weekend. I'm not sure if it will be every weekend. Ditto the Blue Line; they'll be doing line cuts between Jeff Park and Harlem most but maybe not every weekend through the end of the year. I'd advise people going to/from O'hare any weekend the rest of the year to either allow alot of extra travel time or shell out for a taxi or shared van to save the headache.

Short term pain, long term gain, etc. etc.

aaron38 Oct 24, 2007 9:18 PM

I don't equate a group discount with a subsidy. If it fills up a half empty train, it's free money that Metra wasn't gettting anyway. Not saying to use tax dollars whatsoever.
But I'm fine with higher parking taxes. I don't know about Chicago only, though. The Kennedy and Loop are just as congested if someone drives in from Mayfair than if they drive from Park Ridge.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.